Filed February 10, 2006
Eugene Forte, In Propria Persona






Case No. M72599




Plaintiff has been desperately trying to have neutral public officials address the evidence of gross violations of a citizen’s right to seek redress of a grievance against public officials. The documents attached as exhibits are only the surface of much more detailed and documented evidence of corruption by public officials. The FBI states at its website (1) “public corruption is one of the FBI’s top investigative priorities—-behind only terrorism, espionage and cyber crimes. Why? Because our democracy and national security depend on a “healthy, efficient, and ethical government.” No truer words have yet been spoken. The reality, though, is that the government is covering up gross public official corruption with the excuse that if the public knew, it would cause anarchy. Why does Monterey County public officials think they are above the law and try to portend that the allegations of plaintiff are so irrational? As the article shows, Public Corruption is big business all across our country (2).

The FBI (3) themselves have been far more than negligent in addressing the information, that has been patiently provided, with nothing but cursive non responses in return.

Senator Jeff Denham has been well informed (4) of this matter and has done more than nothing. When a public official ignores his duty, it gives the appearance that there is nothing wrong to take a look at. Plaintiff asserts Senator Denham’s lack of action is assuredly due to the fact that it would cost him financial support from his brethren Monterey Good Ol’ Boy politicians in his quest for re-election. Senator Joe Dunn, (5) Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also stands by with his hands in his pockets, with his impressive attorney board members, when they are provided substantial evidence of potential crimes by public officials.

At the same time, Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Joe Dunn are busily enacting new authority (6) to prosecute non-attorneys who practice law. Perhaps they should take a closer look into the Monterey Public Defenders Office’s practice of hiring attorneys without checking to see if they had a license as they did Margaret O’Shea? Plaintiff is always sure to emphasize that he is not an attorney and cannot provide any legal advice to the hundreds of people he hears from asking what to do about what they believe to be the corruption in the courts.

Monterey County is recognized as a key component in the war on terrorism. Its populace of military related people has had flashed in their faces Monterey Herald newspaper articles such as “Monterey County Judiciary Under Fire. (7)” Shortly before that, they were treated to a another article of “Commissioner Rutledge Resigns”, with District Attorney, Dean Flippo, saying that the most damaging thing was the public losing trust in the judiciary. (8) Recently, Ms. Margaret O’Shea (9) was found guilty of a felony for practicing law without a license while employed by the Monterey County Public Defenders’ office. Monterey citizens question (10) why the public official that hired her, who did not check to see if she had a law license, has not been held accountable. The news media and public officials are silent.

The corker to this is the article entitled “In The Herald’s View (11)” which is a feeble transparent attempt to cover the crimes of the public officials by giving praise to DA Flippo, “the proverbial fox guarding the chicken coop. (12)”




Plaintiff continues to feel the frustration and stress from arguing the obvious. The Monterey Superior Court and many of its members are involved in the obstruction of justice. There are ample facts to prove it. The terse Press Release of November 17th, 2005 (13) by the Monterey Superior Court is an insult to anyone that is familiar with the plights of plaintiff in seeking fairness.

The Press Release states, “The Court has become aware of the allegations in the declaration (Powser) filed on November 16th, 2005. There are mandated procedures that the Court is required to follow in these situations. These specific procedures are designed to ensure fairness and proper protection for the public, the Court and all parties. The Court has initiated the required process and cannot provide any further information at this particular time.”

The public was not made aware that the procedures, that were not disclosed, were to allow AG Lockyer, attorney for defendant Judge Robert O’Farrell, to have an unnoticed motion heard with in three (3) days in order to strike and seal the declaration of Ms. Powser. The declaration was already a public document attached to the request by the Commission For Judicial Performance (CJP) for new special masters to be assigned (14) in the case of Judge Diana Hall due to the removal of Judge Michael Fields for potential misconduct. Judge Fields is at the center of trial fixing and motion sabotaging with Judge O’Farrell, ex-Judge Silver, Judge Duncan and Mr. Larry Lichtenegger.

The court then said, “Okay, that’s taken care of, next case?” Not one further thought or consideration is given for the protection of the interests of plaintiff so that he is ensured fairness and proper protection from the public corruption. Is it the intention of the court to infer that they were protecting the public from plaintiff? Are the public officials under fire (15) by a vexatious plaintiff (16)? Does the local Monterey County officials need to contact the Attorney General’s Office anti-terrorism squad? Public officials in Ozaukee County did because they said they felt “terrorized” by a man named Steven Magritz. (17)



Most Americans would have never heard of the term “Paper Terrorist” had it not been for 9-1-1, and Wisconsin Attorney General James Doyle’s quest for the governorship. It was James

Doyle’s spin machine saying that they were sending out a special anti-terrorist task force to qualm an uprising of some wacky, disabled 57-year old sovereign citizen tax protester that was allegedly terrorizing Ozaukee County public officials. Plaintiff learned of the “Paper Terrorist Story” when contacted by radio listeners in Wisconsin. (18) After 9-1-1, AG James Doyle was running television commercials regarding how he was tough on terrorism. News commercials ran the video clip of the twin towers collapsing with the picture of Mr. Steven Magritz imposed over it, followed by Vote For James Doyle commercials.

The common person on the street may believe that a vexatious litigant and a paper terrorist are one and the same. It is important to point out that they are not, and plaintiff is neither. The attached intentionally misleading order and minute order (19) denying the motion (20) to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant was not clear enough for the Monterey Herald who later ran a correction (21) weeks later. On February 1st, 2006, Congressman Sensenbrenner extended the USA Patriot Act until March 10th, 2006. (22) Congressman Sensenbrenner says he is unaware of any misuse of the USA Patriot Act, or that it has been used against a US citizen by the government improperly. Plaintiff asserts from his personal knowledge that Congressman Sensenbrenner is being disingenuous and stating half truths. Congressman Sensenbrenner avoids saying how the USA Patriot Act can be used by public officials to “turn the tables” on a citizen seeking redress of a grievance of public corruption. A bill sponsored by Sensenbrenner passed was within days of plaintiff’s communication with the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Representative, Mark Gundrum. (23) The bill allows public officials to avoid accountability for potential crimes against a citizen.

Governor James Doyle and his political hit machine are helping to hide the public corruption in Ozaukee County, and Congressman Sensenbrenner is passing bills that look on the surface they are being done to protect “honest government officials” (quickly becoming a oxymoron) from terrorists. It should also be known that Congressman Sensenbrenner, the supposed leader of judiciary ethics, leads the delegation in privately funded travel which is at the center of the Jack Abramoff Lobbyist scandal (24) which also leads to Pebble Beach.


Knight Ridder, who has been intent on making sure that other media organizations hold themselves to a high journalistic standard of reporting accurately and balanced, (25) directs its attention away from the “beyond” journalistic fraud of its own affiliate, the Monterey Herald. The Monterey Herald has Mr. Leon Panetta of the Panetta Institute as their featured commentator. The attached letter (26) shows that Mr. Panetta felt that Plaintiff should just “move on” and let the public corruption go. Of course, that is not what Mr. Panetta preaches publicly. It would be bad for selling tickets to his “leadership seminar series.”

Publisher Gene Lieb and Mr. Mike Fitzgerald of McClatchy Newspaper have been apprized (27) of the more than fraudulent reporting by Knight Ridder. In contrast to what most Americans believe a competitive newspaper would do, they have not spoken word about the specious activities. At the same time, McClatchy Newspaper features Senator Jeff Denham as a regular commentator, just as Mr. Panetta is to the Monterey Herald, and promotes his re-election campaign at every possible juncture. The Monterey Herald article entitled, “Denham Re-election Race: The Back Story,” ran in the Los Banos Enterprise, a McClatchy Newspaper, on January 28th, 2006. It reveals the Republican Senator Denham to be quite the politician, cutting under the table deals with Democrat Perata to undermine his democrat opponent Simon Salinas of Salinas, California.

Mr. Lieb of McClatchy Newspaper goes as far as philosophizing away the responsibility (28)of a journalist to hold each another accountable in conflict with the Journalistic Canon of Ethics. (29) It seems that Mr. Lieb is as little concerned about his canon of ethics as the judges are theirs.

It took three letters to the Monterey Herald (30) by plaintiff requesting a response and correction. There was no response, but a tepid correction. (31) Knight Ridder neglects to respond to plaintiff if its affiliates in Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo area printed corrections (32) of the article entitled “County Judiciary Under Fire.” It is no secret that the San Luis Obispo/Santa Barbara area have been well informed of the CJP Hearings that were halted of Judge Diana Hall. There has been no word about any investigation. The implication of the unethical acts of Judge Fields, and a co-jurist, Judge O’Farrell of the Monterey Superior Court contributed to the halting of the proceedings and the disqualification of Judge Fields.

Has Judge Roger Picquet, who plaintiff was noticed of his assignment on Saturday, February 4th, 2006, read any of these articles with false information? Have the newspapers printed the correction? Knight Ridder does not respond to plaintiff’s inquiry and requests. The Santa Barbara College of Law (33), Dean Goldman, Professor Smith, and its Board of Trustees continue to ignore requests by plaintiff to adequately correct information saying plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant by the court. Does Judge Picquet come into this hearing with undue prejudice against plaintiff thinking he is nothing more than a vexatious litigant with wild accusations of corruption? Will Judge Picquet ascribe to the position of Ozaukee County Counsel saying, “nothing to be concerned about here that we haven’t learned to ignore (34)”?

There is no doubt that plaintiff intends to file a lawsuit against Knight Ridder, The Monterey Herald, Judge Robert O’Farrell, AG Lockyer, Governor Schwarzenegger, Mr. Paul Hammerness and others for the article entitled “County Judiciary Under Fire.” The suit is valid and with merit. The Monterey Herald’s Publisher, Ms. Jayne Speizer, (35) new that plaintiff was not declared a vexatious litigant as early as June 30th, 2005, the day the motion was denied. Ms. Speizer was again informed of the matter on August 14th, 2005. (36) Judge Golden and his rulings in this case are going to be used as evidence of the crime and abuse.

Is there any question that the standard of the test, which is, “a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial CCP170.1 (6) (C), has been met? Plaintiff thinks not. The standard for bias has been met.



It would be unfair and prejudicial to plaintiff not to emphasize the fact that Chief Justice Ronald George is directly involved in the cabal of covering up the crimes of public official in Monterey County. Chief Justice George was a real party interest to the Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant made by AG Lockyer and Governor Schwarzenegger. Plaintiff presented Chief Justice George with the information prior to his speaking in opposition to the nomination of Monterey Superior Court Judge Wendy Duffy, on May 16th, 2005. (37) The outline (38)of the testimony and evidence provided in opposition was devastating to Judge Duffy.

Judge Duffy was well aware of the cabal brewing on the Monterey Superior Court Bench and was requested by letter (39) from plaintiff just a few days before his heart attack in Judge Grover’s courtroom of her need to report or investigate it according to her Judicial Canon of Ethics. She did not. Recently, Judge Grover opined on record, “Why should I (Judge Grover) need to report the matter of public official corruption since you (plaintiff) have been trying to tell everyone about it?” Plaintiff informed Judge Grover that it was her duty to do so according to her Judicial Canon of Ethics. The Monterey Herald had already announced Judge Duffy was confirmed in her appointment to the Sixth Appellate bench during her retirement party given the week before her confirmation hearing by Judge Russell (“tell the DA to ask me this”) Scott (40).

The Commission on Judicial Appointment was made up incredibly of AG Lockyer, attorney for O’ Farrell, Justice Conrad Rushing, who had overturned O’Farrell’s ruling against Forte, but did not investigate the corruption, and Chief Justice George, real party in interest in the vexatious litigant motion with AG Lockyer and others. The Commission on Judicial Appointments recently changed the Guidelines in July 2005 in an attempt to avoid providing plaintiff with a copy of the video tape of the public proceedings of May 16th, 2005. (41) Plaintiff’s letter (42) to the council shows the stonewalling by the Council on Judicial Appointments, their not adhering to their Public Guidelines, and their game playing. Plaintiff requested the tapes prior to any change in the Guideline as is noted in his letter on December 28th, 2005 (43).


Chief Justice George, AG Lockyer, and Justice Conrad Rushing were all aware of the incredible specious irregularities in the judicial procedures concerning the plaintiff’s cases. Attorneys who are becoming more familiar with this matter due to recent publicity find it mind boggling. The attorney for Judge Diana Hall refers to the conduct of the judicial officers involved as bizarre, and the Monterey Superior Court is in a state of denial of the need for an investigation.

Therefore, why did these individuals pick Judge Michael Fields? The judicial community had just gotten a black eye with The Commissioner Rutledge scandal, and also the Margaret O’Shea scandal. It is now becoming obvious they were burying the worst scandal of all – the cases which involved plaintiff, one of which is now before this court. Did CJ George, AG Lockyer, or Justice Conrad Rushing conduct any investigation or report any of this after they received the evidence from plaintiff in opposition to the nomination of Judge Wendy Duffy? No, they did not. Instead, they selected Judge Fields to preside over a case concerning the disqualification of a judge by a CCP 170.6 Peremptory Challenge which is also one of the elements in plaintiff’s case.

Mr. Brad Campbell certainly would be aware of the Judge Diana Hall matter and the case of Forte vs. O’ Farrell due to the request he made to the Supreme Court for assignment of new judges to the Judge Hall proceeding. It is curious that Mr. Campbell or his boss, Chief Justice George, did not consider it. Or perhaps that is precisely why they chose a San Luis jurist.

The fact is that plaintiff’s case is the one that has not been talked about, but is now getting attention on the internet and through news organizations on the internet. (44) The local Good Old Boys are having a harder time keeping a lid on it at this time. It is going to get much worse.

There is a serious problem in Monterey County which could utterly destroy the integrity of the judicial system if allowed to go unaddressed, but if addressed and corrected publicly and fairly, the justice system can be salvaged. The evidence and record cannot be erased and it will have to be addressed. Public officials have been caught by a private citizen committing crimes which would be considered acts of treason against the United States Of America.


Plaintiff has been doing the government’s work for them without pay, and at the cost of stress, humiliation, and financial ruination. Plaintiff has done for a fraction of the money what our public officials are paid to be doing to protect us from public official corruption but do not. If they are not doing it, Americans might as well be living in a third world country that the US admonishes for public corruption.

Plaintiff asserts that the Federal labyrinth FBI sting, which netted numerous judges in Chicago called “Operation Grey Lord,” pales in comparison to the systemic public official/judicial corruption plaintiff has documented in California, and to a great degree in Wisconsin. It is the poster child and template for public official corruption. It has been a privately funded “Operation Grey Lord” by a citizen in defense of his rights and for his protection. A Federal Prosecutor could come in and initiate a case for criminal prosecution finding that plaintiff has a wealth of court filed evidence that a jury would convict upon. Plaintiff once said that when he was arrested by Judge Robert O’Farrell, and put on trial by him immediately, it likened to Judge Capone putting on trial Elliot Ness.

The FBI website on March 15th, 2004, celebrated the 20th anniversary of Operation Grey Lord (45) and closed with the following:

Last words: Straight from Teddy Roosevelt: “Unless a man is honest we have no right to keep him in public life, it matters not how brilliant his capacity, it hardly matters how great his power of doing good service on certain lines may be. No man who is corrupt, no man who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty by the community.”

It is ironic that plaintiff on July 17th, 2004, (46) was pleading to the San Jose FBI Director about the Monterey FBI to communicate with him about the public official corruption he had been trying to bring to their attention for over two years. Plaintiff reasonably cannot be anything but prudent and skeptical of the fairness or impartiality of Judge Golden and the Monterey judicial system.

There is evidence that government officials may attempt, under the auspices of the provisions of the USA Patriot Act, (47) to conceal their crimes against the public and accuse plaintiff of terrorizing them. A copy of this document with Proof of Service will be given to a number of Government Officials including the Department of National Security, Commander of the US Naval Postgraduate School, the Defense Language Institute, The FBI, Congressman Sensenbrenner, the Investigative Committee on Jack Abramoff, Monterey County Counsel, Mr. Leon Panetta of the Panetta Institute, Senator Joe Dunn of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Joe Simitian, Senator Denham, Mayor Dan Albert, The Monterey Police Department, The Monterey College of Law, The Monterey County Grand Jury, Monterey City Attorney, Ms. Deborah Mall for the Monterey City Council, Monterey County Board of Supervisor David Potter, The Department of Justice, and media.

Legal Chat Monterey, ( (48)website address) a website located in Monterey County, not affiliated in any way with plaintiff, opined in an article entitled, “Gene Forte: Vexatious Litigant or pissed off citizen” that stated:

“It is worth wondering, why with all the big names involved with case is it being ignored by local media. Maybe it is because of all the big names involved with this case; shame on you Monterey Herald.” and

“What is so unusual about this matter is the lack of local press coverage that this case has received. Except for the gleeful article describing the arrest and finding of Contempt that appears to be the genesis of this action, The Monterey Herald, The Salinas Californian, and local broadcast media have been all but silent about this David vs. Goliath battle. Could it be because, at least for now, David seems to be kicking some judicial butt?

There is little doubt that plaintiff is battling a group of strongly entrenched adversaries with substantial influence and they are absolutely bi-partisan when it comes to concealing their dirty laundry from the public they affect. That is the whole point of the Good Ol’ Boys system of justice.

It is hard to imagine that Monterey Mayor Albert is going to take very seriously any matter that may impugn the integrity of Mr. Leon and Sylvia Panetta of the Panetta Institute when all is said. The Panetta Institute has done, again, far more than nothing by not taking action to address the public corruption. It appears to be an endorsement that there is nothing to be concerned about, even though the real evidence shows otherwise. The press release (49) naming Mayor Albert public official of the year and listing his developing prestigious programs such as the Leon and Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, tends to support plaintiff’s concerns.



Plaintiff has brought attention to the potential misuse of the USA Patriot Act by public officials to cover their crimes against a citizen to Congressman Sensenbrenner before. Within a matter of days of Plaintiff speaking to Mr. Mark Gundrum, (50) who was a member of the Judiciary Committee with Congressman Sensenbrenner, a special resolution was passed to prevent the Ozaukee County Officials involved with jailing Mr. Steven Magritz to be held accountable. The matters between Wisconsin and California, when linked, show a pattern of how public officials tighten ranks to close down grievances being addressed against them, and go as far as indirectly misusing the USA Patriot Act for their protection. Wisconsin certainly is not as far away as one would think. The Monterey Herald had available an article entitled, “Editorials from Wisconsin newspapers (51)”on January 23rd, 2006. The highlight was public official corruption, and it sound incredibly familiar.

The Wall Street Journal (52) inquired of plaintiff as to his opinion of the law by Congressman Sensenbrenner which appeared to protect public officials from prosecution for public corruption. Plaintiff investigated the matter of who became known as the “Paper Terrorist,” and found that, even though plaintiff did not support sovereign citizenship, as Magritz proclaimed himself to be, there was evidence of county officials plotting and committing to a scheme to rob Magritz of his property adjoining a golf course. (53) There is evidence that Magritz was singled out due to an incident involving Governor James Doyle’s sister, Catherine Doyle, allegedly kicking a 7-year old girl in the face during an abortion clinic protest.

In the case of Forte s. Flippo, MAR 125367, the files were discovered missing from the courthouse. When found after the close of the investigation of Commissioner Rutledge by DA Flippo, they showed there was the high probability of obstruction of justice by DA Flippo with Commissioner Rutledge. It was during that same time period that DA flippo had been investigating Commissioner Rutledge at the direction of the Monterey Superior Court Executive Committee, comprised of Judge Robert O’Farrell and Judge Terrance. Neither the Monterey Herald nor the Judges of the Monterey Superior Court Bench (54)reacted to the matter.

A letter to Presiding Judge Joseph McCormack (55) of Ozaukee County shows that he was taught at the same school of jurisprudence as Judge Sillman of the Monterey Superior Court and followed the same course of action. He just didn’t respond.


Plaintiff has given Notice to Monterey County Counsel, Mr. Charles McKee, (56) that he has until February 13th, 2006, to cooperate in turning himself in for Citizen’s Arrest by plaintiff, and plaintiff has notified all the appropriate authorities, both Monterey County Sheriff Kanalakis and Salinas Police Chief Daniel Ortega, (57) nforming them of his up front efforts to insure his safety and the procedure he is following. Ms. Deborah Mall, (58) City Attorney for Monterey, has also recently been formally made aware of the matter, and it is yet to be seen if she will respond and report the activities as she is required to. Plaintiff has been met with threats by Patrick McGreal, (59) Deputy County Counsel, who is in an unknown capacity for Mr. McKee. Mr. McGreal, has worked closely with Mr. Paul Hammerness in the subject case, with Mr. Hammerness listing him on the Proof of Service (60) for the Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant.

The key principles in the Magritz matter were the Ozaukee County Counsel, and a Mr. Gus Wirth, a County Supervisor, that later recused himself (61)from voting on a Indian gaming casino matter when it was found he owned the property. It appears the elements for public official corruption are the same, be they in Wisconsin or California – money and favors when public officials get caught over reaching in greed.

Plaintiff has seen how public officials will attempt to say they feel terrorized and call upon the forces of the AG’s offices to stop a citizen from seeking redress of a grievance against public officials. It is what Ozaukee County Counsel Kenealy did. It got Magritz arrested and prosecuted under the guise of the USA Patriot Act and its offshoots. Had it not been for plaintiff’s efforts as a investigative reporter in providing evidence to Judge William Foust, (62)Wisconsin public officials, that should be investigated, were going to have Magritz serving up to seventy years in prison. Magritz got five years instead. (63)

In the case at hand before this court, AG Lockyer attempted to force plaintiff to dismiss his case against O’Farrell under threat of being declared a vexatious litigant. Plaintiff was warned by attorneys that the court would go so far as trying to have plaintiff arrested and mentally evaluated. Plaintiff could be at risk of losing his children and his wife even arrested. Attorneys said that plaintiff was treading on the sacred ground of Good Ol’ Boy corruption.

It back fired on the perpetrators when Judge Golden, not out of fairness, but out of having no choice and to avoid self incrimination, ruled against Chief Justice George, Governor Schwarzenegger and AG Lockyer. It is not speculation or wild assertions this took place. It was a aggressive act by the top three government officials of the state of California that has not been reported by Judge John Golden. The “why” it has not been done is in the records which show plaintiff has substantial evidence of crimes of public officials, and that when one goes down, they all go down.

Therefore, plaintiff is very sure to always stay within the bounds of the law and making everyone aware of his lawful efforts as an American Citizen, so that he does not have the same fate befall him as Mr. Magritz did in Wisconsin. Plaintiff emphasizes he is not a tax protester or a sovereign citizen.


Would anyone doubt that Abramoff’s thirst for casino money would drive him to the gold in California, and would it bring him to the world famous Pebble Beach Golf Course and the Monterey Good ol Boys’ protected turf? No doubt about it. Plaintiff does not have the resources of Federal Investigators, but a rudimentary inexpensive Google Search turned up evidence of Abramoff (64) on the greens of Pebble Beach, quicker than lightning. Plaintiff submits that if he had a fraction of the budget that is squandered covering up the corruption of public officials, several public officials would be in prison or under investigation in very short order. A great deal of money would be available for the people of the state.

Abramoff’s penchant for high cost golf games and influence peddling brought he and his minions to Pebble Beach. (65) Governor Schwarzenegger’s thirst for Indian Gaming Casino moolah certainly would be music to Abramoff’s ears. Less than seventy-five miles away, in plaintiff’s hometown, a tug of war between Indian Tribes is being fostered over the possibility of a casino in Los Banos.

The front runners for carrying the message to small town Mayor Mike Amabile (66) are the likes of Senator Jeff Denham and Representative Bruce McPherson. Senator Denham, (67) when hand delivered the information of public official corruption in his district, quickly became silent. He said it wasn’t his job. He is supported in his quest for re-election by McClatchy Newspapers. Senator Denham is a featured commentator. McClatchy Newspapers ignores the outright blatant and beyond journalistic fraud (68) of Knight Ridders’ Monterey Herald in the article “County Judiciary Under Fire.”


Relevant information will be presented and witnesses subpoenaed for testimony which will substantiate plaintiff has been victimized by attorneys on a number of occasions. The victimization originates from the trial fixing of the case of Forte vs. Powell M45327, that Judge Terrance Duncan presided over. Evidence presented shows that Mr. Lichtenegger told Forte that Judge Silver and Judge O’Farrell were “manipulating trial dates and sabotaging motions to punish Forte.” Plaintiff could submit pages of information concerning why the testimony of ex-Judge Richard Silver is relevant to the issues of Forte vs. Lichtenegger, M58208, and Forte vs. Albov, M54914, and this case.

Judge Richard Silver announced his retirement after tape recordings of Lichtenegger were submitted implicating Judge Silver in trial fixing. (69) Silver later told attorney James Rummonds, “Forte had been forthright and honest in proving the tape recordings of the attorneys and there would be no referral to the DA office. (70)” Silver had already issued terminating sanctions for discovery abuse when there was no violation of a court order for McCarthy of the Fenton & Keller Law Firm (71) knowing that they had suborned perjury and hidden a key document. James Rummonds confirmed that the threat of criminal prosecution to dismiss a civil lawsuit was a felony by Judge Silver. It was Judge Silver who had previously recused himself due to Lichtenegger’s motion to withdraw as plaintiff’s counsel in the underlying case for this entire cabal, Forte v. Powell M45327. It was alleged by Lichtenegger that Judge Silver was “manipulating” and “sabotaging” trial dates and motions in order to “punish” Lichtenegger for representing plaintiff. Silver also later said in an out of court conversation that, “Forte had been victimized by attorneys on a number of a occasions. (72)”

Lichtenegger was granted leave to commit his fraud by withdrawing as counsel by Judge Robert O’Farrell. The ex parte communication between Lichtenegger and Judge O’Farrell indicate their camaraderie of not caring less about losing the respect of the public. (73)

Plaintiff submits that Judge Richard Silver has been kept apprized of the cabal he was part of, and still is, but tried to distance himself immediately. (74) The letter (75) to Judge Silver by plaintiff outlined the crimes that could be proven about McCarthy, Judge Duncan, Lichtenegger and members of the Fenton & Keller Law Firm and Horan Law Firm fixing a civil trial for Alain Pinel Realty. Judge Silver also correlated the events in Monterey County with the events that sent three judges to jail in San Diego (76) and admitted that the problems still existed in some communities, but of course, down playing Monterey’s well known judicial skulduggery throughout the state. Many attorneys have stated, and it is in the record of the cases, that they will not come back to Monterey County because it is a renegade system of Good Ol’ Boys. The law does not matter in Monterey if you are against the wrong politically connected Good Ol’ Boys.

Media reported that Silver retired due to his disappointment in not being nominated to the Sixth Appellate court and losing out to none other than Justice Conrad Rushing.

Judge Golden says the other case of Forte v. Lichtenegger M58208 does not involve Judge O’Farrell, or any of the issues of Forte vs. O’Farrell M72599. It of course does. It certainly affects Forte. A reading of the previous Challenge for Cause Against Judge Golden, which he answered, ruled upon, and struck on his own, contain a list of exhibits in the case of Forte vs. Lichtenegger. It shows easily the connection, that Judge Golden denies exists, between Judge Robert O’Farrell, Judge Grover, and this subject case. It does not have to be a fact that it exists, only if it could give a person reasonable doubt. It certainly does. Judge O’Farrell is not the only one to be affected or taken into consideration. Did Judge Golden as the judge in Forte vs. Lichtenegger, M58208, become infected by the smut worm of Forte v. O’Farrell, the Vexatious Litigant Motion (aka Paper Terrorist)? Did it affect his rulings or decision process in other matters of plaintiff, i.e., his ruling on the Challenge for Cause of Judge Grover? Did it cause Judge Golden to look at plaintiff with a jaundiced eye?

Conversations between Judge Richard Silver and Mr. James Rummonds are discoverable and not protected under some quasi judicial immunity when they took place outside of a judicial hearing when Judge Silver was not a judge in any matter pertaining to plaintiff any longer and James Rummonds did not represent plaintiff. Plaintiff is already effectuating service of subpoenas on Judge Richard Silver (77) and Mr. James Rummonds. (78) There will also be other witnesses.


Judge Golden was assigned to the Monterey Superior Court Bench due to what has been told to plaintiff to be a “bench recusal due to civil case overload.” Mr. Brad Campbell of the assigned Judge Program says that documents he has, but has not presented to plaintiff as yet, may be gotten from Ms. Valenzuela whom he said was out of town the entire week of January 31st, 2006. However, Ms. Valenzuela was not “out of town all week.” Ms. Valenzuela was busy back- dating court documents and back- filing them for Judge Robert O’Farrell for Judge John Golden. (79)

Plaintiff submits that the evidence of back-filing documents was done by Ms. Valenzuela on January 31st, 2006. (80) Plaintiff was informed by the filing clerk that it was Ms. Valenzuela who had entered the documents file dated January 31st, 2006, then changed it later. It appears that Mr. Campbell and Ms. Valenzuela are busily working to get the records straight.

Judge Golden is unable to say he was assigned a judge for all purposes specifically for Forte’s cases by the judicial council. Judge Golden was not. Judge Golden was to hear any cases in Monterey because he was there due to a civil calendar overload. Case law concerning timeliness issues of filing Peremptory Challenges almost always favor the legislative intent to allow person a right to a fair tribunal. There was no certainty that Judge Golden would be the trial judge in the case of Forte vs. Lichtenegger and he had heard not motions that made determinations regarding the merits of the case.

The supporting documentation and record will show that Judge O’Farrell assigned Judge Golden to this case. Therefore, all bets are off. It can’t be done without Judge O’Farrell being able to be sued for it. Case law is clear on that. That being the case, Judge Golden and Judge O’Farrell are in further hot water together.

Judge Golden knows he should have already granted a default judgment against Judge O’Farrell in his individual capacity for not answering or filing a demurrer to the complaint. (81) Judge Golden has been witnessing violations of the law by Judge O’Farrell when he has no judicial immunity such as O’Farrell having his counsel, AG Lockyer, file an unfounded vexatious litigant motion (82) with O’Farrell being the real party in interest. It was defeated.

It appears clear that Mr. Campbell is not going to be cooperative in providing the assignment records without a subpoena, and plaintiff is asking for final clarification from him in the attached letter. (83)



In reversing the order of defendant Judge Robert O’Farrell, (84) plaintiff’s Appellate Reply Brief, (85) analogized Judge O’Farrell “floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee” through the various lawsuits of plaintiff. Judge O’Farrell assigned Judge Golden to continue the style by handling two cases concerning Judge Robert O’Farrell. It is a act that would warrant the disqualification of Judge Golden any time prior to Judge Golden making a substantive determination of fact, even if he was the judge assigned for all purposes to a specific case that could still be tried by another jurist, due to his illness, retirement, etc..

Judge Golden was the judge assigned to hear a Challenge for Cause Against Judge Grover, while plaintiff objected to it. Judge Golden was assigned to the Monterey Superior Court Bench due to what Mr. Campbell said was a “bench recusal due to civil case overload”? The record of the courts in Monterey concerning the assignment of cases (86) are in far worse disarray than the ones of Patrick G Frega (87) and the other jurists in San Diego that went to Federal Prison a few years ago.



Judge Golden’s assertions that Forte vs. Lichtenegger (both M58208 and M70711), Forte vs. Albov M54914 and Forte vs. Powell M45327 are not all related to Judge Robert O’Farrell is beyond abuse of discretion, mistake or error, it is outright absurd. Any reasonable person reading Appellants winning Reply Brief (88) in Forte v. Lichtenegger with supporting documentation easily understands why Judge O’Farrell and Plaintiff Forte are inter-connected to the cases and issues.

The incredible judicial abuse of denying plaintiff a fair tribunal is shown in the denied Challenge for Cause Against Judge Terrance Duncan, that was taken up on a writ, and denied within twenty-four hours by Associate Justice Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian, with only one other justice, Justice Rushing. Judge Hitchins who first denied the Challenge (89) even lauded Judge Duncan for re-assigning the case of Forte vs. Lichtenegger, M70711, from Judge O’Farrell who should never have had it in the first place. Justice Bamattre-Manoukian’s rulings over toleratingthe abuse of laws by lower courts in criminal matters and ignoring the misconduct of judges and attorneys at all costs was highlighted by the Mercury News by Frederic Tulsky in a five part series recently. Again, Plaintiff brought the matter of public official corruption and the Sixth Appellate Court ignoring misconduct of the lower courts (90) in civil cases to the attention of Knight Ridder.

The Sixth Appellate Court upheld that Judge Terrance Duncan should be allowed to preside over the case in which plaintiff had been told by defendant Lichtenegger that Judge Duncan had fixed the underlying trial with attorney Cook and McCarthy. The Appellate Court determined the denial of the writ within twenty four hours. The evidence submitted shows that Lichtenegger was part of the fraud from the start. Judge O’Farrell was the one who let Lichtenegger out thirty-eight (38) days prior to the trial, and denied plaintiff a continuance to get an attorney. Judge O’Farrell, in the meantime, also took the case of Forte v. Albov from Judge Fields (without a disqualification from Fields) and arrested plaintiff for supposed contempt of court when plaintiff merely submitted a peremptory challenge. Three hours later and after he acknowledged his disqualification, he then literally acted as judge, juror, and executioner against all laws in our country and tried and sent plaintiff to jail. It is almost too unbelievable, but the evidence is all here. It is why public officials, all the way up to Governor Schwarzenegger, are involved in trying to cover it up. It has become a “Tar Baby.”

Judge Duncan, after being given the green light (at a cost of $655.00 filing fee to Plaintiff) that a reasonable person, according to the Sixth Appellate Court, would not doubt his impartiality, dismissed the Lichtenegger case and entered judgment prior to having the previously scheduled motion for reconsideration hearing, or reviewing plaintiff’s motion papers. The decision is now in appeal. Plaintiff got the message that his $655.00 was better used buying paper and ink to continue to document on record the inexcusable conduct of the court.



Judge Golden uses as his defense an incredible string of unbalanced actions to create misleading information on record, and says the bad rulings cannot be taken into consideration for his disqualification. Technically, he is correct, but they certainly can be used to tell the tale of what he has been doing. Plaintiff submits it is evidence that Judge Golden’s machinations have become too obvious and he went too far in executing his plan of prejudicing plaintiff’s case under the directions of the Good Ol’ Boys and Judge Robert O’Farrell.

It seems on the surface that plaintiff perceives a conflict everywhere. In actuality, there are clear conflicts at every level. The valid Challenge for Cause against Judge Duncan is a clear example. It was denied, allowing Judge Duncan to sit as judge on the case where his alleged corruption in the underlying case Forte vs. Powell M45327 would be at issue for the defendants’ defense and for the plaintiff’s case. An appellate court that could support the denial, is overlooking the abuse and questionable activity of the lower court. The recent article by Frederic Tulsky in the Mercury News (91)

reveals a portion of the under belly of the criminal system abuses by the lower courts but does not address the question of what if in civil cases? Granted, it would take much longer because there is much more public corruption and graft which leads to the Monterey Herald, to the justices, and judges themselves. It is where the money is at for the Good Ol’ Boys. It is their bread and butter, so to speak.

Judge Grover was allowed by Judge Golden to preside over the case of Forte vs. Albov, M54914, where the personal embroilment between Judge O’ Farrell and plaintiff led to Judge O’Farrell arresting plaintiff. (92) Judge Grover also was the advisor to the Monterey County Grand Jury that would have received the complaint about Judge O’Farrell, et al. that plaintiff submitted. Judge Grover presided over Motions to Quash Deposition Subpoenas of DA Flippo and ADA Spitz by Monterey County Counsel Charles McKee. Judge Grover ruled upon matters for clients she had represented within the previous two years when she was with the Monterey County Counsel’s office.

Judge Grover stopped discovery of relevant material sought at depositions. Judge Grover also allowed the Monterey Herald to violate a court ordered subpoena for deposition saying that it was “moot.” Let a private citizen not show up for a deposition and see how fast they get arrested or at the very least sanctioned and ordered to appear. Defendant Michael Albov is a trustee for the Monterey College of Law where Judge Grover works for as an adjunct professor of law. It did not cause her to disqualify herself. Albov in fact is in a position over her employment as a Trustee of the school. Hopefully, this court can reasonably see the inherent conflict of the entire Monterey Superior Court Bench. There just doesn’t seem to be an end to the list of reasons as to why Judge Grover should have self disqualified herself, and certainly another Judge should have disqualified her in order to preserve the appearance of fairness.

Plaintiff suggested to Judge Sillman that he recuse the entire bench (93) but there was no response. Plaintiff is now being told that there was a “bench recusal due to civil case overload” by Mr. Brad Campbell. What is that?

Plaintiff submits that it was the responsibility of the Monterey Superior Court Bench to request this case be transferred to another jurisdiction acceptable to plaintiff and not at his cost. The Monterey Superior Court has to admit they had a conflict in handling the cases of plaintiff and designate the date such was first was brought to their attention, or when and how they first realized it.

Judge Golden could not rule on a Challenge for Cause Against Judge Grover, another member of the same bench. He is not a visiting judge, he is an assigned judge to the court, and is working under Judge Robert O’Farrell, the Master Calendar Judge of the Monterey Superior Court.


Defendant, Judge Robert O’Farrell, was sued in both his individual and public capacity. Judge O’Farrell, in his capacity as the Master Calendar Judge of the Monterey Superior Court, assigned this case to himself, and the case of Forte vs. Lichtenegger, M70711. Plaintiff requested that Judge O’Farrell disqualify himself. (94) Judge O’Farrell refused to do so. Plaintiff then filed Challenge for Cause Against Judge Robert O’Farrell (95) in both cases. Judge Robert O’Farrell did not file an answer to the Challenge for Cause. The cases were then somehow assigned to Judge Harry Woolpert.

On the same day that plaintiff filed the Challenge for Cause (96) against Judge Robert O’Farrell, his calendaring clerk (plaintiff believes but is not sure (97)), Ms. Diana Valenzuela, then requested an assignment of a judge to the Monterey Superior Court. Plaintiff first learned of this on February 1st, 2006. Mr. Brad Campbell of the Assigned Judges Program for the Judicial Council informed plaintiff and his wife that the Monterey Superior Court requested the assignment of a judge to the Monterey bench due to “bench recusal due to civil overload” and not specifically for plaintiff’s cases. Plaintiff has requested the documentation showing the assignments but is being stonewalled at present.

The Judicial Council then assigned Judge Harry Woolpert to plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff filed a peremptory challenge against Judge Harry Woolpert after Judge Woolpert informed plaintiff on record that he wanted to be honest and disclosed that he did not read any of the documents pertaining to the demurrer motion, saying that he knows that not many jurists admit that, but he was one that did. In addition, both the prosecutor and defense once attempted to stipulate to Judge Woolpert’s recusal in the San Luis court, which bespeaks of a potential incompetence.

The case was then assigned back to defendant, Judge Robert O’Farrell. Plaintiff again requested for Judge Robert O’Farrell to recuse himself from the case. (98) The Monterey Superior Court requested that the Judicial council assign another judge to the Monterey Superior Court bench due to bench recusal due to civil overload. The Judicial Council then assigned retired Judge John Golden to the Monterey Superior Court Bench.

Defendant, Judge Robert O’Farrell, as the presiding judge of the Master Calendar of the Monterey Superior Court bench then assigned the cases to Judge John Golden.

Plaintiff submits that the introduction alone shows there have been enough rules and statutes broken by defendant Judge Robert O’Farrell assigning the subject case to himself to preside over, and by Defendant Judge Robert O’Farrell, assigning his own case to Judge Golden who reports to him, to overcome any demurrer (even based upon judicial immunity) to the subject complaint (which was granted by Judge John Golden). But, if the jurist ruling upon this matter doesn’t believe that a reasonable person knowing all of the above facts would entertain the doubt that Judge Golden could be impartial, plaintiff submits that just about any reasonable person would believe that the jurist thinking such, would be an unreasonable person prejudiced against Plaintiff, and in favor of the Monterey Superior Court bench, Judge Robert O’Farrell, and Judge John Golden.



Judge Golden, for the benefit of Judge Robert O’Farrell, has filed misleading orders (99) and refused to correct them. Judge Golden has NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE, answered and ruled upon his own Challenge for Causes to stay in control of the case (100) for his superior and defendant Judge Robert O’Farrell. Judge Golden has submitted false statements under penalty of perjury (101) . Judge Golden has had questionable documents (102) filed in his name.

It does not take a forensic document expert to discern that the signature page of the Answer (103) by Judge John Golden was attached after the fact of the document being prepared. The last line on page two ends on line 19, without any slashes denoting the end of content on the page. There are an additional nine lines available for the four lines which are on page three. The lines on page three are, “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct” with the date line and the signature line for Judge Golden.

Judge Golden did not prepare the document but only signed his name to a signature page he then faxed to the Monterey Superior Court that had prepared it. Judge Golden wants to cover up the fact that he was being disingenuous on record when he said no one at the Monterey Superior Court prepared any documents for him in the subject case. Plaintiff submits the court clerks are under the direction and supervision of defendant Judge Robert O’Farrell and are preparing the orders for Judge Golden to rubber stamp in the subject case. It would seem that such facts known to a reasonable person would be enough to disqualify Judge Golden already.

By Judge John Golden

In response to plaintiff requesting that Judge John Golden follow the rules of civil procedure by not hearing a motion until after a determination of the subject Challenge for Cause, Judge Golden turned to Hammerness, the opposing counsel, and sheepishly asked, “Would you like me to do that, Mr. Hammerness?” It was clear that Judge Golden was asking Hammerness if he should follow the rules of civil procedure.

Fortunately for plaintiff, Hammerness and Judge Golden were apparently unable to get together prior to the hearing ex parte, as it is suspected they had done on November 23rd, 2005, when Hammerness was caught on video tape leaving from the locked employees only entrance to the judge chambers prior to the hearing on that same day. In other words, they were unable to get their signals straight.

The record of the hearing on January 20th, 2006, will also show that Judge Golden was quick to pick up on Hammerness’s cues, and had it not been for plaintiff’s steadfast position that the hearing could not take place until after the Challenge for Cause was answered and ruled upon, plaintiff would have been steam rolled over, and again the rules of civil procedure thrown out the window.

Hammerness told the court that plaintiff should be forced to put on record only those things that Hammerness deemed relevant to plaintiffs’s argument for the motion. Hammerness opined that if plaintiff was going to be putting on record irrelevant objections to the motion taking place about the Challenge for Cause not being addressed, Judge Golden should consider the matter submitted by plaintiff.

Judge Golden (taking his not so subtle cue from Hammerness), said that if plaintiff was not going to submit anymore argument for the motion then the matter should be submitted.

Plaintiff objected.



Canon 3B (5): A judge shall perform his judicial duties without bias or prejudice. Under section 3D (1&2) we find the following: 1. Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which includes reporting the violation to the appropriate authority.

Plaintiff believes the most obvious reason for Judge Golden to be disqualified is the fact that Judge Golden has never reported any of the alleged misconduct in the case to “appropriate authorities” for investigation. It is required of him according to the Judicial Canons.

If for any reason your honorable Judge Robert Picquet is unconvinced that a reasonable person would entertain the doubt if Judge Golden could be impartial from the reading of documents thus far (unless, Judge Picquet is one of the ones referred to by retired Judge Harry Woolpert of the SLO Bench that doesn’t read any of the documents), plaintiff will end with a few of the most glaring reasons.

Adversaries did not play up the fact of Plaintiff requesting that Judge Golden submit himself for Citizen’s Arrest to the bailiff of the court for not reporting the activities which would be a misprision (104) of a felony by him. Plaintiff has noticed this court and other public officials, Sheriff Michael Kanalakis and Salinas Police Chief Daniel Ortega, to assist in effectuating a Citizen’s Arrest of Monterey County Counsel, Mr. Charles McKee, by February 13th, 2006 for misprision of a felony.

Plaintiff requests that this court also assist in issuing a bench summons, or whatever instrument is available and necessary for the charges of misprision of a felony against Mr. Charles McKee to be processed.

Judge Golden did not report the highest state officials for bringing a vexatious litigant motion when they had no legal standing to do so, or admonish Mr. Hammerness when he is again on record recently of requesting to renew the motion sua sponte to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant for “everyone” (unnamed).

Judge Golden has seen the evidence in the file of MAR125367, Forte vs. Flippo, indicating there was an obstruction of justice by Flippo with Commissioner Rutledge and has not said or done anything to bring it to authorities attention.

Judge Golden did not address the matter of opposing counsel, Mr. Hammerness of the Attorney Generals Office, leaving from Judge Golden’s chambers on November 23rd, 2005, prior to office hours of the court.

Judge Golden struck the declaration of Ms. Crystal Powser in both cases he is presiding, not withstanding tremendous procedural error, and impossibilities to do such. The Powser Declaration in case M72599, which is on file at the Supreme Court and is a separate document in M54914, provides substantial evidence of irregularities with the assignment of cases of the Monterey Superior Court Bench, between Judge Fields, O’Farrell, and Judge Duncan. It also shows that the assignment of the case to Judge Golden is extremely suspect. Judge Golden has not addressed the issue in any of the cases concerning the need for reporting the matters as required under his Judicial Canon of Ethics.

There are many other reasons, but suffice it to say, Judge Golden has become the latest jurist to get stuck onto the Tar Baby. It has now been placed in the hands of Judge Roger Picquet.



1. Reply to Judge Golden answer pg 1, ln 24-pg2 ln 3: Judge Golden was not the judge assigned for all purposes by the judicial council in case M58208, Forte vs. Lichtenegger. He was assigned the case by defendant Judge Robert O’Farrell. Such fact alone mandates disqualification. However, Judge Golden asserts that plaintiff would be limited to the 5-10 day rule. It is not the law. There was no certainty that Judge Golden would be the trial judge and he had not made any ruling that were determined issues of fact in the case. The legislature mandates to respect the objective of the law in enabling a party to seek a fair tribunal when and where if at all possible.

2. Reply to Judge Golden’s answer, pg 2, ln1-3: The declaration of Ms. Crystal Powser highlights evidence of the mishandling of judicial assignments by the Monterey Superior Court Bench. Paperwork has been refused to be provided by the Monterey Superior Court and by the Assigned Judges Program. Judge Golden cannot prove he was assigned the judge for all purposes to the case based only upon the notice by Ms. Diana Valenzuela. Ms Valenzuela does not have the power to assign judges, only follow their directions. The Notice of Assignment dated March 21st, 2005 (105) says that the Chairman of the Judicial Council assigned Judge Harry Woolpert, but plaintiff has seen no proof of such from the judicial council.

The assignments from the Judicial Council signed by Chief Justice George specifically show that Judge Golden was assigned to the Monterey Superior Court Bench, and not to any specific case. They also indicate that there were two separate assignments ( (106)EX:91, 390-391) one dated May 16th, 2005, running from May 16th, 2005 to June 24th, 2005, the other signed May 31st, 2005, running from May 31st, 2005 to June 30th, 2005.

3. Reply to Judge Golden answer, pg 2 ln4-10: The issues involved in the Lichtenegger complaint involve discoverable matters concerning Judge Robert O’Farrell and other members of the Monterey Superior Court bench. Plaintiff asserts that is would be impossible for Judge Golden to build a “Chinese Wall” in his head between Lichtenegger and O’Farrell in the actions. There are no special application of laws that requires Judge Golden to be the Judge in both cases. Further, Judge O’Farrell assigned Judge Golden to the case of Forte vs. Lichtenegger. That fact alone mandates disqualification.

4. Reply to Judge Golden answer, pg 2. Ln 11-13: Judge Golden did not have filed on January 20th, 2005, the order striking the peremptory Challenge of January 10th, 2006. It would have been appropriate for Judge Golden to attach such filed orders to his answer, however, it is evident that the documents were back filed by Ms. Diana Valenzuela on January 31st, 2006, after plaintiff brought the court’s attention to it. Therefore, Judge Golden’s striking of the Challenge was untimely.

5. Reply to Judge Golden answer, pg 2, ln14-15: There were ultimately three C.C.P. 170.6 Peremptory Challenges filed. Judge Golden only issued orders striking two of them. Plaintiff had filed orally a CCP 170.6 in open court on December 30th, 2005, as evidenced by the Minute Order. (107) However, Plaintiff did not receive an order from Judge Golden striking such Peremptory Challenge within ten days of its filing. Therefore, Judge Golden was disqualified from hearing any of plaintiff’s cases since January 9th, 2006, and has defaulted by not issuing a written order striking the C.C.P 170.6 Peremptory Challenge filed against him on December 30, 2005, in open court. Plaintiff was not given an opportunity to take it up on a writ. Such fact mandates disqualification. The case law is clear.

6. Reply to Answer of Judge Golden: pg 2, ln16-19: The challenge brings to light a series of specious rulings and procedures enacted by Judge John Golden which gives the appearance of an unfair tribunal. It is what DA Flippo has called the “old appearance of evil” by the judiciary and quoted by the Monterey Herald.

7. Reply to answer by Judge John Golden, pg 3 ln1-5: It is obvious that Judge Golden affixed his name to the signature page and faxed it over to the Monterey Superior Court to attach to the prepared answer, that well could have been written by Judge Robert O’Farrell or one of his law clerks.


Plaintiff could almost literally go on infinitum to the point of ad nauseam as to why Judge Golden should not only be disqualified, but reported to some authority above the Commission on Judicial Performance, which is implicated in this cabal, for investigation of his part in knowing what has been going on and participating in it.

Plaintiff attempted to keep this supplemental brief but the total picture needs to be laid out together because when one looks at the most recent actions of the court, it is too incredible to believe without some rational explanation. There is public official corruption within the Monterey Superior Court and all of it is being covered up all the way up to Governor Schwarzenegger. It has become a threat to the National Security of our country. Plaintiff does not know the process by which a Grand Jury can be called upon to look at this. It is our public official’s duty to know that for us, not keep it from us to protect themselves. The Monterey Herald article “Jury’s In-will anyone listen? (108)” decries the problem, while ignoring the 5,000 lb elephant sitting in the courtroom called Forte.

Plaintiff is requesting a hearing for this challenge. Plaintiff is also requesting Judge John Picquet to intervene and demand there be a special panel convened to address the matter of a misprision of a felony by public officials and judicial officers. Plaintiff also requests that the court issue a bench warrant, or whatever legal tool is available for such purpose, for Mr. Charles McKee. Plaintiff is requesting that this be done in order to preserve the peace, and assure a proper and peaceful Citizen’s Arrest by plaintiff.

Dated: February 10th, 2006

Eugene Forte, In Propria Persona


[CCP §§ 446, 2015.5]

I, Eugene Forte, am the plaintiff in this action. I have read the foregoing REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AGAINST JUDGE JOHN GOLDEN; AND REQUEST FOR HEARING IN SUPPORT THEREOF and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on February 10th, 2006 at Los Banos, California.

Eugene Forte



) ss.


I, the undersigned, declare that I am employed in the County of Merced, State of California; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is XXXXXXXXXXXX,
On February 10th, 2006, I served the foregoing REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AGAINST JUDGE JOHN GOLDEN; REQUEST FOR HEARING IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the parties in this action by:

_____ personal service on the below-named party(ies) at the address(es) given.

_____ facsimile machine pursuant to Rule 2008. Said document was sent to the below listed party(ies). The fax number I used was: (209) 829-1952. The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2004, and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2006(d), I caused the machine to print a transmission record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to this declaration.

__x__ depositing the sealed envelope(s) with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows:


Mr. Bill Lockyer

Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

(415) 703-5520 telephone

(415) 703-5480 facsimile

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on February 10th, 2006 at Los Banos, California.


Eileen Forte

FOOTNOTES (links to exhibits coming soon):

1. Exhibit 63.

2. Exhibit 72

3. Exhibit 1.

4. Exhibit 64.

5. Exhibit 65.

6. Exhibit 68.

7. Exhibit 2.

8. Exhibit 3.

9. Exhibit 4.

10. Exhibit 5.

11. Exhibit 6.

12. Exhibit 7.

13. Exhibit 8.

14. Exhibit 69.

15. Analogy used by the Monterey County Herald, “County judiciary under fire”

16. Falsely labeled as one by the Monterey Herald, in “County judiciary under fire”.

17. Exhibit 9.

18. Exhibit 10.

19. Exhibit 87.

20. Exhibit 11.

21. Exhibit 12.

22. Exhibit 13.

23. Exhibit 14.

24. Exhibit 81

25. Exhibit 56.

26. Exhibit 70.

27. Exhibit 66.

28. Exhibit 71.

29. Exhibit 75.

30. Exhibit 76.

31. Exhibit 12.

32. Exhibit 15.

33. Exhibit 16.

34. Exhibit 17

35. Exhibit 73.

36. Exhibit 74.

37. Exhibit 18.

38. Exhibit 19.

39. Exhibit 78.

40. Exhibit 20.

41. Exhibit 21.

42. Exhibit 22.

43. Exhibit 23.

44. Exhibit 24.

45. Exhibit 83.

46. Exhibit 84.

47. Exhibit 9.


49. Exhibit 85.

50. Exhibit 14.

51. Exhibit 82.

52. Exhibit 25.

53. Exhibit 26.

54. Exhibit 57.

55. Exhibit 27.

56. Exhibit 28.

57. Exhibit 29.

58. Exhibit 67.

59. Exhibit 30.

60. Exhibit 47, BN150

61. Exhibit 31.

62. Exhibit 32.

63. Exhibit 33.

64. Exhibit 34.

65. Exhibit 35.

66. Mayor Amabile is said to think there needs not even be a vote by citizens.

67. Exhibit 77.

68. Exhibit 71.

69. Exhibit 38.

70. Exhibit 37.

71. Exhibit 36.

72. Judge Silver was required under his Judicial Canons to report the “victimization” of Forte. He did not. Canon 3 (D) 1, 2 & 3B (5) STATE: 2. Whenever a judge has personal knowledge that a lawyer has violated any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the judge shall take appropriate corrective action. An Advisory Committee Comment associated with this section of the code states that appropriate corrective action could include direct communication with the judge or lawyer who has committed the violation, other direct action if available, or a report of the violation to the…appropriate authority…Judges should note that in addition to the action required by Canon 3D (2), California law imposes additional reporting requirements regarding lawyers.

73. Exhibit 39.

74. Exhibit 80.

75. Exhibit 40.

76. Exhibit 41.

77. Exhibit 42.

78. Exhibit 43.

79. Exhibit 44.

80. Exhibit 45.

81. Exhibit 46.

82. Exhibit 47.

83. Exhibit 48.

84. Exhibit 49.

85. Exhibit 50.

86. Judges of San Diego fixed cases by making sure they got the cases they were paid to fix. Minute books were missing and altered. Plaintiff can not get the court records which will provide evidence to support his Challenge fo for Cause without subpoenas and those will take time to have served.

87. Exhibit 41.

88. Exhibit 50.

89. Exhibit 59.

90. Exhibit 79

91. Last chance, little help, By Fredric N. Tulsky / Data analysis by Griff Palme, Mercury News” : A REVIEW FINDS THE 6TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OFTEN MINIMIZES IMPACT OF MISCONDUCT, GOING TO GREAT LENGTHS TO PRESERVE GUILTY VERDICTS. One of five articles.

92. Exhibit 52.

93. Exhibit 51.

94. Exhibit 54.

95. Exhibit 53.

96. Exhibit 60.

97. Plaintiff’s has made repeated requests for information showing how the assignments are taking place from Judge Robert O’Farrell and his calendaring clerk, Ms. Diana Valenzuela. They have been ignored.

98. Exhibit 55.

99. Exhibit 87, 88 & 89:


101. Exhibit 62. ANSWER BY JUDGE GOLDEN, PG. 2, LNS. 12. There were no orders filed on January 20th, 2006, striking the peremptory challenge as of the morning of January 31st, 2006..

102. Exhibit 62.

103. Exhibit 62.

104. Exhibit 58.

105. Exhibit 90.

106. Exhibit 91.

107. Exhibit 88.

108. Exhibit 86