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

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Latest Filing

     My last post cited the content of objections filed to the Findings and Recommendations of US District Court Magistrate Judge Lynch. Prior to filing the objections, I had filed for an extension of time to file the objections (requesting the weekend only) and an extension of time upon the order of Judge Lynch to file a second amended complaint pending the de novo review of the objections, a filing that would have essentially forced me to voluntarily dismiss the majority of my claims against the corrupt individuals in Kalispell and Helena, Montana. On March 15, 2010, Judge Lynch granted the extension of time for the filing of the objections, denied the extension of time for filing of a second amended complaint, and ordered a second amended complaint filed by March 25, 2010.
     Essentially, what the US Magistrate Judge is doing is acting to quash the claims against the rogue authorities in Montana. And previous experience has told me that Judge Donald Molloy, the actual appointed US District Court Judge, is the one setting the agenda in this area. The US District Court of Western Montana has been acting to quash my claims against the corrupt officials in Montana now for four years. Whether this agenda is based off of the Republican mindset of corporate run government or some personal defense of the state-wide Good Ol' Boy system, I cannot say. However, the end result is the same: there is not justice in any court located geographically within the state of Montana, even those supposedly separated from state government. Incidentally, I have once before attempted to file a complaint against Judge Molloy with the US District Court of Appeals in California for legislating from the bench and depriving indigent persons right of access to the courts indiscriminately, only to have even the Court of Appeals defend him.
     A US District Court Magistrate has no lawful authority to issue orders or quash claims (pursuant to 28 USC Section 636); He can only provide findings and recommendations for review by the actual District Court Judge, in this case, Donald Molloy. Since I cannot realistically be expected to dismiss my claims prior to the lawfully entitled de novo review of my objections, especially not upon an unlawful order, I have filed the following objection with the court to the unlawful order issued by Judge Lynch:

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, ) Objections To The Court's Order of ) of March 15, 2010
)
v. )
)
Eleventh Judicial District Court of )
Montana, et al, )
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________ )

     Comes now Plaintiff, pro se herein, to object to the United States Magistrates March 15, 2010, Order, and to wit:
     The Court has issued an order contrary to law, and Plaintiff hereby objects to the enforcement thereof. Pursuant to 28 USC Section 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge has authority “to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action.” Pursuant to 28 USC Section 636(b)(1)(C), a magistrate judge is required to submit his recommendations to the Court. At no point may a magistrate judge issue an order quashing a claim or action. In fact, the only authority a magistrate has in issuance of orders is concerning the release or detention of persons pending trial (28 USC Section 636(a)(2)).
     As consequence of the foregoing, the magistrate judge's order compelling Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint on or before March 25, 2010, and in doing so dismiss the majority of his claims pending review by the court through his timely filed objections, is clearly contrary to law, and Plaintiff is entitled to a full review by the court prior to enforcement of any such order issued by the magistrate judge in this cause.
     WHEREFORE, Plaintiff does hereby object to the order issued by the magistrate in this cause and respectfully requests of the court to conduct a de novo review, as required by 28 USC Section 636(b)(1), of Plaintiff's objections prior to enforcing any order compelling Plaintiff to file any further amended complaints, and to provide Plaintiff his constitutional right to appeal pending disagreement with said review.

     Plaintiff above named 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