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
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
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
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
An Aside
Last week during a meeting with my probation officer, he expressed to me that he felt it was not perhaps in good taste to name [*] as the person who accused me of sexual assault. Primarily, his reasoning was based upon the fact that [*] had been a minor at the time she made the allegation and that, if the accusation is presumed to be true, that she is a victim deserving privacy. Though I certainly can see his point of view, I cannot say that I agree with it. But I felt that an aside might be appropriate to discuss this issue.
First, I want to point out that, had this accusation been true, had I actually committed a crime against [*], there would certainly be a privacy issue to consider. Had [*] been actually molested, raped or otherwise assaulted, it could be considered unfair to publicize her identity, regardless of her age, and subject her to further emotional duress. Had there not been the underlying elements behind her charge, had the initial investigation had stayed closed, or she had not so blatantly contradicted herself between versions of her stories, it might never have been necessary to even discuss this issue. Any of these scenarios could have provided [*] the privacy that some might suggest she would thereby entitled to.
However, this is not the case. [*] was not molested or otherwise assaulted by me and the only consistency in her story has been its inconsistency. The local authorities exceeded their authority and used [*] as a weapon against me and in so doing made her a primary element to discussion of their improprieties. And though this position is admittedly my own, and these same officials have manipulated the legal arena to convict me of an offense that makes the allegation legally true and the circumstances legally irrelevant, none of this changes the true facts. I have maintained now for over five years, in spite of being deprived of my liberty and freedom as consequence, that I did not do what [*] accused me of and, simply put, the actual facts support my position. That the Kalispell authorities have succeeded in keeping these factual elements out of court in order to railroad me into a false conviction is what is genuinely irrelevant. No matter how much these corrupt officials like to play at being gods, the truth is they cannot change reality. They can certainly control the perception of reality, but they cannot change the actual events as the really happened.
I have said upon many occasions throughout this ongoing oration that I do not hold [*] entirely accountable for what has happened. I recognize that she had been placed under extreme duress and that others had exerted undue influence over her to gain their desired goals. That [*] was easily manipulated is inconsequential to the larger scheme of things. That she has had a history of lies and deceptions is not at issue either. These are just the means by which those truly to blame exerted their control over her, not the underlying cause of her actions.
I raised [*] for over two years as my own daughter. To this day, I still have a special place in my heart for the young woman that I took under my wing, just as I hold a special place for her sister, [*], as well. I am deeply hurt by her betrayal and disappointed that she could be manipulated in this way against me, since I had thought she had returned my affections, but the truth is she is her own person, and she made her own decisions. I do not agree with them, and I have been hurt far worse than a simple betrayal of confidence alone could be responsible for, but I know the ideas were not hers alone – there were others pulling her strings. But it does not make the pain of that betrayal any less.
All this being said, [*] has made some serious mistakes, and in making those mistakes, regardless of whether she acted alone or at the direction of others, she has nevertheless caused great harm to others. And not just to me – to her mother, her sister, my son, John, and to our mutual friends and families. Her actions led, indirectly, to the loss of our business and way of life. Regardless of whether I hold a personal grudge against her or not (which I do not, by the way), the fact is that [*]’s actions have had consequences, and I do not believe that she should be completely sheltered from those consequences by some pretense that claiming to be a victim of a faux crime somehow provides her immunity from the fallout of her misdeeds. There are repercussions to what [*] has done and I do not feel that she should be entitled to shelter from her own sins while everyone else around her has suffered.
This girl sent her own mother to jail – and could have had her sent to prison. All because she did not have the moral fortitude to stand up to people who were making her do things that she knew were wrong. She destroyed lives, and I do not feel that she should be sheltered from the consequences of her actions.
However, none of this is the reason that I have continued to use [*]’s name in these posts. The real reason, and it has nothing to do with morality, is that as far as I was concerned, the cat was already out of the bag by the time the charges were filed against me and [*] became an “official” victim. I posted the original “Another Case of Gov Abuse” in December, 2003. I was not charged and arrested until February, 2004. At the time I wrote the original public plea for help, there was no need to shelter [*]’s identity.
The original allegation had not only been investigated and dismissed by that time, but [*] herself had recanted her false accusation. Though she had been abducted by CFS, she had maintained the truth when Kori Taylor insisted she reassert the lie. I had no reason to believe at that time that [*] would reassert the false allegation nor that it could be used to bring a charge against me in light of all the overwhelming evidence at that point in time exonerating me. I did not believe that my support structure could be so critically undermined or that [*] could be compelled to place her own mother in jeopardy of harm.
In a nutshell, I had absolutely no reason to believe that I would be faced again with [*]’s false accusation and therefore had no reason to withhold [*]’s name from my original posting in 2003. At that point, I had believed that my sole fight was against [*]’s kidnapping by state authorities and in the possibility that the local authorities might manufacture a new false charge to arrest me under. There had been no reason to consider withholding [*]’s identity as a victim of assault and so I did not. But as a consequence of openly discussing an allegation I had thought dead and buried, I openly spoke of [*] by name. And in doing so, any future posting that omitted her name would be pointless.
In other words, I did not name [*] to cause harm to her nor to redirect some kind of hostility her way. I am not attempting to villify her nor am I attempting to shift blame to her for anything that she is not accountable for. On the contrary – I believe I have gone out of my way to divert unnecessary hostility toward her by defending her on more than one occasion, including within this very post. I named [*] at a time when such issues as whether she was an alleged victim of a crime were not at issue, and as such there had been no need to consider omitting her name.
[*] is now eighteen years old, by the way, and reportedly in the US military. She is no longer a minor and is no longer under the undue influence of state agents, at least she should not be. As a legal adult, [*] could now step forward and tell the truth, tell her side of the story, tell about how her and her sister were kidnapped and how she was coerced into making false statements under the fear of never being returned home. She could take a major step in righting the wrongs that she was forced to commit. But personally, I have little hope in such an event occurring.
It would require an act of great courage and integrity to step forward at this juncture and admit to all she has done. Likely, she feels a great deal of inner pain and anxiety over what she has done. I know the authorities did their level best to convince her that I would hurt her if given the chance. This could not be further from the truth, of course, but these people are empowered by these kinds of lies, and I fear that their having over five years to imbed these fears in [*] has made hope of this kind of thing impossible. And I cannot seek her out in any way to ask if she would even consider this because I am compelled by court order to have no contact with her directly or indirectly.
In the end, all I can say is that [*] will never have anything to fear from me. Regardless of whether the truth ever comes out, regardless of whether I ever clear my name or not, I recognize that [*] has been made as much of a victim of the cruel machinations of corrupt officials as much as I have. Perhaps she was not the victim of a sexual assault, but being torn from your family and be made responsible for all that has happened must have a profound impact upon her. My heart goes out to all that she has suffered through the years, just so she could be used as a weapon against me. But none of this makes [*] a target of my indemnity. She was used as a tool, as a means to an end that was not her own. And I cannot bring myself to hold any anger toward her for that…
At any rate, I hope this post answers any underlying concerns about my using [*]’s name so publicly. As always, I welcome any comments…
Ciao for now…
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
First, I want to point out that, had this accusation been true, had I actually committed a crime against [*], there would certainly be a privacy issue to consider. Had [*] been actually molested, raped or otherwise assaulted, it could be considered unfair to publicize her identity, regardless of her age, and subject her to further emotional duress. Had there not been the underlying elements behind her charge, had the initial investigation had stayed closed, or she had not so blatantly contradicted herself between versions of her stories, it might never have been necessary to even discuss this issue. Any of these scenarios could have provided [*] the privacy that some might suggest she would thereby entitled to.
However, this is not the case. [*] was not molested or otherwise assaulted by me and the only consistency in her story has been its inconsistency. The local authorities exceeded their authority and used [*] as a weapon against me and in so doing made her a primary element to discussion of their improprieties. And though this position is admittedly my own, and these same officials have manipulated the legal arena to convict me of an offense that makes the allegation legally true and the circumstances legally irrelevant, none of this changes the true facts. I have maintained now for over five years, in spite of being deprived of my liberty and freedom as consequence, that I did not do what [*] accused me of and, simply put, the actual facts support my position. That the Kalispell authorities have succeeded in keeping these factual elements out of court in order to railroad me into a false conviction is what is genuinely irrelevant. No matter how much these corrupt officials like to play at being gods, the truth is they cannot change reality. They can certainly control the perception of reality, but they cannot change the actual events as the really happened.
I have said upon many occasions throughout this ongoing oration that I do not hold [*] entirely accountable for what has happened. I recognize that she had been placed under extreme duress and that others had exerted undue influence over her to gain their desired goals. That [*] was easily manipulated is inconsequential to the larger scheme of things. That she has had a history of lies and deceptions is not at issue either. These are just the means by which those truly to blame exerted their control over her, not the underlying cause of her actions.
I raised [*] for over two years as my own daughter. To this day, I still have a special place in my heart for the young woman that I took under my wing, just as I hold a special place for her sister, [*], as well. I am deeply hurt by her betrayal and disappointed that she could be manipulated in this way against me, since I had thought she had returned my affections, but the truth is she is her own person, and she made her own decisions. I do not agree with them, and I have been hurt far worse than a simple betrayal of confidence alone could be responsible for, but I know the ideas were not hers alone – there were others pulling her strings. But it does not make the pain of that betrayal any less.
All this being said, [*] has made some serious mistakes, and in making those mistakes, regardless of whether she acted alone or at the direction of others, she has nevertheless caused great harm to others. And not just to me – to her mother, her sister, my son, John, and to our mutual friends and families. Her actions led, indirectly, to the loss of our business and way of life. Regardless of whether I hold a personal grudge against her or not (which I do not, by the way), the fact is that [*]’s actions have had consequences, and I do not believe that she should be completely sheltered from those consequences by some pretense that claiming to be a victim of a faux crime somehow provides her immunity from the fallout of her misdeeds. There are repercussions to what [*] has done and I do not feel that she should be entitled to shelter from her own sins while everyone else around her has suffered.
This girl sent her own mother to jail – and could have had her sent to prison. All because she did not have the moral fortitude to stand up to people who were making her do things that she knew were wrong. She destroyed lives, and I do not feel that she should be sheltered from the consequences of her actions.
However, none of this is the reason that I have continued to use [*]’s name in these posts. The real reason, and it has nothing to do with morality, is that as far as I was concerned, the cat was already out of the bag by the time the charges were filed against me and [*] became an “official” victim. I posted the original “Another Case of Gov Abuse” in December, 2003. I was not charged and arrested until February, 2004. At the time I wrote the original public plea for help, there was no need to shelter [*]’s identity.
The original allegation had not only been investigated and dismissed by that time, but [*] herself had recanted her false accusation. Though she had been abducted by CFS, she had maintained the truth when Kori Taylor insisted she reassert the lie. I had no reason to believe at that time that [*] would reassert the false allegation nor that it could be used to bring a charge against me in light of all the overwhelming evidence at that point in time exonerating me. I did not believe that my support structure could be so critically undermined or that [*] could be compelled to place her own mother in jeopardy of harm.
In a nutshell, I had absolutely no reason to believe that I would be faced again with [*]’s false accusation and therefore had no reason to withhold [*]’s name from my original posting in 2003. At that point, I had believed that my sole fight was against [*]’s kidnapping by state authorities and in the possibility that the local authorities might manufacture a new false charge to arrest me under. There had been no reason to consider withholding [*]’s identity as a victim of assault and so I did not. But as a consequence of openly discussing an allegation I had thought dead and buried, I openly spoke of [*] by name. And in doing so, any future posting that omitted her name would be pointless.
In other words, I did not name [*] to cause harm to her nor to redirect some kind of hostility her way. I am not attempting to villify her nor am I attempting to shift blame to her for anything that she is not accountable for. On the contrary – I believe I have gone out of my way to divert unnecessary hostility toward her by defending her on more than one occasion, including within this very post. I named [*] at a time when such issues as whether she was an alleged victim of a crime were not at issue, and as such there had been no need to consider omitting her name.
[*] is now eighteen years old, by the way, and reportedly in the US military. She is no longer a minor and is no longer under the undue influence of state agents, at least she should not be. As a legal adult, [*] could now step forward and tell the truth, tell her side of the story, tell about how her and her sister were kidnapped and how she was coerced into making false statements under the fear of never being returned home. She could take a major step in righting the wrongs that she was forced to commit. But personally, I have little hope in such an event occurring.
It would require an act of great courage and integrity to step forward at this juncture and admit to all she has done. Likely, she feels a great deal of inner pain and anxiety over what she has done. I know the authorities did their level best to convince her that I would hurt her if given the chance. This could not be further from the truth, of course, but these people are empowered by these kinds of lies, and I fear that their having over five years to imbed these fears in [*] has made hope of this kind of thing impossible. And I cannot seek her out in any way to ask if she would even consider this because I am compelled by court order to have no contact with her directly or indirectly.
In the end, all I can say is that [*] will never have anything to fear from me. Regardless of whether the truth ever comes out, regardless of whether I ever clear my name or not, I recognize that [*] has been made as much of a victim of the cruel machinations of corrupt officials as much as I have. Perhaps she was not the victim of a sexual assault, but being torn from your family and be made responsible for all that has happened must have a profound impact upon her. My heart goes out to all that she has suffered through the years, just so she could be used as a weapon against me. But none of this makes [*] a target of my indemnity. She was used as a tool, as a means to an end that was not her own. And I cannot bring myself to hold any anger toward her for that…
At any rate, I hope this post answers any underlying concerns about my using [*]’s name so publicly. As always, I welcome any comments…
Ciao for now…
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
After the Arrest, Part I
As I detailed up through my previous post, I had been set up pretty handily by authorities in Kalispell, Montana, who did not want to answer for their official misconduct. What started as a malicious scheme by my girlfriend’s parents, who had a history of creating such false allegations over twenty years, ended up falling into the jurisdiction of a corrupt government authority where their official misconduct led to an ongoing state of conflict between themselves and me. The problem was that Montana had been corrupt at every level for so long without being challenged that the officials felt themselves immune from repercussions no matter how far outside the law their conduct went. Of course, I had no idea of what I had been up against when I set out to challenge the misconduct directed against me during the police department’s initial investigation of the case, but I came to realize that corruption was not isolated to just Kalispell, Flathead County or even to the State of Montana – it included, perhaps to a more isolated degree, to the criminal justice system as a whole, even to that operating within Goldendale, Washington.
I have to say at the outset of this that I cannot say how much of this is typical of authority in Goldendale or how much was just some level of cooperation with Montana as some kind of perverted professional courtesy. All I know is what happened to me and that was only during a very brief period that did not provide me the opportunity to compare my treatment to that of anyone else…
Immediately upon arrest, I began making calls to my business in Kalispell. Of course, these calls were recorded, and I have every reason to believe that the contents of those calls were relayed to the Kalispell authorities, at the very least to the Flathead County Attorney’s Office. I say this because of two things:
First, as I noted in previous posts, [*] (now [*]) was arrested exactly one week to the day after me on February 27, 2004. The information charging [*] was not filed at the same time as mine, nor was the warrant for her arrest issued then either. Yet something within the week following my arrest warranted the Kalispell authorities to include her within their net. Since the allegation against [*] stemmed from the same accusation of [*]’s on February 4, 2003, any genuine prosecution upon the same charge would have been filed at the same time as my own. But it was not. Clearly, it had been an afterthought to go after [*]. The question then would be why?
The answer I believe stems from the content of my recorded conversations from the Goldendale jail. Specifically, I was requesting for [*] to send me copies of files I had left in her care at our mutual business upon the possibility that Kalispell would attempt to take some illicit action against me. Included in those records were documents proving that the original investigations with the Kalispell Police Department (KPD) and Child and Family Service (CFS) had been closed in September, including records supporting that the two agencies had communicated these details between them. I had also requested that [*] request [*]’s medical records to prove the inconsistencies between her various stories, of Edith Paxman’s observations about [*]’s untruthfulness, and most importantly the records of Dr. Barney Houser that would reflect that Kori Taylor of CFS subjected [*] to an overly aggressive interview when [*] refused to say reassert the false allegation, an interview that had left [*] in tears. Further, I had been discussing with [*] about liquidating assets to aid me in my legal battle.
It is my belief that upon learning of my intentions to obtain these records that would exonerate me, and in the potential of liquidating assets to retain a private attorney, that Kalispell officials took steps to bar my access to any resources I could draw upon, specifically by arresting [*] and putting her under threat of harm should she aid me in any way. So long as I remained incarcerated, I had no hope of accessing these things myself – and if [*] could be made to not supply them, then these authorities would have complete control over what did and did not come to light in my defense, and further had control over the attorney that I would be forced to work with.
Keep in mind, the original allegation against me was on July 9, 2003. I was not actually charged and arrested for this alleged offense until February 20, 2004, almost eight months later. The investigation had been closed and only re-opened to bar my access to the police records. When I had sought default judgment, the court clerk had tampered with the file to bar my rightful legal relief. And my subsequent arrest only occurred when it became clear that the local authorities were going to lose the ability to block my suit if I could successfully move the suit to federal court, a week from the deadline of the thirty day time limit I had set, in fact. If all of these things could be perpetuated to stop me, it is not too much of a stretch to recognize that when I could have conceivably obtained evidence that would have once again removed me from their control that they would once again exert their authority to block such an effort by any means.
Coming after [*] was a coup. Not only could they bar my access to records that could exonerate me while I was still in Washington (and consequently outside of their direct control), but it also deprived me any chance of possibly liquidating my assets to retain a private attorney. This was not part of their original plan, or it would have happened at the same time that they arrested me. Apparently, Kalispell authorities believed that I no longer had support in Kalispell, perhaps thinking I had fled to start a new life. Afterall, this was exactly what Kori Taylor had insisted of [*] – that she dissolve all contact with me and evict me from my home and business in Kalispell. When they learned that I actually did retain my interest in the Kalispell business and still had [*]’s support, they took action to sever that support more directly – by arresting [*] on yet another false charge. However, they were successful in intimidating her enough that she finally did what they had wanted from her all along – she completely cut me off from my assets and from any outside support.
As an aside, I would like to say that, though I hold little resentment toward [*], as I have commented on extensively in previous posts, I hold a great deal more toward [*]. [*] was kidnapped and placed under extreme demands with absolutely no way of knowing what was really going on. She did not know the law, did not know that what was being done was illegal, nor that she had any right to challenge what was being done to her. [*] was only a thirteen year old girl who was easily intimidated and undereducated about what the government could and could not do.
[*], on the other hand, did not have this excuse. [*] knew that what CFS had done was illegal. I had shown her the specific laws that CFS had violated. She also knew from her own personal life experiences what the proper procedures were for CFS to respond to allegations of abuse – she had been a foster mother herself years earlier! She knew what was being done was wrong but in the end, to save herself, she collaborated with those that she knew were acting illegally, knowing that in doing so she was committing an innocent man to ongoing imprisonment and abuse.
[*] (now [*]) sold - me - out. Period. And this is not something I can so readily forgive.
This is not to say that I do not in some way feel that [*] was a victim as well. She was put under threats and intimidations the same as [*] was – my fault in her lies in the fact that she, unlike [*], made an informed choice to betray me. And that is not something I can see to completely be okay with. And of course, [*] did more than turn her back on me with the authorities – she also cheated on me, but that’s something I will detail later.
The second reason I believe this was directly related to my phone calls to [*] was that immediately after [*] was arrested, within a couple of days, the Goldendale jail put a block in on my business' number. I could not call back to Kalispell to work on obtaining the records I needed nor maintain my support base.
At the time this happened, I had no reason that the block had been created on Goldendale's side - I thought that there must have been some kind of disruption on Kalispell's side, such as the bill not getting paid or too much toll charges on the phone (all calls from jail are collect and phone companies tend cap toll charges to a line after a certain amount). It was only toward the end when the block was suddenly removed two days before I left Goldendale, as they prepared for my leave, that I realized the block had been put in by Goldendale jail officials.
The only reason for such a block would have been to bar my access to [*] and my support structure in Kalispell. And since that access had absolutely no impact upon the proceedings in Goldendale, I can only presume that the block was placed at the request of the Kalispell authorities...
At any rate, I am running out of time on this post, so I am going to end this thread for today. Most of it was actually written before I started today, but I spent a lot of time re-editing the posts I wrote yesterday, so I did not have time to type much more on this post. I will continue this thread hopefully tomorrow.
Ciao for now!
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
I have to say at the outset of this that I cannot say how much of this is typical of authority in Goldendale or how much was just some level of cooperation with Montana as some kind of perverted professional courtesy. All I know is what happened to me and that was only during a very brief period that did not provide me the opportunity to compare my treatment to that of anyone else…
Immediately upon arrest, I began making calls to my business in Kalispell. Of course, these calls were recorded, and I have every reason to believe that the contents of those calls were relayed to the Kalispell authorities, at the very least to the Flathead County Attorney’s Office. I say this because of two things:
First, as I noted in previous posts, [*] (now [*]) was arrested exactly one week to the day after me on February 27, 2004. The information charging [*] was not filed at the same time as mine, nor was the warrant for her arrest issued then either. Yet something within the week following my arrest warranted the Kalispell authorities to include her within their net. Since the allegation against [*] stemmed from the same accusation of [*]’s on February 4, 2003, any genuine prosecution upon the same charge would have been filed at the same time as my own. But it was not. Clearly, it had been an afterthought to go after [*]. The question then would be why?
The answer I believe stems from the content of my recorded conversations from the Goldendale jail. Specifically, I was requesting for [*] to send me copies of files I had left in her care at our mutual business upon the possibility that Kalispell would attempt to take some illicit action against me. Included in those records were documents proving that the original investigations with the Kalispell Police Department (KPD) and Child and Family Service (CFS) had been closed in September, including records supporting that the two agencies had communicated these details between them. I had also requested that [*] request [*]’s medical records to prove the inconsistencies between her various stories, of Edith Paxman’s observations about [*]’s untruthfulness, and most importantly the records of Dr. Barney Houser that would reflect that Kori Taylor of CFS subjected [*] to an overly aggressive interview when [*] refused to say reassert the false allegation, an interview that had left [*] in tears. Further, I had been discussing with [*] about liquidating assets to aid me in my legal battle.
It is my belief that upon learning of my intentions to obtain these records that would exonerate me, and in the potential of liquidating assets to retain a private attorney, that Kalispell officials took steps to bar my access to any resources I could draw upon, specifically by arresting [*] and putting her under threat of harm should she aid me in any way. So long as I remained incarcerated, I had no hope of accessing these things myself – and if [*] could be made to not supply them, then these authorities would have complete control over what did and did not come to light in my defense, and further had control over the attorney that I would be forced to work with.
Keep in mind, the original allegation against me was on July 9, 2003. I was not actually charged and arrested for this alleged offense until February 20, 2004, almost eight months later. The investigation had been closed and only re-opened to bar my access to the police records. When I had sought default judgment, the court clerk had tampered with the file to bar my rightful legal relief. And my subsequent arrest only occurred when it became clear that the local authorities were going to lose the ability to block my suit if I could successfully move the suit to federal court, a week from the deadline of the thirty day time limit I had set, in fact. If all of these things could be perpetuated to stop me, it is not too much of a stretch to recognize that when I could have conceivably obtained evidence that would have once again removed me from their control that they would once again exert their authority to block such an effort by any means.
Coming after [*] was a coup. Not only could they bar my access to records that could exonerate me while I was still in Washington (and consequently outside of their direct control), but it also deprived me any chance of possibly liquidating my assets to retain a private attorney. This was not part of their original plan, or it would have happened at the same time that they arrested me. Apparently, Kalispell authorities believed that I no longer had support in Kalispell, perhaps thinking I had fled to start a new life. Afterall, this was exactly what Kori Taylor had insisted of [*] – that she dissolve all contact with me and evict me from my home and business in Kalispell. When they learned that I actually did retain my interest in the Kalispell business and still had [*]’s support, they took action to sever that support more directly – by arresting [*] on yet another false charge. However, they were successful in intimidating her enough that she finally did what they had wanted from her all along – she completely cut me off from my assets and from any outside support.
As an aside, I would like to say that, though I hold little resentment toward [*], as I have commented on extensively in previous posts, I hold a great deal more toward [*]. [*] was kidnapped and placed under extreme demands with absolutely no way of knowing what was really going on. She did not know the law, did not know that what was being done was illegal, nor that she had any right to challenge what was being done to her. [*] was only a thirteen year old girl who was easily intimidated and undereducated about what the government could and could not do.
[*], on the other hand, did not have this excuse. [*] knew that what CFS had done was illegal. I had shown her the specific laws that CFS had violated. She also knew from her own personal life experiences what the proper procedures were for CFS to respond to allegations of abuse – she had been a foster mother herself years earlier! She knew what was being done was wrong but in the end, to save herself, she collaborated with those that she knew were acting illegally, knowing that in doing so she was committing an innocent man to ongoing imprisonment and abuse.
[*] (now [*]) sold - me - out. Period. And this is not something I can so readily forgive.
This is not to say that I do not in some way feel that [*] was a victim as well. She was put under threats and intimidations the same as [*] was – my fault in her lies in the fact that she, unlike [*], made an informed choice to betray me. And that is not something I can see to completely be okay with. And of course, [*] did more than turn her back on me with the authorities – she also cheated on me, but that’s something I will detail later.
The second reason I believe this was directly related to my phone calls to [*] was that immediately after [*] was arrested, within a couple of days, the Goldendale jail put a block in on my business' number. I could not call back to Kalispell to work on obtaining the records I needed nor maintain my support base.
At the time this happened, I had no reason that the block had been created on Goldendale's side - I thought that there must have been some kind of disruption on Kalispell's side, such as the bill not getting paid or too much toll charges on the phone (all calls from jail are collect and phone companies tend cap toll charges to a line after a certain amount). It was only toward the end when the block was suddenly removed two days before I left Goldendale, as they prepared for my leave, that I realized the block had been put in by Goldendale jail officials.
The only reason for such a block would have been to bar my access to [*] and my support structure in Kalispell. And since that access had absolutely no impact upon the proceedings in Goldendale, I can only presume that the block was placed at the request of the Kalispell authorities...
At any rate, I am running out of time on this post, so I am going to end this thread for today. Most of it was actually written before I started today, but I spent a lot of time re-editing the posts I wrote yesterday, so I did not have time to type much more on this post. I will continue this thread hopefully tomorrow.
Ciao for now!
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
What Came After ACGA - Flashback, Part II
This post is actually being posted out of sequence. Yesterday, a friend let me use her computer to compose several entries to help me catch up on some of these issues. As a result, I am formatting four different posts for today, and I inadvertently posted the wrong post first. This entry should have preceded the other one that was posted last. So please consider this when reading this and that post's contents.
---
As I detailed in my last post, the conflict that led to my actually filing a legal action against the City of Kalispell was exacerbated by a face to face confrontation with then-Chief of Police Frank Garner. When I went to the Kalispell Police Department (KPD) to request the production of records from their investigation that had been closed, Garner acted to obstruct the production of those records by re-opening the investigation, and later placed a call to Child and Family Services (CFS) to have them re-open their own investigation. Prior to this, I had verified through several sources that all official investigations had been closed in September, 2003 (September 4 for KPD and September 15 for CFS). And all of this happened on October 28. 2003).
Following the confrontation with Garner, I consulted with a freedoms of information attorney out of Helena, MT. I confirmed with him that Montana law does not provide for a law enforcement agency to withhold records, even with an active, ongoing investigation. Therefore, Garner’s actions to obstruct the production of records by re-opening KPD’s investigation and having CFS re-open their own was yet another act of official misconduct. The attorney I consulted recommended that I file a petition with the local justice court to compel the production of the police records.
Pursuant to such advice, I prepared a petition for production of records and attempted to file it with the Kalispell Justice Court. However, that court refused to accept jurisdiction and referred me to the district court. It was at this point that I filed the petition with the Eleventh Judicial District of Montana, In and For Flathead County. This occurred on October 30, 2003.
Upon filing of the petition, which I filed in person, the court clerk issued to me three summons, one for each named defendant (City of Kalispell, Kalispell Police Department and Kalispell City Attorney’s Office). I made a copy of one of the summons for my records, then personally stapled an original summons to each copy of the petition to be served. [*] (now [*]) performed service that same day upon all three. Thereafter, I personally filed the proof of service signed by [*] with the court clerk.
The filing of this petition initiated a wave of harassing letters from Richard Hickle with the City Attorney’s Office. It was also around this time that I learned that KPD officiers were contacting clientele of my business, spreading the malicious rumor that I was a child molester (it turned out that this had been going on since the initial investigation had begun in July, 2003, but I did not learn of it until early November, 2003). In an effort to bypass these harassments, I began placing calls to the City Manager (Chris Kukolski) and the Mayor (Pam Kennedy(?)). However, in spite of my best efforts to try to halt the harassments and defamations, they continued up until the point where I was forced to file an actual complaint on November 18, 2003.
When I prepared and filed this complaint, I did so again in person. I did so with the intent of having new summonses issued by the court clerk since I had added several new defendants to the action (Pam Kennedy, Chris Kulkolski, Frank Garner, Myron Wilson, Doug Overman and Richard Hickle). However, the court clerk refused to issue new summonses for the new defendants. I argued back and forth with the clerk for several minutes on this point – the clerk I spoke with insisted that since a summons had already been issued in the cause, that there was no need for a new summons. I knew better – I knew that adding new defendants compelled the new defendants to be served with summonses, too. Yet the clerk refused to budge on this issue, and I was forced to leave without the issuance of new summonses.
Keep in mind, at this juncture, I was still unaware of the full breadth of the corruption in Montana or how far reaching the influence was to block my claim against the City. I started this fight believing that there had been a rogue police officer (Myron Wilson), and then later believed that his department was protecting him when I pursued claims against his misconduct. Likewise, when other branches of the City began to run interference and to extend harassments my direction, again I identified it as an extension of the City covering up for the potential liability they would inherit due to the official misconduct of its police department. At this point, I was not aware that the corruption and collaborative efforts to cover it up would also come to incorporate both the county and State governments. In a nutshell, I was truly naïve to the level of corruption that existed here in Montana, and ultimately I lost my entire life to this struggle because I simply did not know that there simply was no relief available to a person standing alone against it.
Incidentally, I initially had a volunteer of my youth program, Jeff Berna, attempt to serve KPD and its officers on the night of November 18, 2003, but Frank Garner once again obstructed the legal process. When Mr. Berna went to the police department to perform service, Garner pulled Mr. Berna into his office and threatened to have him arrested if he actually tried to serve him or anyone in his department! The gist of the threat was the implication that Mr. Berna had no lawful authority to serve anyone unless he was registered with the State as a process server. Further, Garner went on to tell Mr. Berna that he did not want to “fall” because of “Glick’s little games”.
The applicable law, by the way, stated that anyone serving performing more than ten services of process in a calendar year had to register as a process server with the State; Mr. Berna had acted as a process server in two other instances, and his service of the KPD, Frank Garner, Myron Wilson and Doug Overmen would have brought his total services to seven. Mr. Berna was not in fact violating any law – Mr. Garner simply used his position of authority to threaten and intimidate Mr. Berna to avoid being served with legal process!
Needless to say, Mr. Berna took Garner at his word and would not perform the legal service. Mr. Berna told me directly that he could not afford to get arrested and that if I wanted to have KPD served, I would have to find someone else. Garner subsequently placed a call to me where he tried to threaten me as well, but while on the phone I referenced the applicable law online and proved that Garner was lying about his authority. However, Garner had succeeded in blocking service for the day since I did not readily have someone else to perform service that day.
The next day, I did find someone else to attempt service again upon the police department and the other city defendants, a client of my business, Ian Christiansen. He took up the service as a challenge and went to perform service upon the city defendants the next day, November 19, 2003. What Mr. Christiansen told me later was that he attempted to serve the KPD clerk, but that service was declined – the clerk told Mr. Christiansen that Garner had specifically instructed her not to accept service from Ron Glick. He thereafter went to perform service upon the City Attorney’s office and Richard Hickle, but the clerk there told him he would have to serve Hickle directly and he was not in the office. Mr. Christiansen then served the city itself by serving the City Recorder and tried to serve the mayor, but she was not in her office. Next, Mr. Christiansen went to Chris Kukolski’s office, and served him. Kukolski accepted the service without complaint and, according to Mr. Christiansen, was very polite about the whole issue.
However, right after he was served, Kulkolski received a phone call while Mr. Christiansen was still in the office. As reported to me, Kukolski responded, “Yes, he is here”, followed by, “Yes, I accepted service”. The rest of the conversation was apparently little more than affirmative and negative responses, and ended by, “I’ll come over and talk to you”. Kukolski informed Mr. Christiansen that the call had been from Garner, who it seems had been calling the named defendants and trying to encourage that no one accepted service. Kukolski then told Mr. Christiansen that he was going to meet with Garner and asked him to wait out in the front lobby.
Mr. Christiansen reported to me that he spent roughly twenty minutes in the lobby as Kukolski disappeared into the police department. As he sat there, Mr. Christiansen reported that Garner (who he did not immediately know at the time) made several trips past him and down the hall to the city attorney’s office, apparently glaring at Mr. Christiansen at each pass.
Finally, Kukolski re-emerged from the police department with Garner at his side, and Garner, in what I am told was a very resentful tone, agreed to accept service for himself and on behalf of the police department. He also agreed to have the other defendants who had not yet been served to be available that evening for service, I believe around 8pm, if I recall correctly. When Mr. Christiansen appeared at the scheduled time, defendants Pam Kennedy, Myron Wilson and Doug Overman were there to accept service – only the City Attorney defendants remained to be served. But Mr. Christiansen would do no more, which required me to find yet another person to complete service on the City Attorney the next day, James Valentino. As I understand it, Valentino had no trouble making that service.
Upon completion of the services, I again personally filed the proof of services with the court clerk on November 20, 2003.
As an aside, these events happened over five years ago. My memory on some of the details may be slightly askew for this reason, but I have attempted to detail the events as accurately as I recall them. Certain things, especially the actions that I personally took, are indelibly imprinted in my mind. However, my memory may not be as clear on issues that were told to me by others. If there is a minor detail or two out of place, the rest of the details should not be discounted. The essential elements though – that three summonses were issued directly to me by the clerk of court, that service was performed upon all parties, with summons in service of the petition, and that I personally filed all three proofs of service with the court is absolutely a fact. There is no discrepancy in these details – it is only a possibility that issues and sequences of events as reported to me by others may not be entirely accurate. On this issue, I simply have no control. However, I do believe that what I was told is accurate, or I would not be detailing it herein.
This wraps up this flashback. My next post will detail the events that began in January, 2004, and the reason for this flashback will become more relevant.
Ciao for now!
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
---
As I detailed in my last post, the conflict that led to my actually filing a legal action against the City of Kalispell was exacerbated by a face to face confrontation with then-Chief of Police Frank Garner. When I went to the Kalispell Police Department (KPD) to request the production of records from their investigation that had been closed, Garner acted to obstruct the production of those records by re-opening the investigation, and later placed a call to Child and Family Services (CFS) to have them re-open their own investigation. Prior to this, I had verified through several sources that all official investigations had been closed in September, 2003 (September 4 for KPD and September 15 for CFS). And all of this happened on October 28. 2003).
Following the confrontation with Garner, I consulted with a freedoms of information attorney out of Helena, MT. I confirmed with him that Montana law does not provide for a law enforcement agency to withhold records, even with an active, ongoing investigation. Therefore, Garner’s actions to obstruct the production of records by re-opening KPD’s investigation and having CFS re-open their own was yet another act of official misconduct. The attorney I consulted recommended that I file a petition with the local justice court to compel the production of the police records.
Pursuant to such advice, I prepared a petition for production of records and attempted to file it with the Kalispell Justice Court. However, that court refused to accept jurisdiction and referred me to the district court. It was at this point that I filed the petition with the Eleventh Judicial District of Montana, In and For Flathead County. This occurred on October 30, 2003.
Upon filing of the petition, which I filed in person, the court clerk issued to me three summons, one for each named defendant (City of Kalispell, Kalispell Police Department and Kalispell City Attorney’s Office). I made a copy of one of the summons for my records, then personally stapled an original summons to each copy of the petition to be served. [*] (now [*]) performed service that same day upon all three. Thereafter, I personally filed the proof of service signed by [*] with the court clerk.
The filing of this petition initiated a wave of harassing letters from Richard Hickle with the City Attorney’s Office. It was also around this time that I learned that KPD officiers were contacting clientele of my business, spreading the malicious rumor that I was a child molester (it turned out that this had been going on since the initial investigation had begun in July, 2003, but I did not learn of it until early November, 2003). In an effort to bypass these harassments, I began placing calls to the City Manager (Chris Kukolski) and the Mayor (Pam Kennedy(?)). However, in spite of my best efforts to try to halt the harassments and defamations, they continued up until the point where I was forced to file an actual complaint on November 18, 2003.
When I prepared and filed this complaint, I did so again in person. I did so with the intent of having new summonses issued by the court clerk since I had added several new defendants to the action (Pam Kennedy, Chris Kulkolski, Frank Garner, Myron Wilson, Doug Overman and Richard Hickle). However, the court clerk refused to issue new summonses for the new defendants. I argued back and forth with the clerk for several minutes on this point – the clerk I spoke with insisted that since a summons had already been issued in the cause, that there was no need for a new summons. I knew better – I knew that adding new defendants compelled the new defendants to be served with summonses, too. Yet the clerk refused to budge on this issue, and I was forced to leave without the issuance of new summonses.
Keep in mind, at this juncture, I was still unaware of the full breadth of the corruption in Montana or how far reaching the influence was to block my claim against the City. I started this fight believing that there had been a rogue police officer (Myron Wilson), and then later believed that his department was protecting him when I pursued claims against his misconduct. Likewise, when other branches of the City began to run interference and to extend harassments my direction, again I identified it as an extension of the City covering up for the potential liability they would inherit due to the official misconduct of its police department. At this point, I was not aware that the corruption and collaborative efforts to cover it up would also come to incorporate both the county and State governments. In a nutshell, I was truly naïve to the level of corruption that existed here in Montana, and ultimately I lost my entire life to this struggle because I simply did not know that there simply was no relief available to a person standing alone against it.
Incidentally, I initially had a volunteer of my youth program, Jeff Berna, attempt to serve KPD and its officers on the night of November 18, 2003, but Frank Garner once again obstructed the legal process. When Mr. Berna went to the police department to perform service, Garner pulled Mr. Berna into his office and threatened to have him arrested if he actually tried to serve him or anyone in his department! The gist of the threat was the implication that Mr. Berna had no lawful authority to serve anyone unless he was registered with the State as a process server. Further, Garner went on to tell Mr. Berna that he did not want to “fall” because of “Glick’s little games”.
The applicable law, by the way, stated that anyone serving performing more than ten services of process in a calendar year had to register as a process server with the State; Mr. Berna had acted as a process server in two other instances, and his service of the KPD, Frank Garner, Myron Wilson and Doug Overmen would have brought his total services to seven. Mr. Berna was not in fact violating any law – Mr. Garner simply used his position of authority to threaten and intimidate Mr. Berna to avoid being served with legal process!
Needless to say, Mr. Berna took Garner at his word and would not perform the legal service. Mr. Berna told me directly that he could not afford to get arrested and that if I wanted to have KPD served, I would have to find someone else. Garner subsequently placed a call to me where he tried to threaten me as well, but while on the phone I referenced the applicable law online and proved that Garner was lying about his authority. However, Garner had succeeded in blocking service for the day since I did not readily have someone else to perform service that day.
The next day, I did find someone else to attempt service again upon the police department and the other city defendants, a client of my business, Ian Christiansen. He took up the service as a challenge and went to perform service upon the city defendants the next day, November 19, 2003. What Mr. Christiansen told me later was that he attempted to serve the KPD clerk, but that service was declined – the clerk told Mr. Christiansen that Garner had specifically instructed her not to accept service from Ron Glick. He thereafter went to perform service upon the City Attorney’s office and Richard Hickle, but the clerk there told him he would have to serve Hickle directly and he was not in the office. Mr. Christiansen then served the city itself by serving the City Recorder and tried to serve the mayor, but she was not in her office. Next, Mr. Christiansen went to Chris Kukolski’s office, and served him. Kukolski accepted the service without complaint and, according to Mr. Christiansen, was very polite about the whole issue.
However, right after he was served, Kulkolski received a phone call while Mr. Christiansen was still in the office. As reported to me, Kukolski responded, “Yes, he is here”, followed by, “Yes, I accepted service”. The rest of the conversation was apparently little more than affirmative and negative responses, and ended by, “I’ll come over and talk to you”. Kukolski informed Mr. Christiansen that the call had been from Garner, who it seems had been calling the named defendants and trying to encourage that no one accepted service. Kukolski then told Mr. Christiansen that he was going to meet with Garner and asked him to wait out in the front lobby.
Mr. Christiansen reported to me that he spent roughly twenty minutes in the lobby as Kukolski disappeared into the police department. As he sat there, Mr. Christiansen reported that Garner (who he did not immediately know at the time) made several trips past him and down the hall to the city attorney’s office, apparently glaring at Mr. Christiansen at each pass.
Finally, Kukolski re-emerged from the police department with Garner at his side, and Garner, in what I am told was a very resentful tone, agreed to accept service for himself and on behalf of the police department. He also agreed to have the other defendants who had not yet been served to be available that evening for service, I believe around 8pm, if I recall correctly. When Mr. Christiansen appeared at the scheduled time, defendants Pam Kennedy, Myron Wilson and Doug Overman were there to accept service – only the City Attorney defendants remained to be served. But Mr. Christiansen would do no more, which required me to find yet another person to complete service on the City Attorney the next day, James Valentino. As I understand it, Valentino had no trouble making that service.
Upon completion of the services, I again personally filed the proof of services with the court clerk on November 20, 2003.
As an aside, these events happened over five years ago. My memory on some of the details may be slightly askew for this reason, but I have attempted to detail the events as accurately as I recall them. Certain things, especially the actions that I personally took, are indelibly imprinted in my mind. However, my memory may not be as clear on issues that were told to me by others. If there is a minor detail or two out of place, the rest of the details should not be discounted. The essential elements though – that three summonses were issued directly to me by the clerk of court, that service was performed upon all parties, with summons in service of the petition, and that I personally filed all three proofs of service with the court is absolutely a fact. There is no discrepancy in these details – it is only a possibility that issues and sequences of events as reported to me by others may not be entirely accurate. On this issue, I simply have no control. However, I do believe that what I was told is accurate, or I would not be detailing it herein.
This wraps up this flashback. My next post will detail the events that began in January, 2004, and the reason for this flashback will become more relevant.
Ciao for now!
Ron Glick
Political Prisoner since 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)