After writing yesterday's entry, I went home and hand-wrote the petition for writ of habeas corpus. But interestingly enough, in the course of preparing it, I went through my original order to extract the exact language committing me to probation and (surprise, surprise) there isn't any! That's right - though the order is resplendent with conditions for probation or parole, there is no order actually committing me to either! The only language of commitment is for the suspended sentence!
As a result of this discovery, I actually wrote a petition requesting relief in three areas: first, since there is no order committing me to probation, my commitment thereto is unlawful; second, that imposition of simultaneous suspended and probationary sentences violates protections against double jeopardy; and third, that many of the conditions I have been subjected to have no legal foundation in law, principally because there is no relationship between the convicted offense and rehabilitation or protection of victim and society, as well as restitution orders that are not related to pecuniary loss of a victim.
Hopefully, when I get time I will be able to type in the actual petition. Since I hand-wrote it, it will take some time to type it in, and I don't think I have time today...
Interestingly enough, if I am released from probationary custody, I will no longer be a political prisoner... Somehow, I do not believe that the State will permit that, no matter how righteous my position is...
As always, I would welcome any help or suggestions in this regard. But I am mailing the petition this afternoon...
Ciao for now...
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Newer Threat
It is looking like I will be violated before too much longer. Each time I meet with my probation officer, new pressure is exerted upon me with unrealistic demands. As of today, I am left with no choice but to pursue filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus to try to relieve myself of this unlawful custody.
As anyone who has read my earliest entries will know, Montana violates the double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution by imposing two simultaneous sentences upon its convicts: both a suspended sentence and a probationary sentence. This dual sentencing is used to justify recommitment to prison of anyone who has been released from custody. this is done via a probation violation being considered a crime and this serves as grounds to revoke a probationary sentence (since a probation violation is a crime in Montana, and the suspended sentence is conditional upon remaining law-abiding).
I do not believe my efforts will be greatly successful, as this State has demonstrated a penchance for standing behind unlawful actions of its own officials. And if I prevail upon this claim, it would majorly upset the powers-that-be within the State by providing a pretense for every person on probation in the State to file for their own habeas. And I do not believe the State will easily pass on the means to continue to reap financial rewards from their imprisoned citizens.
At any rate, all I can do is try...
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
As anyone who has read my earliest entries will know, Montana violates the double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution by imposing two simultaneous sentences upon its convicts: both a suspended sentence and a probationary sentence. This dual sentencing is used to justify recommitment to prison of anyone who has been released from custody. this is done via a probation violation being considered a crime and this serves as grounds to revoke a probationary sentence (since a probation violation is a crime in Montana, and the suspended sentence is conditional upon remaining law-abiding).
I do not believe my efforts will be greatly successful, as this State has demonstrated a penchance for standing behind unlawful actions of its own officials. And if I prevail upon this claim, it would majorly upset the powers-that-be within the State by providing a pretense for every person on probation in the State to file for their own habeas. And I do not believe the State will easily pass on the means to continue to reap financial rewards from their imprisoned citizens.
At any rate, all I can do is try...
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
Monday, April 20, 2009
Touching Base
I have not been posting in here for a few days. Mostly, the reason for this is just general stress and anxiety. This whole thing with [*] ([*], aka [*]) has really hurt me deeply, and I am just not really in a frame of mind to write in here. But in the event anyone might be reading this, I do not want the impression to be given that I have (at least not yet) been taken out of circulation.
After spending two months casually seeking [*], by the way, suddenly I am being overwhelmed by info, even when I am not actively seeking it. I had already gleaned her home address from the post office prior to service of the so-called order of protection ([*]); I had been holding off pursuing this in hopes of [*] following up on my invitation to meet and settle things, but her actions in calling my probation officer to cause me grief showed me she had no intention of doing so.
But now I am being told by friends that she is back to working at Wendy's on Idaho, and that she is working at the hospital during the week. I had not really been pursuing finding her work, as I did not want to disturb her there. I also knew she was going to Friday Night Magic out at Heroic Realms on LaSalle every Friday night, but was not disturbing her there, either. I just wanted things to resolve peacefully. But I guess there's no getting that wish granted...
All in all, I have just been aching in my heart and soul over all of this. I knew [*] had been manipulated and deceived, but until now it's always been others lying about me to her - but now she's lying about me herself, and that's just a whole new rip in my heart...
I will survive, I imagine. Unfortunately, I always do. The question is, will there be anything left of who I really am when the dust settles, or am I going to just be some worthless husk...?
I just feel so alone... And I am so tired of hurting all the time...
After spending two months casually seeking [*], by the way, suddenly I am being overwhelmed by info, even when I am not actively seeking it. I had already gleaned her home address from the post office prior to service of the so-called order of protection ([*]); I had been holding off pursuing this in hopes of [*] following up on my invitation to meet and settle things, but her actions in calling my probation officer to cause me grief showed me she had no intention of doing so.
But now I am being told by friends that she is back to working at Wendy's on Idaho, and that she is working at the hospital during the week. I had not really been pursuing finding her work, as I did not want to disturb her there. I also knew she was going to Friday Night Magic out at Heroic Realms on LaSalle every Friday night, but was not disturbing her there, either. I just wanted things to resolve peacefully. But I guess there's no getting that wish granted...
All in all, I have just been aching in my heart and soul over all of this. I knew [*] had been manipulated and deceived, but until now it's always been others lying about me to her - but now she's lying about me herself, and that's just a whole new rip in my heart...
I will survive, I imagine. Unfortunately, I always do. The question is, will there be anything left of who I really am when the dust settles, or am I going to just be some worthless husk...?
I just feel so alone... And I am so tired of hurting all the time...
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
[*]'s Secret
There have been developments since I started working on the "Dear [*]" post this morning - [*] has filed a restraining order against me. Personally, I am not bothered by the restraining order itself because I was not doing nor intending to do anything to [*], so the restraining order serves no purpose. I obtained an updated address from the post office today, and service upon her of the legal papers is all being done by a third party. So the restraining order does nothing to inhibit me in the least.
What does bother me though is that my ideal of [*] has been shattered. True, I knew [*] had been manipulated, threatened, intimidated, coerced and deceived into actually believing ill of me. None of it was true, but I throughout all of it, I believed that [*] was honestly being deceived, and that she was still the woman I loved underneath. However, there were things described in the restraining order that are not the result of manipulations from others - they are outright lies. And they need to be addressed.
Truth to tell, I never thought I would be put into a position to publicly disclose what follows. It is both demeaning and degrading, and it is emasculating. But [*] has made a very specific claim in her TRO (temporary restraing order) that compels me to breach my silence.
Aside from mostly vague allegations of being afraid of me without any justifiable cause, [*] states the following: "He has forced me to engage in sexual acts that physically hurt me & he would not stop."
First, this is entirely fabricated. I have never engaged in forceful sex with anyone, and I challenge anyone to produce a single person other than [*] who ahs claimed I have. This was an isolated statement that followed what was clearly a very weak effort to justify the restraining order. She says first that I had never harmed her nor directly threatened to harm her, but then makes this statement. This is a lie, and it is designed for no other purpose than to defame me. But worse than this, not only was I not the sexual aggressor in our relationship, but [*] was.
On countless occasions, [*] raped me in my sleep. Plain and simple. I was not conscious nor could I give consent. And no matter how many times I told her I was uncomfortable or that I felt violated by this conduct, [*] would continue to do this deploarable thing. I was too ashamed to come forward with this, and even when my attorney wanted me to turn on [*] during my prosecution, I kept this to myself. It is humiliating to admit it now - but the truth is, [*] is the real sexual predator. And for years I have kept my silence to safeguard her from harm, even knowing I could have used this information in my defense.
Simply put, I have still been protecting [*] all these years. And I am going to have to go into a court of law and publicly admit this. So if I am already going to have to do this there, I might as well do it here.
At any rate, there's the deep dark secret about [*]. I wish I never had to disclose it, but at this point, I no longer have cause to remain silent...
All this time, I thought that the one thing [*] would never do was lie. But now not only has she shown me to be wrong, violating the last good value I believed she possessed, but she actually has tried to shift the blame of sexual deviancy upon me in the process. I can no longer say that I believe her to be redeemable. The woman I had loved is lost forever...
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
What does bother me though is that my ideal of [*] has been shattered. True, I knew [*] had been manipulated, threatened, intimidated, coerced and deceived into actually believing ill of me. None of it was true, but I throughout all of it, I believed that [*] was honestly being deceived, and that she was still the woman I loved underneath. However, there were things described in the restraining order that are not the result of manipulations from others - they are outright lies. And they need to be addressed.
Truth to tell, I never thought I would be put into a position to publicly disclose what follows. It is both demeaning and degrading, and it is emasculating. But [*] has made a very specific claim in her TRO (temporary restraing order) that compels me to breach my silence.
Aside from mostly vague allegations of being afraid of me without any justifiable cause, [*] states the following: "He has forced me to engage in sexual acts that physically hurt me & he would not stop."
First, this is entirely fabricated. I have never engaged in forceful sex with anyone, and I challenge anyone to produce a single person other than [*] who ahs claimed I have. This was an isolated statement that followed what was clearly a very weak effort to justify the restraining order. She says first that I had never harmed her nor directly threatened to harm her, but then makes this statement. This is a lie, and it is designed for no other purpose than to defame me. But worse than this, not only was I not the sexual aggressor in our relationship, but [*] was.
On countless occasions, [*] raped me in my sleep. Plain and simple. I was not conscious nor could I give consent. And no matter how many times I told her I was uncomfortable or that I felt violated by this conduct, [*] would continue to do this deploarable thing. I was too ashamed to come forward with this, and even when my attorney wanted me to turn on [*] during my prosecution, I kept this to myself. It is humiliating to admit it now - but the truth is, [*] is the real sexual predator. And for years I have kept my silence to safeguard her from harm, even knowing I could have used this information in my defense.
Simply put, I have still been protecting [*] all these years. And I am going to have to go into a court of law and publicly admit this. So if I am already going to have to do this there, I might as well do it here.
At any rate, there's the deep dark secret about [*]. I wish I never had to disclose it, but at this point, I no longer have cause to remain silent...
All this time, I thought that the one thing [*] would never do was lie. But now not only has she shown me to be wrong, violating the last good value I believed she possessed, but she actually has tried to shift the blame of sexual deviancy upon me in the process. I can no longer say that I believe her to be redeemable. The woman I had loved is lost forever...
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
Dear [*]
As anyone who reads this blog will know, [*], aka [*], was once my girlfriend and business partner. When I was arrested in February, 2004, she collaborated with the corrupt officials (who had had me arrested to stop my lawsuit against the City of Kalispell) after she herself was arrested on a false charge of witness tampering (that was subsequently dismissed four days before my trial in July, 2005), and barred me from my personal and business assets. Also, she betrayed me even further by cheating on me with [*].
As I posted yesterday, someone has been manipulating [*] into believing that I am a threat to her. The only conceivable reason for this (at least to me) is that someone has a vested interest in keeping [*] from even speaking to me, and is terrorizing her under my name as a means of controlling her.
Had this been a recent occurrence, I could conceive that this was a game of the local authorities who continue to deprive me my civil liberties. But this started back after I was arrested and continued throughout my trial and sentencing in 2005. At that point in time, the authorities already had a measure of control over [*] - they had a false charge hanging over her head with threat of being returned to jail. This intimidation was all they needed to keep [*] under their thumb.
Therefore the threats came from a different source, someone who had an interest in both controlling [*] and assuring that she would betray my faith. As I have said, I had nothing to gain from terrorizing [*] and a lot more to lose, not to mention that I did not even know she had a cell phone, much less had her number. As such, the only person who had access to [*] (ie, opportunity and means) as well as something to gain from this (ie, motive) was [*].
I am explaining this only to flesh out what I said yesterday. But all of this is important in what I am going to say next, as well.
As of yesterday, my probation officer, Dave Edwards, has ordered me to have no direct contact with [*]. He is utilizing a part of my order that says he can restrict my contact with people who have a negative influence over me. This is not applicable here, and I have filed a grievance against the action. But I have already been told that the grievance will be denied, which means I am just going to be fighting through appeal to try to overturn this - but anyone who has been following this blog will know, I have no rights and this so-called grievance system is little more than a pretense of justice. I have dealt with Montana Department of Corrections grievances for over three years now and I can assure you that, being an enemy of the state, my objections will be denied, regardless how illegal the measures taken against me are.
If [*] genuinely felt threatened, she could have filed a restraining order, and I would have welcomed the chance to face her in court to tell her what was going on. But she did not - she attacked me through the corrupt authorities who have control over my life. If this was really [*] who made this complaint and not just someone [*] put up to it, she has fallen incredibly far from the woman I once loved with so much of my heart...
Therefore, I am powerless to try to correct these falsehoods. I do have permission to have [*] served, as I had planned to, with the copy of the motion removing the civil cause to federal court. Originally, I had written a two page cover letter to accompany the documents, but after the events of yesterday, I re-wrote the letter, hoping to resolve this conflict. Then I realized that I could not deliver such a letter with the documents, since I am quite certain that a complaint would be made that I had used the service to attempt direct contact, and I would most assuredly be arrested. I have therefore re-written it again to be a brief letter explaining what I am doing, that I am forced to withdraw my offer to settle this issue out of court by Dave Edwards' order, and that if she wants to resolve this out of court, she will need to contact Edwards to have the instruction rescinded. In other words, the barest minimum legal position I can take.
This being said though, there are things in the letter I have abandoned that I would like [*] to see one day. She probably will not, but since I believe that I will be soon re-incarcerated over all of these faux reports of making threats, I want the letter entered here at least for prosperity.
Everyone who has read this blog knows that I hold no malice against [*]. I have gone to great lengths to set the record straight on that. I regret that I lost her, I am pained by her betrayal, but I hold no ill will toward her. I do not, nor have I ever, wished her harm. But, as has been the case from the beginning of this fiasco, no one wants to believe the truth when a lie is so much easier to believe. I believe it was Mark Twain who said that a lie is far easier to believe than the truth because it can be molded to fit what the speaker wants to be heard, and that the truth, by comparison, is far more rigid and less likely to be believed.
The truth is that I have been working hard to prove my innocence for nearly six years now, and that effort is not helped in the least by terrifying [*]. Regardless of whether anyone believes that I could not hold some deep hatred for [*], common sense says that terrorizing her works contrary to my objective. Only someone with a suicide wish would think to scare away one of his greatest resources. None of this makes sense, but I cannot reach [*] to reason with her. And so I am going to type here what I wanted so badly to say to her in my letter. And hope that some day after I am gone that she may possibly learn the truth...
---
Dear [*],
Please find attached a copy of the motion to remove the civil cause I told you about in my last letter to the U.S. District Court. For reference, that court's address is 201 E. Broadway, Missoula, MT 59802. I am providing this copy to you, along with a copy of the original suit and current cause docket, to provide you the opportunity to object to this action if you so choose.
I regret that I have had to proceed in this manner, but you have left me little choice, especially after what was perpetuated today. I tried to approach you equitably by letter sent to your [*] address, which I sent over three weeks ago; Since it was not returned, it was clearly delivered to wherever you are. Yet instead of trying to settle this issue, you have aggravated the circumstances, since today I was told by my probation officer, Dave Edwards, that you had registered a complaint against me, claiming you were "terrified" of me and that I was a "threat" to your safety. At this point, it is fairly obvious that you have no intent of settling these issues out of court, and so I must proceed with the suit against you, as much as I may hate doing so.
This breaches another area that must be addressed though: clearly you are under the misapprehension that I intend you harm. Nothing could be further from the truth.
James Valentino informed me in December, 2005, that someone claiming to represent me had been making threatening calls to you on your cell phone since shortly after my arrest. You should know that I did not even know you had a cell phone until days before my trial in July, 2005, and only then because Carrie Beth mentioned it in a transcribed interview - but the number was not included. Further, thanks to James' and [*]'s spreading the rumor that anyone helping me would go to jail like you did, I had no support outside the jail, and I could not call a cell phone from the jail if I wanted to. All these points show that I could not have been behind the threats against you back then. Someone else was playing the fear card against you, but it was not me. And there's only one other person who actually benefited from you turning away from me in fear: [*]. played the same game with you, if you recall: alienate you from all other support so you would rely solely on him. You resisted ; why do you embrace the lies [*] has spun so readily?
Let me set the record straight: I have never, nor would I ever, wish you harm, threaten to harm you nor victimize you in any way. I have nothing to gain by it, and much to lose. I need your allegiance in my war for my identity, not your enmity. How could terrorizing you possibly help me clear my name or recoup my rightful property from you? If you will set aside this fear that has been inbred into you and think logically about this, you will see that the pretense of my threatening you neither makes sense nor matches the personality of the man you lived with for over two years. And, despite what you have been told, prison did not fundamentally change who I am: I did not turn gay, and did not adopt a criminal mentality. I am still the compulsively truthful man of honor I have always been. And I have suffered through nearly six years of hell because of it.
You should remember that CFS claimed I was physically abusive to you, as well; but you know that was not true then. Why are you willing to believe such malice of me now?
You should know me well enough to know that I would never harm an innocent; I spent my life protecting people, not hurting them. Even when I had cause to, I never did. No matter how badly I had been hurt by people - Melissa, Paul, your parents, the board of directors for Prime Station - I never retaliated. And you know I have lived a life of being betrayed. Remember the curse I told you about? "Destined ever to be loved by those you do not love, and unloved by those you do"? I've lived with that curse my whole life and still never retaliated outside the law, even when I was sorely tempted. So why would I change now?
Regardless of how much pain you have caused me, no matter your betrayal of my trust and love, in spite of your abandonment, I still see you as a victim in all of this, along with myself, [*], [*] and John. We were all victims of cruel, malicious people who acted above the law. And from where I sit, that still makes you an innocent in this conflict. Your actions were motivated by self-preservation and not a small amount of deception and deceit, but that did not make them malicious. I do not condone what you did, cheating on me and turning your back on me, but I've lived with that kind of treatment my whole life. You were not the first nor likely will you be the last. But it does not mean that I would wish you ill. I still love you, [*]. And I always will. I can just never trust you ever again.
Remember how we had this conversation time and again about Melissa? You could not understand how I could still love someone who had betrayed me and left John and I homeless, of how I still held no ill will against her. When we met again at the VFW, you were convinced that my lingering love of her would mean I would leave you to return to her. But you didn't listen, no matter how much I explained it, though maybe you will understand it better now: Once I love someone, I can't stop loving them. My relationship with Melissa or any of my other girlfriends did not end because I stopped loving them - they stopped loving me and ultimately cheated on me. And you did the same thing - you stopped loving me and cheated on me. But that betrayal did not stop me from loving you. I never lost that feeling. And I will live with it for the rest of my days. But there's no going back - I could never trust you not to betray me again. You have shown yourself unfaithful to me, and to me, that hope of happiness with you is forever lost.
The point of all of this is that I have no real desire to prolong this contact. If you had not absconded with the business assets and the Magic cards belonging to the youth program, or you were not a key witness I still need to prove my innocence, I would have left you to your life. You cannot possibly comprehend the amount of pain I deal with every day that this issue remains unsettled. I cannot bear to think of [*] having stolen you away through lies and deceit. terrorizing you in my name to have you for himself. As you have stolen my property, he has stolen you from me. I would prefer to have been able to walk away entirely, but my need to recover what is rightfully mine and clear my name make it necessary to prolong my pursuit of you. And your resistance to settling all of this only makes my agony worse. But this is where my interest in you ends: once I have my property and my good name restored, you can go on and live your life built on lies and misdirection. I will have no further need to contact you ever again.
I will never understand how you could possibly trust , whom you personally witnessed beating [*] and had try to beat you, yet you are too terrified of me to even speak to me, when I have never raised a hand to you or yours?
Regardless what lies you believe though, the truth is unchanged: my sole interest in you is for return of my property and to clear my name. And both issues are being addressed through legal channels, as this is the only option you have left to me. I gain nothing by your being afraid of me. And [*] is only playing the same nonsense game your parents did - remember how they kept claiming I was going to their home to wreck their vehicles and property, even when you knew I had never left your side? You're only falling for [*]'s version of the same manipulative game: make up some heinous act to blame on me to make me look like a threat. For crying out loud, [*], you should know me well enough to know that I do not rely on others to do things anyway - if I had a way to contact you myself, wouldn't I be doing that? I have no legal reason not to after all... Or at least, I did not before today. If I were this threat that you have come to believe me to be, why have I not shown up at your work, or your door, or at places I know you would be? Why would I even be filing through court? In an investigation, one looks for three things: means, opportunity and motive. If you honestly believe I had means and opportunity, you still lack motive because I honestly have nothing to gain. On the other hand, [*] always has - he gains you.
But I know you. None of this will make a difference. [*] will deny it and you will believe him. I can't change that, no matter how I might long to protect you from harm. It's your life and it is yours to live. Just do not expect me to ever be civil with [*], anymore than I was to when he came around to harm you. I want nothing to do with him, so do not send him as a messenger - ever. I will not speak to him or deal with him. And, if after reading this you decide to work this out, I am still not able to talk to you directly because of your game in calling Dave Edwards today. If you ever want to resolve this in person, you will need to undo the limitations you have had placed upon my by calling him to set the record straight.
I may have meandered a bit here, but this letter;s purpose is still legal in nature. I needed to clarify certain issues that have impeded my efforts to settle this issue out of court. You are under a gross misapprehension if you believe I mean you harm or that my purpose for trying to contact you was for any otter purpose than to settle the legal issues discussed herein. And once those issues are settled, you can continue to lobe in your fantasy world all you want - my reasons for needing contact with you end with the legal affairs. You should never have trusted in [*]'s deceptions to begin with, and yo should have questioned his motives from the beginning, especially when his version of events so drastically contradicted what you knew before. And even if you did not know [*] to be behind this, you should still have known me incapable of what I was supposedly doing...
Whatever. So be it. I hope this letter will set things right, though I doubt it will...
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
April 14, 2009
As I posted yesterday, someone has been manipulating [*] into believing that I am a threat to her. The only conceivable reason for this (at least to me) is that someone has a vested interest in keeping [*] from even speaking to me, and is terrorizing her under my name as a means of controlling her.
Had this been a recent occurrence, I could conceive that this was a game of the local authorities who continue to deprive me my civil liberties. But this started back after I was arrested and continued throughout my trial and sentencing in 2005. At that point in time, the authorities already had a measure of control over [*] - they had a false charge hanging over her head with threat of being returned to jail. This intimidation was all they needed to keep [*] under their thumb.
Therefore the threats came from a different source, someone who had an interest in both controlling [*] and assuring that she would betray my faith. As I have said, I had nothing to gain from terrorizing [*] and a lot more to lose, not to mention that I did not even know she had a cell phone, much less had her number. As such, the only person who had access to [*] (ie, opportunity and means) as well as something to gain from this (ie, motive) was [*].
I am explaining this only to flesh out what I said yesterday. But all of this is important in what I am going to say next, as well.
As of yesterday, my probation officer, Dave Edwards, has ordered me to have no direct contact with [*]. He is utilizing a part of my order that says he can restrict my contact with people who have a negative influence over me. This is not applicable here, and I have filed a grievance against the action. But I have already been told that the grievance will be denied, which means I am just going to be fighting through appeal to try to overturn this - but anyone who has been following this blog will know, I have no rights and this so-called grievance system is little more than a pretense of justice. I have dealt with Montana Department of Corrections grievances for over three years now and I can assure you that, being an enemy of the state, my objections will be denied, regardless how illegal the measures taken against me are.
If [*] genuinely felt threatened, she could have filed a restraining order, and I would have welcomed the chance to face her in court to tell her what was going on. But she did not - she attacked me through the corrupt authorities who have control over my life. If this was really [*] who made this complaint and not just someone [*] put up to it, she has fallen incredibly far from the woman I once loved with so much of my heart...
Therefore, I am powerless to try to correct these falsehoods. I do have permission to have [*] served, as I had planned to, with the copy of the motion removing the civil cause to federal court. Originally, I had written a two page cover letter to accompany the documents, but after the events of yesterday, I re-wrote the letter, hoping to resolve this conflict. Then I realized that I could not deliver such a letter with the documents, since I am quite certain that a complaint would be made that I had used the service to attempt direct contact, and I would most assuredly be arrested. I have therefore re-written it again to be a brief letter explaining what I am doing, that I am forced to withdraw my offer to settle this issue out of court by Dave Edwards' order, and that if she wants to resolve this out of court, she will need to contact Edwards to have the instruction rescinded. In other words, the barest minimum legal position I can take.
This being said though, there are things in the letter I have abandoned that I would like [*] to see one day. She probably will not, but since I believe that I will be soon re-incarcerated over all of these faux reports of making threats, I want the letter entered here at least for prosperity.
Everyone who has read this blog knows that I hold no malice against [*]. I have gone to great lengths to set the record straight on that. I regret that I lost her, I am pained by her betrayal, but I hold no ill will toward her. I do not, nor have I ever, wished her harm. But, as has been the case from the beginning of this fiasco, no one wants to believe the truth when a lie is so much easier to believe. I believe it was Mark Twain who said that a lie is far easier to believe than the truth because it can be molded to fit what the speaker wants to be heard, and that the truth, by comparison, is far more rigid and less likely to be believed.
The truth is that I have been working hard to prove my innocence for nearly six years now, and that effort is not helped in the least by terrifying [*]. Regardless of whether anyone believes that I could not hold some deep hatred for [*], common sense says that terrorizing her works contrary to my objective. Only someone with a suicide wish would think to scare away one of his greatest resources. None of this makes sense, but I cannot reach [*] to reason with her. And so I am going to type here what I wanted so badly to say to her in my letter. And hope that some day after I am gone that she may possibly learn the truth...
---
Dear [*],
Please find attached a copy of the motion to remove the civil cause I told you about in my last letter to the U.S. District Court. For reference, that court's address is 201 E. Broadway, Missoula, MT 59802. I am providing this copy to you, along with a copy of the original suit and current cause docket, to provide you the opportunity to object to this action if you so choose.
I regret that I have had to proceed in this manner, but you have left me little choice, especially after what was perpetuated today. I tried to approach you equitably by letter sent to your [*] address, which I sent over three weeks ago; Since it was not returned, it was clearly delivered to wherever you are. Yet instead of trying to settle this issue, you have aggravated the circumstances, since today I was told by my probation officer, Dave Edwards, that you had registered a complaint against me, claiming you were "terrified" of me and that I was a "threat" to your safety. At this point, it is fairly obvious that you have no intent of settling these issues out of court, and so I must proceed with the suit against you, as much as I may hate doing so.
This breaches another area that must be addressed though: clearly you are under the misapprehension that I intend you harm. Nothing could be further from the truth.
James Valentino informed me in December, 2005, that someone claiming to represent me had been making threatening calls to you on your cell phone since shortly after my arrest. You should know that I did not even know you had a cell phone until days before my trial in July, 2005, and only then because Carrie Beth mentioned it in a transcribed interview - but the number was not included. Further, thanks to James' and [*]'s spreading the rumor that anyone helping me would go to jail like you did, I had no support outside the jail, and I could not call a cell phone from the jail if I wanted to. All these points show that I could not have been behind the threats against you back then. Someone else was playing the fear card against you, but it was not me. And there's only one other person who actually benefited from you turning away from me in fear: [*]. played the same game with you, if you recall: alienate you from all other support so you would rely solely on him. You resisted ; why do you embrace the lies [*] has spun so readily?
Let me set the record straight: I have never, nor would I ever, wish you harm, threaten to harm you nor victimize you in any way. I have nothing to gain by it, and much to lose. I need your allegiance in my war for my identity, not your enmity. How could terrorizing you possibly help me clear my name or recoup my rightful property from you? If you will set aside this fear that has been inbred into you and think logically about this, you will see that the pretense of my threatening you neither makes sense nor matches the personality of the man you lived with for over two years. And, despite what you have been told, prison did not fundamentally change who I am: I did not turn gay, and did not adopt a criminal mentality. I am still the compulsively truthful man of honor I have always been. And I have suffered through nearly six years of hell because of it.
You should remember that CFS claimed I was physically abusive to you, as well; but you know that was not true then. Why are you willing to believe such malice of me now?
You should know me well enough to know that I would never harm an innocent; I spent my life protecting people, not hurting them. Even when I had cause to, I never did. No matter how badly I had been hurt by people - Melissa, Paul, your parents, the board of directors for Prime Station - I never retaliated. And you know I have lived a life of being betrayed. Remember the curse I told you about? "Destined ever to be loved by those you do not love, and unloved by those you do"? I've lived with that curse my whole life and still never retaliated outside the law, even when I was sorely tempted. So why would I change now?
Regardless of how much pain you have caused me, no matter your betrayal of my trust and love, in spite of your abandonment, I still see you as a victim in all of this, along with myself, [*], [*] and John. We were all victims of cruel, malicious people who acted above the law. And from where I sit, that still makes you an innocent in this conflict. Your actions were motivated by self-preservation and not a small amount of deception and deceit, but that did not make them malicious. I do not condone what you did, cheating on me and turning your back on me, but I've lived with that kind of treatment my whole life. You were not the first nor likely will you be the last. But it does not mean that I would wish you ill. I still love you, [*]. And I always will. I can just never trust you ever again.
Remember how we had this conversation time and again about Melissa? You could not understand how I could still love someone who had betrayed me and left John and I homeless, of how I still held no ill will against her. When we met again at the VFW, you were convinced that my lingering love of her would mean I would leave you to return to her. But you didn't listen, no matter how much I explained it, though maybe you will understand it better now: Once I love someone, I can't stop loving them. My relationship with Melissa or any of my other girlfriends did not end because I stopped loving them - they stopped loving me and ultimately cheated on me. And you did the same thing - you stopped loving me and cheated on me. But that betrayal did not stop me from loving you. I never lost that feeling. And I will live with it for the rest of my days. But there's no going back - I could never trust you not to betray me again. You have shown yourself unfaithful to me, and to me, that hope of happiness with you is forever lost.
The point of all of this is that I have no real desire to prolong this contact. If you had not absconded with the business assets and the Magic cards belonging to the youth program, or you were not a key witness I still need to prove my innocence, I would have left you to your life. You cannot possibly comprehend the amount of pain I deal with every day that this issue remains unsettled. I cannot bear to think of [*] having stolen you away through lies and deceit. terrorizing you in my name to have you for himself. As you have stolen my property, he has stolen you from me. I would prefer to have been able to walk away entirely, but my need to recover what is rightfully mine and clear my name make it necessary to prolong my pursuit of you. And your resistance to settling all of this only makes my agony worse. But this is where my interest in you ends: once I have my property and my good name restored, you can go on and live your life built on lies and misdirection. I will have no further need to contact you ever again.
I will never understand how you could possibly trust , whom you personally witnessed beating [*] and had try to beat you, yet you are too terrified of me to even speak to me, when I have never raised a hand to you or yours?
Regardless what lies you believe though, the truth is unchanged: my sole interest in you is for return of my property and to clear my name. And both issues are being addressed through legal channels, as this is the only option you have left to me. I gain nothing by your being afraid of me. And [*] is only playing the same nonsense game your parents did - remember how they kept claiming I was going to their home to wreck their vehicles and property, even when you knew I had never left your side? You're only falling for [*]'s version of the same manipulative game: make up some heinous act to blame on me to make me look like a threat. For crying out loud, [*], you should know me well enough to know that I do not rely on others to do things anyway - if I had a way to contact you myself, wouldn't I be doing that? I have no legal reason not to after all... Or at least, I did not before today. If I were this threat that you have come to believe me to be, why have I not shown up at your work, or your door, or at places I know you would be? Why would I even be filing through court? In an investigation, one looks for three things: means, opportunity and motive. If you honestly believe I had means and opportunity, you still lack motive because I honestly have nothing to gain. On the other hand, [*] always has - he gains you.
But I know you. None of this will make a difference. [*] will deny it and you will believe him. I can't change that, no matter how I might long to protect you from harm. It's your life and it is yours to live. Just do not expect me to ever be civil with [*], anymore than I was to when he came around to harm you. I want nothing to do with him, so do not send him as a messenger - ever. I will not speak to him or deal with him. And, if after reading this you decide to work this out, I am still not able to talk to you directly because of your game in calling Dave Edwards today. If you ever want to resolve this in person, you will need to undo the limitations you have had placed upon my by calling him to set the record straight.
I may have meandered a bit here, but this letter;s purpose is still legal in nature. I needed to clarify certain issues that have impeded my efforts to settle this issue out of court. You are under a gross misapprehension if you believe I mean you harm or that my purpose for trying to contact you was for any otter purpose than to settle the legal issues discussed herein. And once those issues are settled, you can continue to lobe in your fantasy world all you want - my reasons for needing contact with you end with the legal affairs. You should never have trusted in [*]'s deceptions to begin with, and yo should have questioned his motives from the beginning, especially when his version of events so drastically contradicted what you knew before. And even if you did not know [*] to be behind this, you should still have known me incapable of what I was supposedly doing...
Whatever. So be it. I hope this letter will set things right, though I doubt it will...
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
April 14, 2009
Appellate Update
I have filed the following motion today with the United States Supreme Court, requesting an extension of time to file an application for writ of certiorari (basically a write of review over the decision of the Montana Supreme Court). I am filing this request because to date I am still having my ability to prepare such an application obstructed, primarily by my own attorney, William Hooks, who will not send me the legal documents I need to prepare the application...
It is just a question of whether the High Court will provide me the time to overcome these delays...
---
IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Ron Glick, ) Cause No.
)
Petitioner, ) Motion For Extension of Time To File an
) Application For Writ of Certiorari
v. )
)
State of Montana, )
)
Respondent. )
________________________)
Comes now Petitioner to move of the Court for an extension of time to file an application for writ of certiorari, and to wit:
The above-referenced cause was decided on or about February 19, 2009, by the Montana Supreme Court (attached hereafter as Exhibit A), yet the state court failed to address two of the principle arguments raised in the appeal and several lesser issues raised within the arguments it did address. Petitioner sought of his counsel, William Hooks, to file a motion for reconsideration, but said counsel delayed responding to such a request until early March, 2009, at which time he declared his intent to refuse to file such. Petitioner sought to seek an extension of time from the state court on or about March 12, 2009, but the state court issued a remittur on or about March 17, 2009, and applied this retroactively to Petitioner’s motion to reject its filing. Further, Petitioner’s attorney has failed to provide copies of records and transcripts requested by Petitioner necessary to file for writ of certiorari with this Court, making preparation and filing of an application within the time allowed impossible.
Based upon the foregoing, it is presently not possible for Petitioner to prepare a proper application for writ of certiorari and the interests of justice would best be served by this Court granting Petitioner a ninety (90) day extension to overcome the obstacles presently preventing Petitioner from making a timely filing.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests of the Court for a ninety (90) day extension of time to prepare and file an application for writ of certiorari.
Petitioner 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 15th day of April, 2009.
It is just a question of whether the High Court will provide me the time to overcome these delays...
---
IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Ron Glick, ) Cause No.
)
Petitioner, ) Motion For Extension of Time To File an
) Application For Writ of Certiorari
v. )
)
State of Montana, )
)
Respondent. )
________________________)
Comes now Petitioner to move of the Court for an extension of time to file an application for writ of certiorari, and to wit:
The above-referenced cause was decided on or about February 19, 2009, by the Montana Supreme Court (attached hereafter as Exhibit A), yet the state court failed to address two of the principle arguments raised in the appeal and several lesser issues raised within the arguments it did address. Petitioner sought of his counsel, William Hooks, to file a motion for reconsideration, but said counsel delayed responding to such a request until early March, 2009, at which time he declared his intent to refuse to file such. Petitioner sought to seek an extension of time from the state court on or about March 12, 2009, but the state court issued a remittur on or about March 17, 2009, and applied this retroactively to Petitioner’s motion to reject its filing. Further, Petitioner’s attorney has failed to provide copies of records and transcripts requested by Petitioner necessary to file for writ of certiorari with this Court, making preparation and filing of an application within the time allowed impossible.
Based upon the foregoing, it is presently not possible for Petitioner to prepare a proper application for writ of certiorari and the interests of justice would best be served by this Court granting Petitioner a ninety (90) day extension to overcome the obstacles presently preventing Petitioner from making a timely filing.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests of the Court for a ninety (90) day extension of time to prepare and file an application for writ of certiorari.
Petitioner 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 15th day of April, 2009.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
New Threat
Today I was informed by my Probation Officer, Dave Edwards, that "[*]" (which I find suspicious since she is now going by the name "[*]") called him and claimed to be "terrified" of me, that I was a "threat" to her! I have never been a threat to [*] - I have never wished her harm nor in any way threatened her, but someone wants her to think that and I have every reason to believe that it is [*], her "beau" who won her over through lies and cheats after my arrest!
I was informed in or around December, 2005, that while I was incarcerated someone was calling [*]'s cell phone number, making threats to her in my name. It could not have been me because I could not even call a cell number from the jail, nor did I even know at the time that [*] even had a cell number. I did not learn that until a few days before my trial in July, 2005, and apparently these threats had been ongoing since right after my arrest.
Now, "[*]" has called my PO and says that she feels "threatened" by me and that I need to stay away from her. Keep in mind, the only contact I have even attempted has been to settle the legal claim over the business assets that she absconded with. And that was done through one letter sent through the US Mail over three weeks ago. Why [*] is suddenly feeling "threatened" by me three weeks later is a mystery, since I have made no effort to contact her since mailing that letter. However, I do have my suspicions...
Whenever a crime is committed, an investigator looks to several factors: whether a suspect has the means, the opportunity and a motive. Personally, I have no motive to threaten [*] - in fact, I have a motive not to: I still need her testimony about the threats and intimidations placed upon her by the local authorities. In other words, [*] is a potential ally and one does not gain an ally through threats!
Worse, [*] is an innocent in all of this - she may have abandoned me, cheated on me, and even betrayed me, but she did so after being manipulated and deceived by those wishing me harm. [*] is not my enemy and I have no reason whatsoever to wish her harm. Yet someone wishes her to believe that i do.
The only reason someone would have to create some kind of faux threat against [*] is if that person was served by her having a fear of me that prevented her from having contact with me. And the only person that has such a motive is her current beau, [*]. Only Mr. [*] would benefit from [*] being too afraid to even talk to me. Her terror serves him because he only won her over by lying to her in the first place about me and if she gets the chance to learn the truth, he would lose her. Sounds like a pretty good motive for creating a false threat for [*], doesn't it?
Of course I cannot prove this. I do not have contact with [*] to confirm this. And I am forbidden now by direction of my PO (in excess of his lawful authority, by the way) from having any direct contact with her. But it is the only scenario that fits the circumstance...
At this point, it seems very probable that I am going back to prison. I am being set up here and I have every reason to believe that these false threats will be used as the means to violate my probation. And there is nothing more I can do... I am doing nothing already - I cannot stop doing something that I am already not doing...
The threat is new and it is real... I hope all who read this will wish me luck in surviving it...
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
I was informed in or around December, 2005, that while I was incarcerated someone was calling [*]'s cell phone number, making threats to her in my name. It could not have been me because I could not even call a cell number from the jail, nor did I even know at the time that [*] even had a cell number. I did not learn that until a few days before my trial in July, 2005, and apparently these threats had been ongoing since right after my arrest.
Now, "[*]" has called my PO and says that she feels "threatened" by me and that I need to stay away from her. Keep in mind, the only contact I have even attempted has been to settle the legal claim over the business assets that she absconded with. And that was done through one letter sent through the US Mail over three weeks ago. Why [*] is suddenly feeling "threatened" by me three weeks later is a mystery, since I have made no effort to contact her since mailing that letter. However, I do have my suspicions...
Whenever a crime is committed, an investigator looks to several factors: whether a suspect has the means, the opportunity and a motive. Personally, I have no motive to threaten [*] - in fact, I have a motive not to: I still need her testimony about the threats and intimidations placed upon her by the local authorities. In other words, [*] is a potential ally and one does not gain an ally through threats!
Worse, [*] is an innocent in all of this - she may have abandoned me, cheated on me, and even betrayed me, but she did so after being manipulated and deceived by those wishing me harm. [*] is not my enemy and I have no reason whatsoever to wish her harm. Yet someone wishes her to believe that i do.
The only reason someone would have to create some kind of faux threat against [*] is if that person was served by her having a fear of me that prevented her from having contact with me. And the only person that has such a motive is her current beau, [*]. Only Mr. [*] would benefit from [*] being too afraid to even talk to me. Her terror serves him because he only won her over by lying to her in the first place about me and if she gets the chance to learn the truth, he would lose her. Sounds like a pretty good motive for creating a false threat for [*], doesn't it?
Of course I cannot prove this. I do not have contact with [*] to confirm this. And I am forbidden now by direction of my PO (in excess of his lawful authority, by the way) from having any direct contact with her. But it is the only scenario that fits the circumstance...
At this point, it seems very probable that I am going back to prison. I am being set up here and I have every reason to believe that these false threats will be used as the means to violate my probation. And there is nothing more I can do... I am doing nothing already - I cannot stop doing something that I am already not doing...
The threat is new and it is real... I hope all who read this will wish me luck in surviving it...
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
Friday, April 10, 2009
Motion To Remove Cause To Federal Court
Just a quick entry today to confirm that the motion which I previously posted was mailed in to be filed as of today. I have received absolutely no response from the copy I forwarded to the local court clerk, Peg Allison, nor the opposing counsel, Gregory Paskell. I offered Ms. Allison the opportunity to stop this proceeding by simply granting the default judgment that has been obstructed by her and to issue the summonses she has refused to issue. However, apparently even these simple requests, which by law the court is compelled to do, are too much to do on behalf of someone considered an enemy of the state.
It is now simply a matter of waiting to see whether the US District Court in Missoula, MT, has any justice left in it or not...
Ciao for now...
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
It is now simply a matter of waiting to see whether the US District Court in Missoula, MT, has any justice left in it or not...
Ciao for now...
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Civil Removal To Federal Court
I am in the process of preparing a filing which will move my civil claim for the re-claiming of my business assets to U.S. District Court. I have every expectation to file this within the next couple of days (awaiting a form from the court to file in forma pauperis, ie, without prepayment of fees). I have provided the local district court clerk, Peg Allison, a window to prevent this motion from being filed, should she actually provide the summons she has refused to issue and grant default judgment against at least one outstanding party within the next couple of days. However, I do not expect the local authorities to suddenly start granting me the due process they have denied me for nearly six years now, so I expect that this motion will be filed.
In anticipation of this, I am posting a copy of the test of the motion here for anyone interested to review. It aptly details the current obstructions of the local authorities, as well as provides a brief overview of the past obstructions as well.
Please let me know if anyone has any questions.
Ron Glick
24 1st Avenue West, #223
Kalispell, MT 59901
ron_glick@yahoo.com
Since in or around July, 2003, Plaintiff has been frequently harassed by officials representing the City of Kalispell and County of Flathead, Montana, who have sought to obstruct his civil liberties through abuse of their authoritative positions in defense of their own misconduct. Plaintiff has sought to resolve such conflicts through the legal system but has found himself subjected to molestations and retaliations from said officials, and even had friends and family members harassed and intimidated by said officials to undermine Plaintiff’s support. Worse still, private parties have taken advantage of the conflict between Plaintiff and said officials to attempt to deprive Plaintiff of his property and resources, forcing Plaintiff to file further legal actions to secure said assets. However, Plaintiff has been forced to pursue his claims for such assets under the jurisdiction of the selfsame officials who have been actively obstructing his civil liberties for nearly six years, and said officials continue to abuse their authority to obstruct Plaintiff’s rights to due process in pursuit of said claims. Plaintiff has sought supervisory control over Court officials through the Montana Supreme Court, but that court has acted to defend the misconduct of the lower court instead of intervening to preserve Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. As Plaintiff cannot proceed in any real capacity while subject to the whims of local corrupt court officials, he is left with no alternative but to seek removing the cause of action to this Court’s jurisdiction.
This action is brought pursuant to 28 USCS Sections 1343 and 1443, in that this Court has authority to assume jurisdiction over State causes wherein a party is deprived, under color of State law, of any right secured by the United States Constitution, and 18 USCS Section 1961, et seq., in that this Court has jurisdiction to prevent and restrain the misconduct of individuals and agencies who act as a criminal racketeering enterprise.
Plaintiff has had ongoing conflicts with officials in government within the City of Kalispell and County of Flathead, Montana, and specifically, in relevant matter to this cause, with officers of the Eleventh Judicial District of Montana (hereafter DC). Plaintiff has pursued every viable state action to resolve this conflict but relief has been denied by the Montana Supreme Court, in spite of documented evidence of felonious misconduct by DC officials. As a result, Plaintiff is left with no other legal recourse than to seek removal of the cause to this Court.
On or about July 9, 2003, a false allegation of sexual assault was made against Plaintiff, which was investigated at the time of initial complaint by the Kalispell Police Department (hereafter “KPD”) and Child and Family Services (hereafter “CFS”). KPD’s initial investigation was closed, absent the discovery of “new evidence”, on or about September 4, 2003, and CFS’ investigation was subsequently closed on or about September 15, 2003, upon report from KPD of the police investigation being closed.
During the course of KPD’s investigation though, a KPD officer had tampered with, threatened and intimidated witnesses, as well as maliciously maligned Plaintiff through dissimation of information known to be false, in an effort to coerce false testimony and support from them against Plaintiff, which resulted in Plaintiff making a written complaint and demand for damages against the City of Kalispell. Immediately following issuance of said demand, Plaintiff’s businesses were beset upon by numerous official harassments, which in itself eventually resulted in Plaintiff filing legal action against the City and agencies and officials thereof, first through the filing of a petition for production of KPD records on or about October 30, 2003, and thereafter in the filing of a full complaint on or about November 18, 2003 (Glick v. City of Kalispell, et al, Cause No. DV 03-572, 11th District Court of Montana, Flathead County). Notably, Plaintiff had had summonses issued personally to him upon filing of the initial petition, but the DC Clerk refused to issue additional summons when new defendants were added to the cause with the filing of the civil complaint.
In further retaliation against Plaintiff during this period of time, both KPD’s and CFS’ investigations were re-opened in an effort to block Plaintiff’s access to record of said agencies on or about October 28, 2003, even though the original allegation had been recanted and no new evidence had been "discovered”. Further, Plaintiff’s step-daughters were abducted by CFS on or about November 20, 2003 (two days after the filing of the aforementioned civil complaint), even though there was no current allegation against Plaintiff from either daughter (only the eldest daughter had ever made an allegation against Plaintiff; the youngest had never made an allegation, at all). Through course of these separate actions, Plaintiff’s girlfriend and business partner, [*] ([*]), and her daughters were subjected to numerous threats and intimidations from CFS demanding that she support the allegation made against Plaintiff and to sever Plaintiff from his assets and resources When no response was filed to either the petition or complaint, Plaintiff filed for default judgment on or about December 23, 2003. The DC Clerk, Peg Allison, blocked said default however by claiming that service had not been properly made upon the defendants of the cause (note: a clerk of court has no authority to raise such a defense on behalf of parties of a suit; the parties of the suit had to raise such a defense on their own, but failed to do so). Upon request for clarification by Plaintiff, Ms. Allison claimed that no proof of service had been filed in the cause, yet when Plaintiff assured Ms. Allison that he could provide copies of the proofs which he had personally filed with the DC, Ms. Allison changed her reason to the claim that no summons had ever been issued in the cause. When Plaintiff attested to having personally been issued summonses that had been attached to the original petitions for service, Ms. Allison requested to have Plaintiff arrange for her to speak with the process server, [*] ([*]), to confirm whether summonses had actually been served. However, when Ms. [*] ([*]) contacted Ms. Allison to attest to service of the summonses, Ms. Allison tampered with Ms. [*] ([*]) by threatening to have her arrested for perjury if she tried to attest to ever serving a “valid” summons upon any defendant in the cause. Ms. Allison’s threats were sufficient to intimidate Ms. [*] ([*]) into refusing to sign an affidavit attesting to serving the summonses.
Notably, Plaintiff has made innumerable requests to Ms. Allison for production of the DC docket of Cause No. DV 03-572 to confirm or deny whether the summons had been removed from the court file, but Ms. Allison has refused to comply with such requests.
On or about January 28, 2004, after weeks of attempting to convince Ms. Allison to withdraw her unlawful obstruction of the default judgment, Plaintiff sent a letter to Ms. Allison declaring his intent to move the cause to federal court, and to add Ms. Allison and several other officials and agencies who had acted against Plaintiff since the filing of the initial complaint, if Ms. Allison did not cease obstructing the default judgment. Plaintiff provided Ms. Allison a thirty (30) day deadline, set to expire on or about February 27, 2004.
Instead of complying with Plaintiff’s demand, the local officials conspired to have Plaintiff arrested on or about February 20, 2004, a week prior to his deadline’s expiration. Such arrest occurred early eight months from the date of the original allegation on or about July 9, 2003, and nearly four months after said officials had re-opened the official investigations or about October 28, 2003. Plaintiff remained continuously incarcerated thereafter until on or about February 17, 2009.
Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that his arrest at such a late date was specifically intended to bar him from removing Cause No. DV 03-572 to this Court’s jurisdiction, since local officials had been unable to otherwise quash Plaintiff’s claims against them. Additionally, when Plaintiff sought exculpatory evidence and financial support through his business assets from Ms. [*] ([*]), Ms. [*] ([*]) was also arrested, for allegedly tampering with her daughter as a witness, on or about February 27, 2003, and all contact between Plaintiff and his business was severed. Ms. [*] ([*]) was subsequently released from custody under threat of being re-arrested should she, directly or indirectly, contact or support Plaintiff or provide him access to records or assets of their mutual business. Said charge, and its corresponding intimidations, were maintained over Ms. [*] ([*]) for nearly seventeen months, specifically until four days prior to Plaintiff’s trial on or about July 11, 2005 (over two years from the date of the original allegation and nearly seventeen months since Plaintiff’s arrest).
It should be noted that Plaintiff sought supervisory control over the DC in or around 2005 (Glick v. Curtis, Cause No. 05-261, Montana Supreme Court), but the state supreme court refused to grant relief in spite of over forty independent reported violations. Following refusal of said court to intervene, Plaintiff was subsequently convicted through a kangaroo court trial and sentenced to twenty (20) years with fifteen (15) years suspended, and an additional fifteen (15) year probation sentence to be served simultaneously with his suspended sentence.
It should be noted that though Plaintiff cites history involving his criminal conviction, he is fully cognizant that he cannot seek to undermine a criminal conviction through a civil action. As such, it is not his intent to seek of this Court to address the corresponding vexatious litigation against Plaintiff, but to provide this Court with the full history involved in the present issue.
While Plaintiff awaited trial, and since Ms.[*] ([*]) was unable to contact Plaintiff due to obstructions by the local officials, Plaintiff’s business failed and was closed in or around September, 2003. Unable to contact Plaintiff about disposition of assets, Ms.[*] ([*]) independently chose to retain the majority of business assets, though did relinquish part of the assets to a mutual acquaintance, Tim Harris, who thereafter notified Plaintiff of Ms. [*]’s ([*]’s) actions. After Plaintiff was sentenced to prison, Mr. Harris attempted to seize Plaintiff’s property for himself, though finally relinquished the majority of said assets to another party in or around December, 2006. Plaintiff arranged separately for Earl Evert, the father of a fellow inmate, Ray Evert, to retrieve and store the property Mr. Harris relinquished. However, the Everts also proved duplicitous and attempted to bar Plaintiff access to his property, as well, apparently seeking to claim it for themselves. After years of fraudulent practices being made against him and agreements being breached, Plaintiff was forced to file suit in or around November, 2007, against Ms. [*] ([*]), Mr. Harris, and both Mr. Everts (Glick v. [*], et al, Cause No. DV 07-128, 7th District Court, Dawson County)(a true and correct copy of said suit attached hereafter attached hereafter as Exhibit A).
Recognizing the potential obstructions that could result in Flathead County, Plaintiff initially filed suit in Dawson County where he was at that time confined. However, Earl Evert’s counsel, Gregory Paskell, successfully moved for the cause to be moved to Flathead County as Cause No. DV 08-391, in spite of Plaintiff’s forewarning that the cause could not be fairly heard there. And true to Plaintiff’s predictions, since the cause was transferred to Flathead County on or about March 20, 2008, it has been subject to numerous unlawful and unconstitutional obstructions from DC officials.
As a whole, the DC has abused its authority over Plaintiff’s cause to deprive him of relief to which he was lawfully entitled. The DC has essentially assured that Plainitiff will never have a fair and impartial hearing upon any issue in this cause so long as Plaintiff could utilize the relief gained through this cause against the local authorities.
As an example, Plaintiff sought to have Gregory Paskell removed due to a conflict of interest, since he had formerly represented [*] ([*]) and had admitted to such conflict in a separate cause, yet Judge Stewart Stadler refused to grant the relief sought.
Additionally, the DC has refused to issue a default judgment against Ray Evert who has never responded to the complaint. Plaintiff filed for default upon Ray Evert prior to the cause being transferred, but the Dawson County court did not issue the default in light of the cause’s transfer. In spite of numerous requests to have such default issued, however, the DC has refused to do so now for over a year.
Further, Ms. Allison has refused to even issue summons reflecting the new jurisdiction over the cause of action which were provided to her for issuance in or around May, 2008, since summonses issued by Dawson County were no longer valid due to the instructions to a served defendant to file responses with the wrong court; Though Plaintiff had successfully served defendants Earl and Ray Evert prior to the cause being transferred, he had not yet had Ms. [*] ([*]) or Mr. Harris served, nor could he proceed against said defendants without issuance of new summonses.
Still Further, DC officials collaberated together with Mr. Paskell to conceal the death of Earl Evert from Plaintiff. When Earl Evert died on or about May 31, 2008, Mr. Paskell had an obligation to notify both the DC and Plaintiff of this material issue. However, though Mr. Paskell apparently notified the DC, he failed to provide any notice to Plaintiff. After Plaintiff learned of said defendant’s death in or around November, 2008, through an independent source, Plaintiff sought record of whether there was an estate through both Mr. Paskell and Ms. Allison, but both ignored his request. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that Earl Evert’s death was kept from Plaintiff to conceal the efforts of Earl Evert’s family in hiding his assets and to forego any claim Plaintiff would rightfully have had against the estate of Earl Evert, since had Plaintiff been able to make a timely request immediately following Earl Evert’s death, he could have had Earl Evert’s assets seized. Since Plaintiff did not learn of Earl Evert’s death until months later, his claim against the estate was blocked and the property fraudulently concealed by Earl Evert’s descendants must now be pursued through this cause of action.
Still yet further, Ms. Allison tampered with records by removing motions filed by Plaintiff from the DC file. On or about May 15, 2008, Plaintiff filed two motions, one for judgment upon the pleadings against Earl Evert since he had not denied any material fact in his response, and a second to amend the identity of a Doe defendant to be identified as Wayne Evert, another of Earl Evert’s sons. Ms. Allison removed these motions from the DC file for over two months, from date of receipt on or about May 19, 2008, until on or about July 29, 2008 (see Docket for Cause No. DV 08-391, Lines 6.100 through 6.300, a true and correct copy attached hereafter as Exhibit B), and apparently communicated to Mr. Paskell that he would not be required to file responses thereto, since Mr. Paskell never filed responses to said motions.
Not knowing of such duplicity, Plaintiff filed a motion for default rulings, which was filed and docketed for hearing only because Ms. Allison was out of town at a Clerk of Court Seminar. Upon initially receiving the motion on or about July 3, 2008, Judge Stadler refused to rule upon it and sent it back to the clerk’s office, which Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges was an effort to hide this motion, as well, but was prevented because the clerk’s office could not delete entries already made into the DC docket. Needing to resolve said issue, Ms. Allison entered the original motions on or about July 29, 2008 ( a full forty-seven days after receipt of the motion for default rulings upon said motions) and Judge Stadler summarily ruled upon them on or about August 1, 2008.
However, Judge Stadler’s order defied all pretense of jurisprudence as he altered the motion to amend to be a motion to file an amended complaint (which would have effectively removed Plaintiff’s default claim against Ray Evert and any claim against Earl Evert who had died (unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time), since Plaintiff could not re-serve a deceased party and no estate had been opened for Earl Evert), denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings through omitting critical language in the response, and thereafter denied the motion for default rulings upon the grounds that the motions had already been ruled upon! These rulings were blatantly in contrast to due process, as Plaintiff was clearly entitled to default relief when no response was filed to his motions. Instead, Judge Stadler interceded to defend the defendants of the cause in spite of the motions being uncontested! Further, the order in question was not even docketed until Plaintiff filed for supervisory control two weeks later!
When it became clear that Plaintiff could not possibly receive a fair nor impartial administration of justice in Flathead County, he again sought supervisory control over the DC through two separate actions and subsequent motions for reconsideration within each (Cause Nos. OP 08-400 and OP 08-___). Yet the Montana Supreme Court again refused to intercede, even when faced with documented evidence of criminal misconduct by DC officials.
As it presently stands, Plaintiff cannot proceed in his cause against the defendants because the DC has blatantly obstructed his constitutional rights of due process and access to the courts. Plaintiff cannot act to serve Ms. [*] nor Mr. Harris because Ms. Allison refuses to even issue summonses; he cannot get the DC to issue a default judgment against Ray Evert in spite of said defendant’s never having made an appearance in the cause; he has been denied default rulings to which he was entitled against Earl and Wayne Evert; and his efforts for relief submitted to the Montana Supreme Court have been brazenly denied.
As such, the interests of justice cannot be served by this cause remaining under state jurisdiction and Plaintiff is left with no choice but to seek to have this cause removed to this Court’s jurisdiction so that Plaintiff can seek a fair and impartial administration of justice.
The United States District Courts have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States (28 USCS Section 1343(3)). Further, any cause of action may be removed to this Court’s jurisdiction for any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of the State a right under any law providing for the equal rights of any citizen of the United States (28 USCS Section 1443(1)). The United States Constitution provides for due process, access to the courts and freedom to pursue grievances against government without molestation (Fifth and First Amendments), as well as to equal rights under the law (Fourteenth Amendment). In the instant case, these fundamental civil rights have been deprived to Plaintiff, and this Court has the authority to safeguard Plaintiff’s civil liberties by removing this cause to its jurisdiction.<
Further, this Court has the authority to prevent and restrain violations of the federal R.I.C.O. Act (18 USCS Section 1961, et seq) by issuing appropriate orders, including but not limited to ordering any person to divest interest in any enterprise, impose reasonable restrictions upon such person, or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any such enterprise (18 USCS Section 1964(a)). To qualify for relief under the R.I.C.O. Act, it must be demonstrated that (1) Conduct of (2) an enterprise (3) through a pattern of (4) racketeering activity (5) causes injury to a person’s business or property (See Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F3d 506, 510 (9th Cir, 1996)). In the instant case, (1)felonious acts in defiance of the United States Constitution have been committed (2) by the DC and DC officials acting in chain conspiracy (3) through repeated predicate acts of obstruction of justice (in violation of 18 USCS Section 1503) and witness tampering and retaliation (in violation of 18 USCS Sections 1512 and 1513) (4) in support of corrupt government misconduct that has (5) caused significant damage to Plaintiff, his property and his businesses.
The notion that R.I.C.O. applies only to organized crimes in the classic “mobster” sense has long been rejected (See United States v. Grande, 620 F2d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir, 1980)). The offices of public officials can be considered R.I.C.O. enterprises (United States v. McDade, 827 Fsupp 1153, 1181 (E.D.Pa., 1993)) and a government entity may constitute an enterprise within the meaning of R.I.C.O. (United States v. Freeman, 6 F3d 586 (9th Cir, 1993). Further, R.I.C.O. enterprises may include courts (United States v. Angelilli, 660 F2d 23 (2nd Cir, 1981); United States v. Bacheler, 611 F2d 443 (3rd Cir, 1979)). Even a city can be considered a R.I.C.O. enterprise (United States v. Labue, 751 Fsupp 748, 755 (N.D. Ill, 1990)).
A R.I.C.O. predicate act requires only that a related threat is continuing or ongoing (see Corley v. Rosewood Care Center, Inc. or Peoria, 142 F3d 1041 (7th Cir, 1998)). Concealing documents is a violation of the obstruction of justice statute (United States v. Laurins, 857 F2d 529, 537 (9th Cir, 1988)) and constitutes a predicate act. Further, a clerk of court lacks the authority to refuse or strike a pleading presented for filing (McClellan v. Lone Star Gas Co., 66 F3d 98, 102 (5th Cir, 1995)). Additionally, Judicial remarks or actions during course of a legal proceeding that display deep-seated favoritism or antagonism toward a party makes fair judgment impossible (See Liteky v. United States, 114 SCt. 1147, 1157 (1994)).
Fraud on the court is fraud directed to the judicial machinery itself (See Robinson v. Audi Aktiengesellschaft, 56 F3d 1259, 1266 (10th Cir, 1995)). It is this fraud where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced in such a way that a judge or other official cannot act in their official function, thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted (Ibid). Fraud on the court must involve officers of the court to subvert judicial machinery (Weese v. Schukman, 98 F3d 542, 552-53 (10th Cir, 1996); Sun-Tek Industries v. Kennedy Sky-Lites, 779 Fsupp 589, 593 (M.D. Fla., 1991)).
The Petition Clause of the First Amendment protects people’s rights to make their wishes and interests known to government representatives free of molestation (Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noeir Motor Freight, Inc., 81 SCt 523 (1961)). Also, a cause of action is property (See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 102 SCt 1148, 1154, notes 4 and 5 (1982)). As this conflict has been ongoing for nearly six years and the actions of the DC constitute conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity which has caused damage to Plaintiff’s business, reputation and property, this is a specific violation of the R.I.C.O. Act and Plaintiff believes he is entitled to intervention by this Court. The individual predicate acts have been constant and injurious, and the fraud perpetuated upon the DC by its own officers has rendered the capacity of that judicial system incapable of administering justice where Plaintiff’s interests are concerned. Consequently, since Plaintiff cannot realistically receive due process of law nor equal protection under the law while under the DC’s jurisdiction, the interests of justice are best served by removing Plaintiff from the DC’s influence.
In anticipation of this, I am posting a copy of the test of the motion here for anyone interested to review. It aptly details the current obstructions of the local authorities, as well as provides a brief overview of the past obstructions as well.
Please let me know if anyone has any questions.
Ron Glick
24 1st Avenue West, #223
Kalispell, MT 59901
ron_glick@yahoo.com
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
Ron Glick, ) Cause No.
)
Plaintiff, )
) Motion To Remove State Cause To US District Court
)
v.)
[*], aka )
[*], Tim )
Harris, Ray Evert, )
Earl Evert, aka Estate )
Of Earl Evert, and )
Does One through )
Five, )
)
Defendants. )
__________________)
Comes now Plaintiff in the above entitled cause, pro se herein, to move of the Court to order the removal of Cause No. DV 08-391 from the Eleventh Judicial District Court, In and For Flathead County, to this Court’s jurisdiction, and to wit:
SUMMARY
Since in or around July, 2003, Plaintiff has been frequently harassed by officials representing the City of Kalispell and County of Flathead, Montana, who have sought to obstruct his civil liberties through abuse of their authoritative positions in defense of their own misconduct. Plaintiff has sought to resolve such conflicts through the legal system but has found himself subjected to molestations and retaliations from said officials, and even had friends and family members harassed and intimidated by said officials to undermine Plaintiff’s support. Worse still, private parties have taken advantage of the conflict between Plaintiff and said officials to attempt to deprive Plaintiff of his property and resources, forcing Plaintiff to file further legal actions to secure said assets. However, Plaintiff has been forced to pursue his claims for such assets under the jurisdiction of the selfsame officials who have been actively obstructing his civil liberties for nearly six years, and said officials continue to abuse their authority to obstruct Plaintiff’s rights to due process in pursuit of said claims. Plaintiff has sought supervisory control over Court officials through the Montana Supreme Court, but that court has acted to defend the misconduct of the lower court instead of intervening to preserve Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. As Plaintiff cannot proceed in any real capacity while subject to the whims of local corrupt court officials, he is left with no alternative but to seek removing the cause of action to this Court’s jurisdiction.
JURISDICTION
This action is brought pursuant to 28 USCS Sections 1343 and 1443, in that this Court has authority to assume jurisdiction over State causes wherein a party is deprived, under color of State law, of any right secured by the United States Constitution, and 18 USCS Section 1961, et seq., in that this Court has jurisdiction to prevent and restrain the misconduct of individuals and agencies who act as a criminal racketeering enterprise.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff has had ongoing conflicts with officials in government within the City of Kalispell and County of Flathead, Montana, and specifically, in relevant matter to this cause, with officers of the Eleventh Judicial District of Montana (hereafter DC). Plaintiff has pursued every viable state action to resolve this conflict but relief has been denied by the Montana Supreme Court, in spite of documented evidence of felonious misconduct by DC officials. As a result, Plaintiff is left with no other legal recourse than to seek removal of the cause to this Court.
On or about July 9, 2003, a false allegation of sexual assault was made against Plaintiff, which was investigated at the time of initial complaint by the Kalispell Police Department (hereafter “KPD”) and Child and Family Services (hereafter “CFS”). KPD’s initial investigation was closed, absent the discovery of “new evidence”, on or about September 4, 2003, and CFS’ investigation was subsequently closed on or about September 15, 2003, upon report from KPD of the police investigation being closed.
During the course of KPD’s investigation though, a KPD officer had tampered with, threatened and intimidated witnesses, as well as maliciously maligned Plaintiff through dissimation of information known to be false, in an effort to coerce false testimony and support from them against Plaintiff, which resulted in Plaintiff making a written complaint and demand for damages against the City of Kalispell. Immediately following issuance of said demand, Plaintiff’s businesses were beset upon by numerous official harassments, which in itself eventually resulted in Plaintiff filing legal action against the City and agencies and officials thereof, first through the filing of a petition for production of KPD records on or about October 30, 2003, and thereafter in the filing of a full complaint on or about November 18, 2003 (Glick v. City of Kalispell, et al, Cause No. DV 03-572, 11th District Court of Montana, Flathead County). Notably, Plaintiff had had summonses issued personally to him upon filing of the initial petition, but the DC Clerk refused to issue additional summons when new defendants were added to the cause with the filing of the civil complaint.
In further retaliation against Plaintiff during this period of time, both KPD’s and CFS’ investigations were re-opened in an effort to block Plaintiff’s access to record of said agencies on or about October 28, 2003, even though the original allegation had been recanted and no new evidence had been "discovered”. Further, Plaintiff’s step-daughters were abducted by CFS on or about November 20, 2003 (two days after the filing of the aforementioned civil complaint), even though there was no current allegation against Plaintiff from either daughter (only the eldest daughter had ever made an allegation against Plaintiff; the youngest had never made an allegation, at all). Through course of these separate actions, Plaintiff’s girlfriend and business partner, [*] ([*]), and her daughters were subjected to numerous threats and intimidations from CFS demanding that she support the allegation made against Plaintiff and to sever Plaintiff from his assets and resources When no response was filed to either the petition or complaint, Plaintiff filed for default judgment on or about December 23, 2003. The DC Clerk, Peg Allison, blocked said default however by claiming that service had not been properly made upon the defendants of the cause (note: a clerk of court has no authority to raise such a defense on behalf of parties of a suit; the parties of the suit had to raise such a defense on their own, but failed to do so). Upon request for clarification by Plaintiff, Ms. Allison claimed that no proof of service had been filed in the cause, yet when Plaintiff assured Ms. Allison that he could provide copies of the proofs which he had personally filed with the DC, Ms. Allison changed her reason to the claim that no summons had ever been issued in the cause. When Plaintiff attested to having personally been issued summonses that had been attached to the original petitions for service, Ms. Allison requested to have Plaintiff arrange for her to speak with the process server, [*] ([*]), to confirm whether summonses had actually been served. However, when Ms. [*] ([*]) contacted Ms. Allison to attest to service of the summonses, Ms. Allison tampered with Ms. [*] ([*]) by threatening to have her arrested for perjury if she tried to attest to ever serving a “valid” summons upon any defendant in the cause. Ms. Allison’s threats were sufficient to intimidate Ms. [*] ([*]) into refusing to sign an affidavit attesting to serving the summonses.
Notably, Plaintiff has made innumerable requests to Ms. Allison for production of the DC docket of Cause No. DV 03-572 to confirm or deny whether the summons had been removed from the court file, but Ms. Allison has refused to comply with such requests.
On or about January 28, 2004, after weeks of attempting to convince Ms. Allison to withdraw her unlawful obstruction of the default judgment, Plaintiff sent a letter to Ms. Allison declaring his intent to move the cause to federal court, and to add Ms. Allison and several other officials and agencies who had acted against Plaintiff since the filing of the initial complaint, if Ms. Allison did not cease obstructing the default judgment. Plaintiff provided Ms. Allison a thirty (30) day deadline, set to expire on or about February 27, 2004.
Instead of complying with Plaintiff’s demand, the local officials conspired to have Plaintiff arrested on or about February 20, 2004, a week prior to his deadline’s expiration. Such arrest occurred early eight months from the date of the original allegation on or about July 9, 2003, and nearly four months after said officials had re-opened the official investigations or about October 28, 2003. Plaintiff remained continuously incarcerated thereafter until on or about February 17, 2009.
Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that his arrest at such a late date was specifically intended to bar him from removing Cause No. DV 03-572 to this Court’s jurisdiction, since local officials had been unable to otherwise quash Plaintiff’s claims against them. Additionally, when Plaintiff sought exculpatory evidence and financial support through his business assets from Ms. [*] ([*]), Ms. [*] ([*]) was also arrested, for allegedly tampering with her daughter as a witness, on or about February 27, 2003, and all contact between Plaintiff and his business was severed. Ms. [*] ([*]) was subsequently released from custody under threat of being re-arrested should she, directly or indirectly, contact or support Plaintiff or provide him access to records or assets of their mutual business. Said charge, and its corresponding intimidations, were maintained over Ms. [*] ([*]) for nearly seventeen months, specifically until four days prior to Plaintiff’s trial on or about July 11, 2005 (over two years from the date of the original allegation and nearly seventeen months since Plaintiff’s arrest).
It should be noted that Plaintiff sought supervisory control over the DC in or around 2005 (Glick v. Curtis, Cause No. 05-261, Montana Supreme Court), but the state supreme court refused to grant relief in spite of over forty independent reported violations. Following refusal of said court to intervene, Plaintiff was subsequently convicted through a kangaroo court trial and sentenced to twenty (20) years with fifteen (15) years suspended, and an additional fifteen (15) year probation sentence to be served simultaneously with his suspended sentence.
It should be noted that though Plaintiff cites history involving his criminal conviction, he is fully cognizant that he cannot seek to undermine a criminal conviction through a civil action. As such, it is not his intent to seek of this Court to address the corresponding vexatious litigation against Plaintiff, but to provide this Court with the full history involved in the present issue.
While Plaintiff awaited trial, and since Ms.[*] ([*]) was unable to contact Plaintiff due to obstructions by the local officials, Plaintiff’s business failed and was closed in or around September, 2003. Unable to contact Plaintiff about disposition of assets, Ms.[*] ([*]) independently chose to retain the majority of business assets, though did relinquish part of the assets to a mutual acquaintance, Tim Harris, who thereafter notified Plaintiff of Ms. [*]’s ([*]’s) actions. After Plaintiff was sentenced to prison, Mr. Harris attempted to seize Plaintiff’s property for himself, though finally relinquished the majority of said assets to another party in or around December, 2006. Plaintiff arranged separately for Earl Evert, the father of a fellow inmate, Ray Evert, to retrieve and store the property Mr. Harris relinquished. However, the Everts also proved duplicitous and attempted to bar Plaintiff access to his property, as well, apparently seeking to claim it for themselves. After years of fraudulent practices being made against him and agreements being breached, Plaintiff was forced to file suit in or around November, 2007, against Ms. [*] ([*]), Mr. Harris, and both Mr. Everts (Glick v. [*], et al, Cause No. DV 07-128, 7th District Court, Dawson County)(a true and correct copy of said suit attached hereafter attached hereafter as Exhibit A).
Recognizing the potential obstructions that could result in Flathead County, Plaintiff initially filed suit in Dawson County where he was at that time confined. However, Earl Evert’s counsel, Gregory Paskell, successfully moved for the cause to be moved to Flathead County as Cause No. DV 08-391, in spite of Plaintiff’s forewarning that the cause could not be fairly heard there. And true to Plaintiff’s predictions, since the cause was transferred to Flathead County on or about March 20, 2008, it has been subject to numerous unlawful and unconstitutional obstructions from DC officials.
As a whole, the DC has abused its authority over Plaintiff’s cause to deprive him of relief to which he was lawfully entitled. The DC has essentially assured that Plainitiff will never have a fair and impartial hearing upon any issue in this cause so long as Plaintiff could utilize the relief gained through this cause against the local authorities.
As an example, Plaintiff sought to have Gregory Paskell removed due to a conflict of interest, since he had formerly represented [*] ([*]) and had admitted to such conflict in a separate cause, yet Judge Stewart Stadler refused to grant the relief sought.
Additionally, the DC has refused to issue a default judgment against Ray Evert who has never responded to the complaint. Plaintiff filed for default upon Ray Evert prior to the cause being transferred, but the Dawson County court did not issue the default in light of the cause’s transfer. In spite of numerous requests to have such default issued, however, the DC has refused to do so now for over a year.
Further, Ms. Allison has refused to even issue summons reflecting the new jurisdiction over the cause of action which were provided to her for issuance in or around May, 2008, since summonses issued by Dawson County were no longer valid due to the instructions to a served defendant to file responses with the wrong court; Though Plaintiff had successfully served defendants Earl and Ray Evert prior to the cause being transferred, he had not yet had Ms. [*] ([*]) or Mr. Harris served, nor could he proceed against said defendants without issuance of new summonses.
Still Further, DC officials collaberated together with Mr. Paskell to conceal the death of Earl Evert from Plaintiff. When Earl Evert died on or about May 31, 2008, Mr. Paskell had an obligation to notify both the DC and Plaintiff of this material issue. However, though Mr. Paskell apparently notified the DC, he failed to provide any notice to Plaintiff. After Plaintiff learned of said defendant’s death in or around November, 2008, through an independent source, Plaintiff sought record of whether there was an estate through both Mr. Paskell and Ms. Allison, but both ignored his request. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that Earl Evert’s death was kept from Plaintiff to conceal the efforts of Earl Evert’s family in hiding his assets and to forego any claim Plaintiff would rightfully have had against the estate of Earl Evert, since had Plaintiff been able to make a timely request immediately following Earl Evert’s death, he could have had Earl Evert’s assets seized. Since Plaintiff did not learn of Earl Evert’s death until months later, his claim against the estate was blocked and the property fraudulently concealed by Earl Evert’s descendants must now be pursued through this cause of action.
Still yet further, Ms. Allison tampered with records by removing motions filed by Plaintiff from the DC file. On or about May 15, 2008, Plaintiff filed two motions, one for judgment upon the pleadings against Earl Evert since he had not denied any material fact in his response, and a second to amend the identity of a Doe defendant to be identified as Wayne Evert, another of Earl Evert’s sons. Ms. Allison removed these motions from the DC file for over two months, from date of receipt on or about May 19, 2008, until on or about July 29, 2008 (see Docket for Cause No. DV 08-391, Lines 6.100 through 6.300, a true and correct copy attached hereafter as Exhibit B), and apparently communicated to Mr. Paskell that he would not be required to file responses thereto, since Mr. Paskell never filed responses to said motions.
Not knowing of such duplicity, Plaintiff filed a motion for default rulings, which was filed and docketed for hearing only because Ms. Allison was out of town at a Clerk of Court Seminar. Upon initially receiving the motion on or about July 3, 2008, Judge Stadler refused to rule upon it and sent it back to the clerk’s office, which Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges was an effort to hide this motion, as well, but was prevented because the clerk’s office could not delete entries already made into the DC docket. Needing to resolve said issue, Ms. Allison entered the original motions on or about July 29, 2008 ( a full forty-seven days after receipt of the motion for default rulings upon said motions) and Judge Stadler summarily ruled upon them on or about August 1, 2008.
However, Judge Stadler’s order defied all pretense of jurisprudence as he altered the motion to amend to be a motion to file an amended complaint (which would have effectively removed Plaintiff’s default claim against Ray Evert and any claim against Earl Evert who had died (unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time), since Plaintiff could not re-serve a deceased party and no estate had been opened for Earl Evert), denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings through omitting critical language in the response, and thereafter denied the motion for default rulings upon the grounds that the motions had already been ruled upon! These rulings were blatantly in contrast to due process, as Plaintiff was clearly entitled to default relief when no response was filed to his motions. Instead, Judge Stadler interceded to defend the defendants of the cause in spite of the motions being uncontested! Further, the order in question was not even docketed until Plaintiff filed for supervisory control two weeks later!
When it became clear that Plaintiff could not possibly receive a fair nor impartial administration of justice in Flathead County, he again sought supervisory control over the DC through two separate actions and subsequent motions for reconsideration within each (Cause Nos. OP 08-400 and OP 08-___). Yet the Montana Supreme Court again refused to intercede, even when faced with documented evidence of criminal misconduct by DC officials.
As it presently stands, Plaintiff cannot proceed in his cause against the defendants because the DC has blatantly obstructed his constitutional rights of due process and access to the courts. Plaintiff cannot act to serve Ms. [*] nor Mr. Harris because Ms. Allison refuses to even issue summonses; he cannot get the DC to issue a default judgment against Ray Evert in spite of said defendant’s never having made an appearance in the cause; he has been denied default rulings to which he was entitled against Earl and Wayne Evert; and his efforts for relief submitted to the Montana Supreme Court have been brazenly denied.
As such, the interests of justice cannot be served by this cause remaining under state jurisdiction and Plaintiff is left with no choice but to seek to have this cause removed to this Court’s jurisdiction so that Plaintiff can seek a fair and impartial administration of justice.
ARGUMENT
The United States District Courts have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States (28 USCS Section 1343(3)). Further, any cause of action may be removed to this Court’s jurisdiction for any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of the State a right under any law providing for the equal rights of any citizen of the United States (28 USCS Section 1443(1)). The United States Constitution provides for due process, access to the courts and freedom to pursue grievances against government without molestation (Fifth and First Amendments), as well as to equal rights under the law (Fourteenth Amendment). In the instant case, these fundamental civil rights have been deprived to Plaintiff, and this Court has the authority to safeguard Plaintiff’s civil liberties by removing this cause to its jurisdiction.<
Further, this Court has the authority to prevent and restrain violations of the federal R.I.C.O. Act (18 USCS Section 1961, et seq) by issuing appropriate orders, including but not limited to ordering any person to divest interest in any enterprise, impose reasonable restrictions upon such person, or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any such enterprise (18 USCS Section 1964(a)). To qualify for relief under the R.I.C.O. Act, it must be demonstrated that (1) Conduct of (2) an enterprise (3) through a pattern of (4) racketeering activity (5) causes injury to a person’s business or property (See Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F3d 506, 510 (9th Cir, 1996)). In the instant case, (1)felonious acts in defiance of the United States Constitution have been committed (2) by the DC and DC officials acting in chain conspiracy (3) through repeated predicate acts of obstruction of justice (in violation of 18 USCS Section 1503) and witness tampering and retaliation (in violation of 18 USCS Sections 1512 and 1513) (4) in support of corrupt government misconduct that has (5) caused significant damage to Plaintiff, his property and his businesses.
The notion that R.I.C.O. applies only to organized crimes in the classic “mobster” sense has long been rejected (See United States v. Grande, 620 F2d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir, 1980)). The offices of public officials can be considered R.I.C.O. enterprises (United States v. McDade, 827 Fsupp 1153, 1181 (E.D.Pa., 1993)) and a government entity may constitute an enterprise within the meaning of R.I.C.O. (United States v. Freeman, 6 F3d 586 (9th Cir, 1993). Further, R.I.C.O. enterprises may include courts (United States v. Angelilli, 660 F2d 23 (2nd Cir, 1981); United States v. Bacheler, 611 F2d 443 (3rd Cir, 1979)). Even a city can be considered a R.I.C.O. enterprise (United States v. Labue, 751 Fsupp 748, 755 (N.D. Ill, 1990)).
A R.I.C.O. predicate act requires only that a related threat is continuing or ongoing (see Corley v. Rosewood Care Center, Inc. or Peoria, 142 F3d 1041 (7th Cir, 1998)). Concealing documents is a violation of the obstruction of justice statute (United States v. Laurins, 857 F2d 529, 537 (9th Cir, 1988)) and constitutes a predicate act. Further, a clerk of court lacks the authority to refuse or strike a pleading presented for filing (McClellan v. Lone Star Gas Co., 66 F3d 98, 102 (5th Cir, 1995)). Additionally, Judicial remarks or actions during course of a legal proceeding that display deep-seated favoritism or antagonism toward a party makes fair judgment impossible (See Liteky v. United States, 114 SCt. 1147, 1157 (1994)).
Fraud on the court is fraud directed to the judicial machinery itself (See Robinson v. Audi Aktiengesellschaft, 56 F3d 1259, 1266 (10th Cir, 1995)). It is this fraud where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced in such a way that a judge or other official cannot act in their official function, thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted (Ibid). Fraud on the court must involve officers of the court to subvert judicial machinery (Weese v. Schukman, 98 F3d 542, 552-53 (10th Cir, 1996); Sun-Tek Industries v. Kennedy Sky-Lites, 779 Fsupp 589, 593 (M.D. Fla., 1991)).
The Petition Clause of the First Amendment protects people’s rights to make their wishes and interests known to government representatives free of molestation (Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noeir Motor Freight, Inc., 81 SCt 523 (1961)). Also, a cause of action is property (See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 102 SCt 1148, 1154, notes 4 and 5 (1982)). As this conflict has been ongoing for nearly six years and the actions of the DC constitute conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity which has caused damage to Plaintiff’s business, reputation and property, this is a specific violation of the R.I.C.O. Act and Plaintiff believes he is entitled to intervention by this Court. The individual predicate acts have been constant and injurious, and the fraud perpetuated upon the DC by its own officers has rendered the capacity of that judicial system incapable of administering justice where Plaintiff’s interests are concerned. Consequently, since Plaintiff cannot realistically receive due process of law nor equal protection under the law while under the DC’s jurisdiction, the interests of justice are best served by removing Plaintiff from the DC’s influence.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests of the Court to remove Cause No. DV 08-391 from the jurisdiction of the Eleventh Judicial District Court to this Court’s jurisdiction, and to grant whatever other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
____________________________________
Ron Glick, Plaintiff
Monday, April 6, 2009
Appellate Update
I have been lax with my posts to this blog, primarily because my time on the Internet has recently been taken up in laying a foundation for a new nonprofit project I am starting up, GameHearts, a nonprofit gaming group promoting adult sobriety. I have been working on creating an Internet presence (primarily email addresses and trying to locate a good source to make public promotions through) and have not been writing on here.
As always, I try to put something on here at least once a day, but there will be times (at least until I can acquire my own computer and net connection) where I will be forced to dedicate my time to other projects. This project is very important to me because it is my only chance to publicize this information, so it is not for lack of priority that I have not been working on here - it is simply that I do not have enough access to do this and other projects that need completion also. Sometimes, I must make difficult choices in prioritizing things...
At any rate, there is information that I needed to post on here regarding my criminal appeal. I actually received this information a little over a week ago, but have not had the time to post anything about it... Until now.
As has been previously posted, my criminal appeal waited for three years to be ruled upon. And "conveniently" the final order was issued the day after my release from my five year commitment. Personally, I believe this was intentional - the powers-that-be in the State of Montana willfully withheld judgment until it was assured that I served the full five year sentence. It does not make sense that the order would come immediately after my release otherwise.
Also as noted, the Montana Supreme Court ignored two critical issues raised on appeal, along with several lesser parts of the issues they did address. I pointed these omissions out to my appellate counsel, William Hooks, but he ultimately decided not to file a motion for reconsideration. Since in Montana an individual represented by counsel cannot file pro se (self-represented) motions, this act compelled me to file a motion to remove my attorney of record and for an extension of time to file my own motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court denied this motion, claiming that my time to respond had expired.
However, I have received information that proves that my motion arrived before the Court closed the action. Mr. Hooks wrote to me with a copy of the Remittur (the order closing a case that, at least in Montana, precludes any further action being taken in the cause). This Remittur though is dated March 17, 2009. I mailed in my motions on March 12, 2009, which (even allowing for mail delays) would have been delivered to the Court no later than March 16, 2009. Which means, the Court received my motion seeking extension of time before the cause was closed, and that the Remittur was actually issued in response to receipt of my motions!
This proves yet again that even the Montana State Supreme Court is duplicit in the corruption in the State. Faced with inarguable issues that would have overturned my conviction, the Court elected to refuse to respond to those issues. And when called upon to consider a reconsideration, the Court issued an order to block it. The Montana State Supreme Court has already acted on five separate occasions to refuse to supervise the misconduct of the Flathead District Court (Eleventh Judicial District Court of Montana), and now has even gone further to defend a false conviction. And the only justifiable reason for any of this is that officials in this State consider me a threat to their corrupt authority and are willing to take exceptional measures to assure that I am deprived the means to challenge their misconduct. Even when the state supreme court has only to rule against the misconduct of the lower court, still they will violate standards of state and federal law to support the entrenched corruption rampant in this State.
This is why I have said that I am an enemy of the State - not because of any real crimes I have committed, but because those in power are abusing their control to deprive me of the opportunity to clear my name and to challenge the misconduct directed against me in an impartial environment.
For the record, I am in the process of preparing a motion to have a separate civil cause (in pursuit of my business assets), one that has continuously been blocked by the local court, removed to federal court. This is my only hopes of ever seeking a fair hearing upon any issue in Montana, though my past experience even with the federal courts has shown a sympathetic leaning toward the status quo within the State. Only time will tell if this will continue now that I am no longer incarcerated. I will update this thread when that action is filed (should be this week).
I will wrap this up for now and hope to get back to my normal thread tomorrow. But since I cannot seem to dedicate time on a day to day basis, I cannot make promises. All I can try to do is try...
Ciao for now.
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
As always, I try to put something on here at least once a day, but there will be times (at least until I can acquire my own computer and net connection) where I will be forced to dedicate my time to other projects. This project is very important to me because it is my only chance to publicize this information, so it is not for lack of priority that I have not been working on here - it is simply that I do not have enough access to do this and other projects that need completion also. Sometimes, I must make difficult choices in prioritizing things...
At any rate, there is information that I needed to post on here regarding my criminal appeal. I actually received this information a little over a week ago, but have not had the time to post anything about it... Until now.
As has been previously posted, my criminal appeal waited for three years to be ruled upon. And "conveniently" the final order was issued the day after my release from my five year commitment. Personally, I believe this was intentional - the powers-that-be in the State of Montana willfully withheld judgment until it was assured that I served the full five year sentence. It does not make sense that the order would come immediately after my release otherwise.
Also as noted, the Montana Supreme Court ignored two critical issues raised on appeal, along with several lesser parts of the issues they did address. I pointed these omissions out to my appellate counsel, William Hooks, but he ultimately decided not to file a motion for reconsideration. Since in Montana an individual represented by counsel cannot file pro se (self-represented) motions, this act compelled me to file a motion to remove my attorney of record and for an extension of time to file my own motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court denied this motion, claiming that my time to respond had expired.
However, I have received information that proves that my motion arrived before the Court closed the action. Mr. Hooks wrote to me with a copy of the Remittur (the order closing a case that, at least in Montana, precludes any further action being taken in the cause). This Remittur though is dated March 17, 2009. I mailed in my motions on March 12, 2009, which (even allowing for mail delays) would have been delivered to the Court no later than March 16, 2009. Which means, the Court received my motion seeking extension of time before the cause was closed, and that the Remittur was actually issued in response to receipt of my motions!
This proves yet again that even the Montana State Supreme Court is duplicit in the corruption in the State. Faced with inarguable issues that would have overturned my conviction, the Court elected to refuse to respond to those issues. And when called upon to consider a reconsideration, the Court issued an order to block it. The Montana State Supreme Court has already acted on five separate occasions to refuse to supervise the misconduct of the Flathead District Court (Eleventh Judicial District Court of Montana), and now has even gone further to defend a false conviction. And the only justifiable reason for any of this is that officials in this State consider me a threat to their corrupt authority and are willing to take exceptional measures to assure that I am deprived the means to challenge their misconduct. Even when the state supreme court has only to rule against the misconduct of the lower court, still they will violate standards of state and federal law to support the entrenched corruption rampant in this State.
This is why I have said that I am an enemy of the State - not because of any real crimes I have committed, but because those in power are abusing their control to deprive me of the opportunity to clear my name and to challenge the misconduct directed against me in an impartial environment.
For the record, I am in the process of preparing a motion to have a separate civil cause (in pursuit of my business assets), one that has continuously been blocked by the local court, removed to federal court. This is my only hopes of ever seeking a fair hearing upon any issue in Montana, though my past experience even with the federal courts has shown a sympathetic leaning toward the status quo within the State. Only time will tell if this will continue now that I am no longer incarcerated. I will update this thread when that action is filed (should be this week).
I will wrap this up for now and hope to get back to my normal thread tomorrow. But since I cannot seem to dedicate time on a day to day basis, I cannot make promises. All I can try to do is try...
Ciao for now.
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)