Chapter 50 – What game are we playing now?

So to keep the readers and publishers up to date now. M filed another lawsuit a few months ago and as a result I filed the answers and counterclaims alleging defamation. That defamation arose of course when M or someone form his camp contacted Robert E. Jones and alleged that one of my posts was a veiled threat to Judge Jones. I am always surprised by the brash stupidity of these accusations. It makes me wonder what kind of children am I dealing with here.

Since M is not the only one who would benefit from contacting Judge Jones, I attempted to add to the lawsuit the other parties that also benefit, namely Linda Marshall, Chester Marshall, Sandra Ware and Joel Christensen. Although Joel made no objection, Judge H quickly denied the motion to add the parties under diversity arguments, meaning that some of the parties are residents of Oregon and should not be added; however, in so far as the matter itself is properly in the Federal Court, it probably could have been allowed with respect to Sandra Ware.

We have reached out to Joel to determine what other adjustments we can make to this blog that may meet their needs in terms of anonymity, but he as not responded. In fact he does not respond to anything at all. And he asked the court to allow only email correspondence but he does not do that either.

The lawsuit itself does not add any real value to the book other than as an indication of how hungry our attorneys are in the Portland area. Too many attorneys, not enough work.

In so far as the real issue is the M group trying to deflect the contact with Judge Jones, it seems to me that what they are hoping for is an intervention by the Federal Court. And at least as to the collections action they may have gotten it from Magistrate Stewart.

In November 2009 I sent a letter a letter To Judge Brown essentially letting her know what had happened after our emergency TRO hearing in Portland on the Silicon Valley Bank matter. The letter basically outlined what was going on in Denver, the damage we had suffered, the actions that SVB took after Judge Brown referred it to the Denver court, etc. Judge Brown got it right and frankly my attorneys should have followed the contract terms and started the litigation in Denver as the contract demanded. And of course they should have not allowed the emergency TRO hearing we had in April 2009 to be dismissed without my approval. I cover than in my other blog,

Any way I digress. We filed a summary judgment motion with Judge Stewart and she denied our motion. But in her opinion and recommendations, Judge Stewart sites my letter to Judge Brown, specifically a representation I made that about “my wholly owned company NDT.” Now the letter apparently was added to the document record of the Touchstar case and while the letter provides no demonstrative evidence of anything as to the ownership of NDT, Judge Stewart nonetheless asserted that it did. It was an odd conclusion, “a tempest in a tea pot” type of observation. I was surprised.

The issue though is not that Judge Stewart was confused as to its meaning, but rather that she was now offering that as evidence somehow supporting the M groups position. And going out of her way to identify evidence that was not readily discover-able. I don’t even recall what I wrote, did not keep the letter, but Judge Stewart apparently decided to help the M group with the collections lawsuit by pointing it out. Its unseemly when a Judge says “hey you guys you have some evidence over here that may help you.” That pretty clearly declares a lack of independence and reflects at a minimum some emotional bias. Now remember this is not an emotionally charged public policy impact lawsuit of merit to millions. It’s just a collections effort of an unsecured creditor.

But it does point out that Judge Jones may have been active and attempting to help out the M group. There is a growing amount of evidence to suggest this and of course Crow has provided a lot of evidence on this issue…and it is an issue. I’m guessing this is the message that was sent to me.

I know Joel tried to score some point in his complaint about us pointing out gay porn found on the business computer returned to us by M. That was a video that had been downloaded when M was in possession of a hard drive and he was the only one who ever used that hard drive. But the porn was also downloaded and accessed often during a time M claimed the hard drive was in his fireproof safe. That’s the only reason for raising it. Let me say for the record that I could care less if the porn found was straight or gay porn. There was both. And a jpeg photo of an erect penis as well. I don’t know if that was an M self portrait or not. What is it about IT guys? Even after M, my IT guys were downloading porn.

And let me further say that I could care less if M was bi-sexual. I don’t care. And I don’t care if some our Federal Judges are gay. Our Federal Judge down in Eugene is and I could care less. But again the porn we found, the video, suggested it could be pedophilia and that I do care about. And if you don’t shame on you.

So why would Joel point that out in a complaint, identifying gay porn versus any other kind of porn? After all he knew we had turned over the material to law enforcement. Was the only reason to do it to garner the affection of a Federal Judge or two? Maybe. I’m rather at a loss.

Do we have a situation here where a few of our Judges are afraid of being exposed. If so, don’t be. Very few people care. We will have to think about who is in the closet.

I will admit that I think I understand that someone being gay and lesbian is so much clearer an issue of who they are than someone being bi-sexual. I do not understand that as clearly. Never have. We live in a relatively advanced society and think of myself as being the same. We have a Governor here in Oregon who was bi-sexual. She has been married for years, with children, but before was in a lesbian relationship. I do not care. And I’m a conservative.

Joel I don’t care if you are gay but I do mind that you are trying to appeal to Judges who might be. If we are going to be an advanced society, lets layer in the maturity, sophistication & honesty we want to attribute to all.

And Judge Stewart I do mind the intimation.

Until next time.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s