In the latest case involving former employee M, Marshall and Christiansen claim, I filed a counterclaim for defamation based on a belief that Marshall and Christiansen represented the contents of one of my blog posts as a veiled threat to Judge Jones. Nothing could be further from the truth but as a reult of their intentional acts, I am now on the watch list. My efforts to have the U.S. Marshals Service tell me why I’m on the watch list have been met with great resistance. Its the kind of silent, lets not talk about it behavior, you’d expect of child molestors. Not the US Marshals. Not the Department of Justice. The U.S. Marshals service has not for example responded to my subpoena for documents.
When evaluating the efficay of actors like Marshall and Christiansen and whether they indeed felt that there was a real threat to Judge Jones, it is imperative that a judge consider the motivations of those two knuckleheads. Joel provided a limited declaration and admission of what contact Joel and Linda had with the judges clerk (WHO THEY HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED). But we do know this. Ethical complaints were filed against them before they took this action. Like child molestors that rely on secrets to keep their victims from notifying law enforcement, L and J are desparate to keep me from revealing the facts of the arbitration and are seeking backroom judicial intervention to help.
The Honorable Marco Hernandez has dimissed my counterclaim for defamation and IIED and not as yet permitted me to file a motion for summary judgment on this case, but has allowed me the opportunity to amend. I disagree with his conclusions but like his body of work and understand his reasoning. By and large he wants to protect anyone who raises any issue or concern about a threat to a judge. I understand his thinking, to stand on the side of safety. But on the other hand, its not what the law requires.
We have to evaluate whether the J&L interaction with Judge Jones was simply advancing the interests of this group of abusive attorneys in a conversation they intended to remain private and strategic, in contrast to a serious concern about Judge Jones’ welfare. What did J, L and Judge Jones really talk about I wonder? Did they simply use the blog post, the one liner, to try to turn the attention back to me as a threat. I represent a threat of exposing their surreptious behavior. That’s all. It’s kind of Clintonesque. And its beyond Linda and Joel’s intellectual reasoning. Judge Jones, I have to admit this is a bit of enlightened litigation politics. Lets see what the subpoena produces.
Judge Hernandez opinion is attached here as doc-68. The Judge went well beyond what Joel called on him to do, but I do advocate that. I strongly support a judge going to distance to the right decision, not simply responding to poorly prepared briefs. He did that. we had a chance to brief it.
At a very minimum it means that this case filed against me must be dismissed under the same theory. It is interesting that we find ourselves in a case where my counterclaims have been dismissed on the same theory that Joel’s complaint would be dismissed (for First Amendment speech), and yet the Judge has not yet allowed me to file that motion. Why is that I wonder?
I have asked more than 20 people if they believe that a paragraph in my blog posts represents any possible interpretation of a threat and no one does. And my statement was “Perhaps more often than not our legacies are not what we inteded them to be.” Do you consider that threatening?