Saturday, February 28, 2009

Another Case of Gov Abuse, Part III - Accidentally deleted

    Due to an unforeseen complication with Yahoo's Pagebuilder program, Part III of Another Case of Gov Abuse was corrupted and I was forced to delete it in hopes of re-creating the page. Only the Pagebuilder will not let me import pasted text from any other program. Therefore, to assure that the text is not forever lost, I am uploading it here...

Another Case of Gov Abuse, Part III

    Additionally, for Rules of Evidence, MCA 2003 Section 26-10-VIII Rule 802, Hearsay evidence is not allowable. Hearsay is defined by MCA 2003 Section 26-10-VIII Rule 801 as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." In the hearing regarding the petition of abuse, Judge Lympus allowed innumerous hearsay statements to be admitted as evidence by Kori Taylor alleging statements from [*], the oldest of the two children.
    It should be noted that some exception exists to hearsay, where in a person is unavailable for testimony. However the law again protects against someone preventing a person to be present for testimony as reason to allow hearsay, as per MCA 2003 Section 26-10-VIII Rule 804, which states "a declarant is not unavailable as a witness if [inability to be present] is due to procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of the statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying." In this case, Kori Taylor abducted [*] and [*] with express purpose, amongst other causes, of denying access to her for purposes of testimony. In fact, as of the date of this writing (December 8, 2003), [*] has not been allowed any contact whatsoever with her children since the day they were abducted by CPS.
    MCA 2003 41-3-433, which defines temporary investigative authority, states "An order for temporary investigative authority may not be issued for a period longer than 90 days". In the abuse and neglect petition, Kori Taylor on behalf of CPS requested and was granted by Judge Lympus a temporary investigative authority extending for six months. Additionally, Kori Taylor has already expressed that she intends to extend that period by another six months if [*] has not complied with her demands in that time. Note - there is a demand for compliance, but no effort to actually investigate the allegations. There is no other way to see this - Kori Taylor is intentionally abusing her position to bully [*] into dissolving contact with me, without any investigation or corraberation of the alleged abuse. And for what purpose could there be, considering the timeframe involved, would she have to make such a demand? Since the abduction of the children occurred within 48 hours of a lawsuit inwhich [*] and [*] were named as witnesses against the Police Department and the children are being held upon compliance of [*] dissolving relations with me, it is more thna obvious what is going on here - dissolution of contact would mean no more lawsuit if the witnesses and parties abused are denied contact with me entirely.
    MCA 2003 41-3-302, which defines actions CPS is required to perform upon receiving a report of abuse or neglect, investigation is a required step prior to removal of children from the home. In fact, CPS is required to promptly conduct thorough investigation into circumstances surrounding allegations of abuse and neglect. And if the reporter of the alleged abuse or neglect does so anonymously, Section (2)
of this Code specifically states, "Without the development of independent, corraborative, and attributable information, a child may not be removed from the home." No effort was expended to actually investigate the allegations made against me prior to removal of the children. No effort has been made since to even collaborate with the children whether the events alleged actually occurred. In fact, when asked in Court whether Kori Taylor reviewed information provided by [*] refuting the allegations, Kori Taylor's response was reportedly, "I have six months to review that". And since Kori Taylor has already declared an intention to extend the temporary investigative authority by another six months should [*] not comply with her demands, she has obvious intentions to not investigate these allegations at all and to simply use her position to hold the children hostage upon demands of compliance from [*].
    And what does Kori Taylor get out of this? Well, considering her current status within Child Protective Services is an intern and in Court reference was made that she would soon be a full fledged case worker, it would seem her pay-off is a nice fat promotion. Break the law, divide a family, help defend a corrupt local City government and get a promotion, which is probably accompanied with a pay raise as most promotions usually are. Combine this with Kori Taylor's being a self-confessed "survivor of child molestation" and you can easily see where Kori Taylor's motivations are from.
    Essentially, as you can see, Child Protective Services had no authority to act as they did and the District Court made no effort to reign in an obviously out of control department. The response of taking the children was immediate upon filing of my lawsuit and the demands made of [*] are inconsistent with any credible investigative information that the department has. In fact, there has been no effort whatsoever expended to verify the validity of any statements and even Kori Taylor has admitted to not even questioning the alleged victims of the supposed molestation and abuse! This is purely a retaliatory act designed to bar me from witnesses in my lawsuit against the City and Police Department, which shows a collaborative level of conspiracy between the local City Government and the Office of Child and Family Services, of which Child Protective Services is a division of.

    There is so much more to say and I will endeavor to enter more as I am able and as my research uncovers new areas of the law. I do not know what step this conspiracy of corrupt departments will take next against me. I could be arrested next on some new trumped up issue. They may force one of the girls to say something so they can see their mom. I don't know.
    Needless to say, I cannot afford to hire an attorney. And even if I could, it would need to be an attorney outside my area since the local attorneys are too afraid of retaliation. I need help here and I am appealing to the public for that help! I have a couple of good leads for attorneys who specialize in this kind of false allegations, but we are looking at upwards of $10,000 to retain these kinds of people to aid in my defense.
    Contact me at
if you want more info or can offer help... I am also setting up a Legal Defense Fund through Paypal using the same address in hopes of riasing money for legal aid. In the meantime, please contact your State Senators, Representatives, and also Shirley Brown, Child and Family Services Administrator, or anyone else who may be able to have pressure put on these people to intervene. And check back to this site as often as possible - additional details are provided all the time!
    Please remember - We are nearly helpless in this fight and we need help from somewhere...

Friday, February 27, 2009

Another Case of Gov Abuse (ACGA) Continued Part II

    Yesterday I was rushed, and I am again today, so I will try to get what I can in here as quickly as possible...
    At any rate, after the meeting with the counselors, [*] and I put off immediately talking to [*]. I did not really want to be a part of the conversation (considering the history involved) but [*] wanted me to. Instead, it all came out in a rather non-planned way on the night of October 15, 2003.
    [*], myself, [*] and a couple of our friends/volunteers (Jeff Berna and Tasha Bordeaux) were sitting in the back room of the store (Arcadia) talking. John and [*] (my son and [*]'s youngest) were also there, but were asked to leave after the conversation turned. We were talking about something else entirely, something to do with [*]'s problems in school, if I recall correctly, and I made a slip and mentioned something about the talk [*] and I had had with the counselors (forgive me that I don't recall more specifics about that part of the conversation, but it has been five years...).
    At any rate, [*] decided to launch into talking to [*] about the incident that she had recalled. I asked John and [*] to leave the room when I saw where it was going, and made to leave myself, but was asked by [*] to stay. And truth to tell, I did want to hear what [*] said. So I sat back and remained as quiet as I could while [*] talked to her daughter.
    The first thing [*] did was ask [*] if she recalled the incident that had happened when she was little. [*] asked her specifically if she recalled a man coming into the house (his name was Shane, by the way - I recalled that much) and assaulting her. [*] looked dumbfounded and just shook her head, No. At this point, [*] began describing the incident in detail, starting with how Shane had come into the house and before long had pulled [*] down onto the couch from behind. In the middle of the telling though, [*] began to fill in the details - in the presence of being told about the story, she suddenly recalled it in detail. In fact, [*] began providing details that [*] did not recall herself!
    Okay, time is up again... Hopefully I'll get to post more on this tomorrow... So little time, so much to tell...

Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Another Case of Gov Abuse Continued - Part I

    This will be my first update to the content of "Another Case of Gov Abuse", my original website posted in December, 2003. If you have not read that site, please feel free to go there NOW.
    When I last posted my ordeal, it was with the forewarning that the Kalispell authorities could retaliate. Well, they did. They reopened the closed investigation on [*], charged me with Sexual Assault and Witness Tampering (for allegedly making [*] recant her allegation after the investigation was closed) and had me arrested on February 20, 2004. After that date, I was continuously incarcerated until February 17, 2009, since I was falsely convicted (following sixteen months of incarceration) of the Sexual Assault. Essentially, I became a Political Prisoner in order to quash my objections to and claims against Kalispell authorities. Yet this Reader's Digest summary does not begin to detail the levels of depravity to which I have been subjected to in the last five years.
    But what is certainly a long story of deprivation of civil liberties beyond imagining must being where I left off on my recounting - what immediately followed my last post. But before I can get to that, I need to fill in some of the gaps that I left open when I originally typed the first website. At the time, I had planned to type more and fill in the gaps, but I was dealing with a limited amount of space on that server at the time and could only get the three pages worth of material online. Oh, what five years can change...
    On December 8, 2003, it had only been a few days since the Eleventh Judicial District of Montana (by way of Judge Ted Lympus) endorsed the abduction of [*] and [*]. [*] (their mother) and I were still struggling with the idea that the court system was going to back up such a flagrant kidnapping by State authorities. We had been denied the opportunity to present any defense at the so-called "show cause hearing" and Judge Lympus would not permit me even into the courtroom to present the legal challenges to the State's action. In a nutshell, it became crystal clear that not only was the City of Kalispell corrupt, but that both Flathead County and State of Montana officials were also willing to abuse the law in order to protect the City. And it became questionable whether there was any hope at all of overcoming these atrocities.
    Also at the point of writing "Another Case of Gov Abuse", [*] had admitted that I had done nothing to her. In fact, with a friend, Carrie Beth Mountjoy as witness, I assisted [*] in preparing a statement both recanting the allegation and providing her own information about circumstances which had surrounded the allegation. Originally, I had believed that [*] had been coerced by her grandparents, [*], to make a false allegation against me with promises of a scheme to supposedly get [*] and [*]'s father, [*], back together. [*]'s recantation, which occurred around October 18, 2003, she said it had been a repressed memory. This is a story in and of itself, because it was prompted by a meeting between [*], myself and two school counselors at the beginning of October.
    Following the information that the official investigation with the Kalispell Police Department (KPD) was closed, the restrictions placed upon [*] and I were lifted. The primary restrictions upon me were that I could not live with [*] or the girls. Once that investigation was concluded though, [*] and I decided to try to reintegrate our households. However, I had huge trust issues with [*] and was reluctant to put myself back into a position where [*] could concoct another lie and start the fiasco all over again. And so, as an effort to work toward resolution, we met with my son, John's, and [*]'s counselors (Mary Jane Foxx was [*]'s counselor - I cannot recall John's counselor's name) to try to work toward reestablishing a family life with all parties. This meeting occurred sometime around the first week of October, 2003.
    The significance of this meeting was that during it, [*] suddenly had a recollection that she said she had previously not recalled. She said then that [*]'s story had always sounded familiar, but she did not know why. During the meeting, she abruptly announced to everyone present that she remembered why [*]'s story sounded so familiar - because what [*] had described (ie, lying on the couch with me allegedly putting one hand up her shirt and the other down her pants) had actually happened to her, not [*], though [*] had actually witnessed it!
    It turns out that when [*] was three years old, shortly after [*] separated from [*], [*] had a visit from one of [*]'s friends (cannot recall his name at the moment), supposedly to express his sorrow over the break-up of [*] and [*]. However, shortly after arriving, this "friend" assaulted [*] in the front room of their home, grabbing her from behind and forcing her down onto the couch, where he proceeded to try to force his hand up her shirt and the other down her pants! [*] witnessed the entire assault, but sat to the side of the room through most of it crouched down, holding her knees and rocking back and forth. But [*] did not stay there - in fact, the assault ended because [*] took one of her toys (a hard plastic ball) and hit the assailant over the head with it. When he reached to push [*] away, it gave [*] the chance to break his hold and she was able to overpower him and beat him (apparently pretty badly) before throwing him out the door. [*] never reported the assault, and she said she had mostly forgotten about it over the years...
    When [*] mentioned this to the counselors, Mary Jane Foxx immediately said that [*] would need to be talked to about it. [*] said she would do it and that is exactly what she did...
    I am out of time at this computer, so need to wrap this up. I will hopefully continue this tomorrow...

    Ciao for now!

Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Double Jeopardy

    I don't have a lot of time to post today, so I thought I would try to get a qucik explanation of the double jeopardy issue I discussed in yesterday's post.
     As I mentioned, I have fifteen years remaining upon my falsely convicted sentence. I have discharged the first five years in prison and now have fifteen years "suspended" time remaining. Normally, suspended time means simply that if I do commit any more crimes within the designated period, I can get the entire fifteen year period re-assigned as prison time.
     The issue here, and what makes this part of the Great Monspiracy, is that a suspended sentence, by definition, is a sentence not served at the time it is imposed. Contrariwise, a probation sentence is a sentence served in lieu of incarceration. The point here is that this is two separate sentences, and pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
     "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."
     In other words, a person cannot be convicted twice of the same offense or be punished twice for the same offense. In a nutshell, I have been given a fifteen year suspended *and* probation sentence, just as every other person in Montana is when convicted. It's a violation of my civil liberties and is yet again an example of how this affects more than just myself...

Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004

Tuesday, February 24, 2009


    Before I get into a great deal of my own history, I thought it prudent to explain why it is a global Montana conspiracy that I am speaking of and not just something personal. Afterall, it is paramount that you recognize that I am not just spouting off paranoid delusions. The foundation for believability is credibility and I hope this post will set that groundwork.
     First, let me play the Riddler: When is a justice system not a justice system? Answer: When it is not pursuing justice.
     Okay, I know that's lame but it's vital to what follows. There are some fairly basic civil liberties that everyone who is U.S. citizen has by default - they are guaranteed through the United States Constitution. For instance, when you are accused of a crime, there are mandatory steps that the government must exhaust in order to prosecute you.
     The first of these is as follows:
     "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..." Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
     Essentially, this right assures that noone will ever lose their freedom or liberty upon a baseless accusation - the allegation must be presented to a panel of citizens who review the allegation to determine whether there is a reasonable belief that a crime was committed by the accused. If not, the government cannot pursue prosecution.
     The second of these is as follows:
     "[N]o Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.." Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
     This one is a bit more vague, but it's been long established that it means that any individual accused of a crime has a right to challenge probable cause. In other words, the individual has the right to appear in court to challenge any allegation against them. This is typically done through a preliminary examination hearing. This hearing's purpose is for the Court to establish that there is probable cause that a crime was committed by the accused.
     The difference between these two steps is crucial: the first establishes whether there are facts enough to support the prosecution, while the second establishes whether there is law to support it. These are both critical elements to permit an innocent man or woman from being wrongfully incarcerated.
     However, Montana has unilaterally deprived its citizens of these basic civil liberties. Pursuant to Montana law, specifically MCA Section 46-11-201, " The prosecutor may apply directly to the district court for permission to file an information against a named defendant... If it appears that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed by the defendant, the judge or chief justice shall grant leave to file the information..."
     Essentially what this does is assure that noone in the State of Montana can have a grand jury hearing or opportunity to challenge probable cause. This strips Montana citizens of their civil rights and permits agents of the State to incarcerate anyone upon a simple signed statement alleging that a crime was committed, regardless of whether one was committed or not!
     This system was not created to deal with me personally, but its existence permitted the corrupt officials of the City of Kalispell, MT, and Flathead County to imprison me to quash my legal claims against them. This is an ideal system for a corrupt authority to forever protect itself against ever being held accountable for its misdeeds - if an individual challenges them politically, imprison him or her. Hold him or her indefinitely until a conviction can be secured, and thereafter any claims he or she has against the corrupt authority can never be raised so long as that conviction remains - it becomes an underlying element of the conviction (ie, vexatious litigation) and civil remedies cannot be used to undermine a criminal conviction...
     This is what happened to me - on Februrary 20, 2004, after almost eight months of fighting with the local authorities of Kalispell and Flathead County, it was deemed necessary to exercise their authority to imprison me. I was detained for sixteen months before I even saw trial, which permitted the authorities to tamper with and bury evidence and witnesses who could exonerate me, and to also manufacture their own witnesses against me. I was falsely convicted in July, 2005, of sexual assault, though there was an abundance of evidence to prove my innocence and the machinations of the authorities - yet I was assigned a public defender (Eduardo Gurtierrez-Falla, aka, Ed Falla) who adamantly refused to in any way challenge the improprieties of the State.
     Today, I remain a political prisoner of the State of Montana, even though I discharged a five year commitment to prison for a crime I did not commit! I remain now under fifteen year "probationary" and suspended sentences (more on that in my next post - ie, double jeopardy). My liberty remains restricted and though I have more freedom, I am not yet free...
     I learned a few days ago also that the State supreme court finally got around to denying my direct appeal. No surprise there, since to reverse my conviction would be giving me free leave to attack the entire corrupt structure. The present state of affairs in Montana is that Montana is a rogue state, operating as a gestapo-style regime. Noone in this State is safe from the persecutions of the "Good Ol' Boy" system of "justice". And as such, this is why I have named this blog "The Great Monspiracy"...
     Hopefully, I will be able to post more on all of this tomorrow...

     Ciao for now,

Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004

Saturday, February 21, 2009


    This is the site where the corruption within the State of Montana will be exposed. Or so I hope.
     I know what a conspiracy theorist is. I know I will end up sounding like one. But I have lived this experience and I need to let someone else out there know about what I have been through and continue to go through...
     For a foundation, please visit:
     This site was created in December, 2003, and precedes a lot. But it sets groundwork for what came after.
     I haven't time in this blog to provide much detail, but stay tuned - I intend to type a great deal in here in coming weeks...