Sunday, January 15, 2017

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

My 1st Amendment Rights Were Violated: Freedom Of Speech Violated

My 1st Amendment Rights Were Violated: Freedom Of Speech Violated:           My Rights Under The First Amendment – Freedom Of Speech – Whistleblower Clause Rights Have Been Violated.           On the morn...

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Urgent Issue

Anyone following this blog will note that I have not been posting much lately. the reason for this is that my posts here tend to provoke retaliations, so I have been withholding my freedom of expression so that I can maintain some semblance of liberty to continue to pursue my legal rights. It is bad enough that I am confined to my room due to the machinations of my probation officer (and of course, he blames me), but i also have to keep relatively silent about the autrocities committed against me. Clearly, that no longer matters...
Today, Dave Edwards with the Montana Department of Probation and Parole has once again threatened me with being returned to prison,thsi time in retaliation for confronting him over perjury he committed in an affidavit filed with the Montana Supreme Court in response to my habeas petition. Just thought you all should know that if I suddenly stop responding to emails, this is why: I have been once again incarcerated for pursuing my civil rights...

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Latest Filings

    I have been a bit remiss in updating this, but here goes:
    Two days ago, I received a very expedited order on the Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch, an order signed by Judge Donald Molloy of the United States District Court, Montana District. This is probably the fastest I have ever received a review of findings and recommendations from this court (in all, a five day turn-around) in the four-plus years I have had dealings with them - typically I am forced to wait months for Judge Molloy to review Findings and Recommendations. Clearly I ruffled some feathers by filing objection to Judge Lynch's authority to issue orders.
    With little surprise, Judge Molloy adopted Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations in full, and issued a separate order granting me until April 1, 2010, to file a second amended complaint that effectively required me to dismiss all but one defendant, and grossly restricting the claim I could raise against the remaining one. I immediately filed two additional motions to this: A Motion To Identify Does One and Two in the complaint as Judge's Lynch and Molloy, and a Motion For Reconsideration and Extension of Time, which additionally called for striking the Findings and Recommendations. I will present the text of these motions following this narration.
     Once again, I was amazed at an amazingly prompt response from Judge Molloy, this time with only a two day turn-around. In a move that is clearly a conflict of interest, Molloy personally denied the Motion to name himself and Judge Lynch as defendants and denied the motion for reconsideration and extension of time. As consequence of the foregoing, since it is clear that I cannot possibly receive any kind of impartial ruling from the US District Court of Montana, I am filing Notice of Appeal today (again, I will include the text thereof hereafter).
     Last time I sought to appeal Judge Molloy's order, he actually filed an order instructing the court clerk to not file the appeal, so I expect there will be some kind of similar action taken here. I will be filing a duplicate of the Notice with the Court of Appeals, but I expect this will all require a review by the US Supreme Court, which of course has no obligation to even hear any of this.
     Folks, I am running out of ideas here - any suggestions or assistance would be appreciated.
     As promised, here is the text to the three filings (Note, I realize in hindsight that I misdated the first two motions, but as they are already filed with the Court, I cannot edit them now):

---

Ron Glick
24 1st Avenue West #105B
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 257-0479 / 871-3893 (cell)
ron_glick@yahoo.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
_______

Ron Glick, ) Cause No. CV 09-128-M
)
Plaintiff, ) Motion to Identify Does 1 and 2 )
)
v. )
)
Eleventh Judicial District Court of )
Montana, et al, )
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________ )

     Comes now Plaintiff Ron Glick, proceeding pro se herein, to identify to the Court the identities of Defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2 in the above-entitled cause, and to wit:
     Plaintiff has been proceeding with causes of action in this Court against State of Montana government entities and representatives since in or around July, 2006, such actions primarily pursuant to 18 USC Section 1961 and 1983 and numerous United States Constitutional authorities. In such times, Judges Jeremiah Lynch and Donald Molly have acted in consistent pattern to both quash the claims Plaintiff has presented, acting contrary to law, and to bar Plaintiff from appellate review through assertion that Plaintiff's appeal would have no merit. In Plaintiff's most recent action, Judges Lynch and Molloy have acted together to once again quash claims pending against the majority of defendants in the above-entitled cause, and in doing so have acted contrary to law by ignoring the implications of RICO law and asserting that Plaintiff's claims are implausible based solely upon a prejudicial opinion that State actors could not conceivably be acting in the capacity alleged by Plaintiff. Such actions have placed said judges in a position of defending and validating an illicit conspiracy and racketeering organization operating in Montana. As such, said judges' actions have made them a party to this action pursuant to the RICO Act (18 USC Section 1961), in that their actions are supporting the racketeering activities directed against Plaintiff.
     In performing a review or analysis of facts, a judge may not assess the plausibility of the facts themselves. The Court must accept well-pleaded facts as true, even if “actual proof of those facts is improbable”. (Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 Sct 1937, 1949-50 (2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Trombly, 550 US 544, 577 (2007)). In Judge Molloy's own Order of March 26, 2009, his own conclusion that Plaintiff's claims “simply exceed the limits of plausibility” is in clear violation of this legal foundation, and, in so blatantly ignoring it, he has demonstrated that the decisions of this Court are not in defense of the law in so much as the perpetuation of a separate agenda that, regardless its actual motivation, are nevertheless acts taken in conjunction with the actions directed against Plaintiff by the other defendants alleged within Plaintiff's causes of action.
     As consequence of the foregoing, Plaintiff is left with little alternative than to move of the Court to identify Defendant Doe 1 as Judge Jeremiah Lynch and Defendant Doe 2 as Judge Donald Molly, and that each said Defendant be sued herein in their official capacities.

     Plaintiff does hereby attest, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of his ability to present and that this is respectfully submitted on the 24th day of March, 2010.

___________________________________
Ron Glick, Plaintiff


---

Ron Glick
24 1st Avenue West #105B
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 257-0479 / 871-3893 (cell)
ron_glick@yahoo.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
_______

Ron Glick, ) Cause No. CV 09-128-M
)
Plaintiff, ) Motion for Reconsideration and Extension of Time )
)
v. )
)
Eleventh Judicial District Court of )
Montana, et al, )
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________ )

     Comes now Plaintiff Ron Glick, proceeding pro se herein, to move of the Court to reconsider the Order of Judge Donald Molloy entered on March 26, 2010, and to wit:
     Plaintiff has sought to identify both Judges Jeremiah Lynch and Donald Molloy as Defendants in the above-entitled action. Consequently, Plaintiff believes that the order entered by Judge Donald Molloy, which represents the culminating action of said Judge in his own duplicity to support an illicit RICO organization operating within the State of Montana, should be reviewed by separate judicial authority for its legality prior to the filing of appeal by Plaintiff.
     Further, since Plaintiff cannot realistically file an amended complaint pending review of this motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension of time to file any amended complaint pending the review of this motion.
     WHEREFORE, Plaintiff does respectfully request of the Court to reconsider the Order entered on or about March 26, 2010, to strike the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge in this cause, to order a new review of the merits of this cause by a separate judicial authority other than one answerable to Judge Donald Molloy, and to grant an extension of time sufficient to permit for the Court to review the merits of this motion.
     Plaintiff does hereby attest, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of his ability to present and that this is respectfully submitted on the 24th day of March, 2010.

___________________________________
Ron Glick, Plaintiff

---

Ron Glick
24 1st Avenue West #105B
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 257-0479 / 871-3893 (cell)
ron_glick@yahoo.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
_______

Ron Glick, ) Cause No.
)
Plaintiff, ) Notice of Appeal )
)
v. )
)
Eleventh Judicial District Court of )
Montana, et al, )
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________ )

     Notice is hereby given that Ron Glick, Plaintiff in the above-entitled cause, heraby appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from the order entered in this action on or about March 26, 2010, in that said order is contrary to law, exhibits conclusions of the Court based upon prejudice and bias rather than the factual assertions of Plaintiff, and that this Court has abused its judicial capacity to thwart any actions brought against the State of Montana or any governmental entity or representative within the State, and that it has acted in conflict of interests to shelter itself from prosecution.

    Respectfully submitted on the 31st day of March, 2010.

___________________________________
Ron Glick, Plaintiff

cc: Ninth Judicial Court of Appeals