Searching for information about Fred Wulf, adopted son of William and Anna Wulf. Fred is my husband’s great uncle and we would dearly love any information about him … Photos, stories, etc. Anything. Fred was adopted out of the family in about 1903 from Alameda County when his biological father died. I have tried contacting the Anna Wulf House and The Triplicate, but have received no response. If anyone out there can help, please contact me at phaedra.swearengin@gmail.com or 707-391-5071.

Case No. 1:12-CV-633 AWI JLT.

WILLIAM RAY JONES, SR., Plaintiff, v. LEHIGH SOUTHWEST CEMENT COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

July 20, 2015.

William Ray Jones, Sr., Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Lehigh Southwest Cement Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan K. Hatmaker, Hatmaker Law Group.

ORDER ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDER FORBIDDING FILINGS OR COMMUNICATION

ANTHONY W. ISHII, District Judge.

This was an employment related dispute between Plaintiff and his former employer. On July 9, 2015, the undersigned issued an order to show cause to Plaintiff William Ray Jones, Sr. (“Mr. Jones”) and his wife, Helene Jones (“Mrs. Jones”), (collectively “the Joneses”). The order to show cause ordered the Joneses to show cause why they should not be sanctioned under the Court’s inherent authority with respect to numerous communications from the Joneses that accused Court personnel of fraud and forging orders. (Doc. 107). The Court also ordered Mr. Jones to show cause why Rule 11 sanctions should not be imposed against him for filing a second motion for reconsideration that alleged court personnel had unlawfully colluded and forged orders. (Doc. 107). Hearing on the order to show cause was held on July 20, 2015, before the undersigned. Neither Mr. Jones or Mrs. Jones were present at the hearing and the court is aware of no communication or attempted communication from the Joneses to explain their failure to attend the hearing. This order memorializes the findings and order of the Court that occurred at the hearing.

Legal Standards

In pertinent part, Rule 11(b) reads:

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

. . . .

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery;

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 11(b)(1), (3). Thus, Rule 11 imposes a duty on litigants to certify that (1) they have read the pleadings or motions they file, and (2) the pleading or motion is grounded in fact, has a colorable basis in law, and is not filed for an improper purpose. See Smith v. Ricks, 31 F.3d 1478, 1488 (9th Cir.1994). A court considering whether to impose sanctions under Rule 11 should consider whether the position taken was “frivolous,” “legally unreasonable,” or “without factual foundation, even if not filed in subjective bad faith.” Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, 780 F.2d 823, 831 (9th Cir.1986).

Furthermore, courts are “endowed with inherent powers which are necessary to the conduct of their business, including the power to sanction.” Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 1993). A court has the inherent authority to issue sanctions against parties and non-parties to an action based on their conduct. In re Rainbow Magazine, Inc., 77 F.3d 278, 282 (9th Cir. 1996); Corder v. Howard Johnson & Co., 53 F.3d 225, 232 (9th Cir. 1995); Eleanora J. Dietlein Trust v. Am. Home Mortg. Inv. Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143237, *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 7, 2014); Bartos v. Pennsylvania, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43937, *14-*15 (M.D. Pa. May 5, 2010); Adams v. Penn Line Servs., 620 F.Supp.2d 835, 839 (N.D. Ohio 2009). A court’s inherent powers are “governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). In order to impose sanctions under the court’s inherent powers, the court must make a specific finding of “bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith.” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1134 (9th Cir. 2001); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2000). “Under this standard, although recklessness, of itself, does not justify the imposition of sanctions, sanctions are available when recklessness is combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper purpose. Sanctions, then, are justified when a party acts for an improper purpose — even if the act consists of making a truthful statement or a non-frivolous argument or objection.” Gomez, 255 F.3d at 1134; Fink, 239 F.3d at 992, 994. Sanctions through inherent powers “must be exercised with restraint and discretion.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44. “District courts have broad discretion in fashioning sanctions.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1065 n.8 (9th Cir. 2007).

Findings

In his June 19, 2015 motion for reconsideration, Mr. Jones stated inter alia: the undersigned never “gave” Defendant summary judgment, that defense counsel committed fraud upon the Court with the knowledge of court staff (including a former and current court room deputy), that Plaintiff views the conduct of court employees as “beyond contemptible,” that the conduct of court employees is “criminal,” that he feels “victimized” by court employees, that each time he tried to bring this improper conduct to the attention of the court he was met with contempt by court employees, that court employees have turned the Court into a “pay for play” environment, that documents were tampered with and not presented to the court, that defense counsel committed crimes along with court employees, that court staff submitted forged documents to cause the termination of this case, that the poor grammatical structure of the summary judgment order shows that it was not actually authored by the undersigned, and that October 12, 2012 was the last time that the undersigned issued any rulings or viewed any documents pertaining to this case. (Doc. 104).

On June 30, 2015, the Court denied Mr. Jones’s second Rule 60 motion. (Doc. 106) The Court noted Mr. Jones’s contention that the undersigned did not sign various orders and that the orders were forged through collusion between court personnel and defense counsel. See id. The Court responded, “This contention is untrue and lacks merit.” Id.

Plaintiff and Mrs. Jones have sent numerous e-mails to court personnel.1 The e-mails accuse court personnel of colluding with defense counsel and issuing forged orders, including an order granting Defendant summary judgment and orders denying reconsideration.

Some e-mails accuse court personnel of engaging in criminal conduct, violations civil rights, racism, and harassment.

Some e-mails make threatening remarks regarding the careers of court personnel, state that court personnel are corrupt, and state that the court personnel require therapy.

The Joneses have sent a copy of an e-mail that they sent to the Department of Justice to a chambers staff member. The e-mail complains about the staff member engaging in harassment, fraud, and forgery.

The Joneses sent e-mails to: the undersigned, to members of Chief Judge England’s staff, members of the undersigned’s staff, members of Magistrate Judge Thurston’s staff, and the Clerk of the Court.

Mrs. Jones sent an e-mail on July 2, 2015, to a family member of chambers staff that inter alia accused the staff member of collusion and forging orders. Mrs. Jones’s e-mail encouraged the family member to exert more influence over the staff member than the alleged influence of defense counsel.

The Jones have left messages with members of the Clerk’s office and spoken with members of the Clerk’s office accusing court personnel, including personnel in the undersigned’s chambers, of causing forged orders to be issued.

Based on the nature of the messages and communications from the Joneses, the United States Marshal Service attempted to contact the Joneses. It is the function of the United States Marshals to make contact with individuals who send irregular, abnormal, abusive, threatening, and/or harassing messages that are directed at court personnel.

The Joneses responded to these attempts by labeling them in e-mails as acts of intimidation and harassment.

The undersigned personally reviewed each motion and electronically signed each order in this case that bears his name, including the order on summary judgment and the orders for reconsideration. Thus, the Joneses’ allegations of fraud, forgery, collusion, racism, and harassment by Court personnel are completely false.

The Court personnel identified by Plaintiffs, including the law clerk and courtroom deputies of this chambers, did not engage in any fraudulent conduct and had nothing to do with the review, disposition, and signing of the summary judgment order and orders on Mr. Jones’s motions for reconsideration.

Conclusions

Despite the June 30, 2015 order, the Joneses have doubled down on their allegations of fraud and forgery, do not accept orders issued after October 2012 as legitimate, and have initiated the communications described above.

The various communications sent by the Joneses to Court personnel are improper ex parte communications, consume limited judicial resources, and interfere with the functioning and operations of the Court.

The e-mail communication to a family member of the undersigned’s chambers staff is harassing, an improper attempt to influence proceedings in this case, and causes the diversion of court resources.

The Joneses’ continued challenge to every order that has issued from the Court in this case post-October 2012 as “forgeries” interferes with the Court’s ability to resolve this and other cases.

Inasmuch as this action has been resolved on its merits by means of summary judgment and inasmuch as the undersigned has personally reviewed, approved and signed each and every order issued by this court in this action, the Joneses have no legitimate basis to continue to contact court personnel, or family members of court personnel, and make accusations of criminal, fraudulent, and collusive behavior in this case.

The allegations in the various communications and filings regarding improper conduct by court personnel, including allegations of fraud, forgery, and racism, are not based in fact, are based at best on bare speculation, are harassing, abusive, frivolous, and fanciful, and were made with recklessness. That is, the Joneses’ allegations and communications to the Court/court personnel constitute “bad faith.” Gomez, 255 F.3d at 1134.

The allegations made by Mr. Jones in his June 19, 2015 motion for reconsideration regarding improper and fraudulent conduct by court personnel is unreasonable and without foundation. Zaldivar, 780 F.2d at 831.

The proper method to challenge rulings that are perceived to be incorrect are either a type of reconsideration motion (per local rules or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60) or an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

The Court has denied two reconsideration motions on the merits. (Docs. 103, 104)

The Joneses’ primary contention for reconsideration is collusion, fraud, and forgery by court and chambers personnel. As explained above, this contention is completely false.

Because the bases for reconsideration urged by Mr. Jones either have been addressed on the merits or (as explained above) are false and have no legitimate basis, the Court will not accept any further motions for reconsideration by Mr. Jones.

With one exception, the Court also will not accept any further filings from Mr. Jones in this closed case. The only exception will be filings necessary to perfect an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Filings by Mr. Jones in this case that do not involve perfecting an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will not be accepted.

Because of the Joneses’ numerous improper communications, and in order to stop their inappropriate communications and conduct, an order forbidding the Joneses from contacting court personnel or the family members of any court personnel about this case (directly or indirectly and by any means, including but not limited to telephone and e-mail communications), is appropriate.

However, Mr. Jones may communicate with members of the Clerk’s office (and only members of the Clerk’s office) with respect to perfecting an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Clerk’s office personnel need not engage the Joneses in any communications about this case that do not relate to the perfecting of an appeal.

This order is not issued due to Mr. and Mrs. Jones’s race or Mr. Jones’s status as a pro se litigant, rather this order is issued solely due to the unique conduct of Mr. and Mrs. Jones in prosecuting this case. The undersigned has never experienced the type of communications and conduct by any litigant, pro se or otherwise, like that of the Joneses.

Because the Joneses have failed to appear pursuant to the court’s order, a no-bail warrant shall issue for the arrest of Mr. Jones and Mrs. Jones immediately. The no-bail warrant for arrest shall be stayed until 9:00 a.m. Friday, July 24, 2015, or until the Joneses contact the Court’s Clerk’s Office to schedule an appearance, whichever occurs sooner.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. No further fillings will be accepted in this closed case (1:12cv633 AWI JLT) other than

filings that are necessary to perfect an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals;

2. The Joneses are not to contact or communicate directly or indirectly, and by any means including but not limited to telephone calls or e-mail, any court personnel or the family members of any court personnel, regarding this case;

3. However, as discussed above, the Joneses may contact only the Clerk’s office with respect perfecting an appeal to the Ninth Circuit of Appeals;

4. A copy of the transcript of the July 20, 2015 hearing shall be filed on the docket, and the Clerk shall send a copy of the transcript to the Joneses; and

5. Execution of a no-bail warrant for the arrest of Mr. Jones and Mrs. Jones issued this date shall be stayed until such time as the Joneses contact the Court Clerk’s Office to schedule a hearing before Judge Ishii. The stay on the no-bail warrant shall expire as of Friday, July 24, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

EXHIBIT A.
___Forwarded by David Sain on 07/07/2015 09:55 AM___ From: To “aishii@caed.uscourts.gov” Cc: “lhecker@caed.uscourts.gov” Date: 07/02/2015 05:04 PM Subject: Our: Notice for Reconsideration of Motions: 1:12-CV-00633-AWI-JLT
Honorable Judge Anthony W. Ishii;

This is a request for a conference regarding your denying of our Motion for Reconsideration. Why would a Senior District Judge set a precedent as to allow attorney to sign his/her name to orders. Your Law Clerk, Michael Sowards, has stated that you will never be available. Judge Ishii the order you supposedly signed reads; Order On Plaintiff Second Motion For Relief From Judgment Doc # 104.

We sent your office a: Notice for Reconsideration of the Motions, and you replied with: Order On Plaintiff Second Motion For Relief From Judgment Doc# 104. Apparently there’s something seriously wrong with this case and the employees handling it. A conference is very necessary!

Respectfully,

William R. Jones Sr.

EXHIBIT B
From: To: “dsaine” Date: 07/07/2015 08:43 AM Subject: Motion for Reconsideration
Mr. Saine;

Did you not got my email, please respond. We received another forged order from Judge Ishii law clerks . . . this has to stop. All of our motion are being diverted by Judge Ishiii staff and if there is a lawsuit pending why is Renee Gamunitz still working for Judge Ishii. This entire system is so corrupt we are at a lost as to why this is being allowed by the supervisors of the law clerks.

EXHIBIT C

[FWD: Just_a_Word_of_Advice:_This_is-Just_a_simply_message_not_a_thre at.] bcardosa to: msowards 07/02/2015 09:27 PM Hide Details From: To: msowards! ________ Original Message _________ Subject: Just_a_Word_of_Advice:_This_is-Just_a_simply_message_not_a_thre at. From: Date: Thu, July 02, 2015 5:09 pm To:
Hello Bernadette,

I know you are friends with Attorney Susan Hatmaker and she is well known to your husband Michael a Law Clerk with Judge Anthony W. Ishii. The things that your husband has been involved in with Susan Hatmaker will eventually lead to his dismissal as Judge Ishii’s clerk and he therefore will never, never, ever become a Federal Judge.

Mr. Sowards knows exactly what he did, and as his (loving wife) perhaps you can let him know that is family is more important than Susan Hatmaker. Forging court orders in Judge Ishii name, I just could not figure which one of his clerks was helping Hatmaker. Until his dumb ass sent a order on June 30, 2015, supposedly signed by Judge Ishii. . . . . again, and spoke to me on the phone. Guess he did not realized that his information was sent to the State Bar. Did he mention this to you he really thinks he’s smart but to allow Susan Hatmaker to (punk) your husband. Did you know what she made your husband do, after Judge Ishii is aware of what happen. Oh, word in the building is that your dear sweet husband and Ray Horng . . . you take it from there.

Bernadette, please don’t go yelling someone is threatening me or harassing me because you know exactly what Michael did. Please speak with Michael and let know God, family, then work because at the rate he’s going he will more than likely end up in federal prison for his misdeeds.

Respectfully,

The Plaintiff Wife: because Black people Love their families also. P.S: Nobody’s stalking you, harassing you, threatening but your husband has done so . . . speak to him. You should have more power over him than Susan Hatmaker. She’s a user and a she-devil, don’t be fooled by her. There have been over fifteen (15) people fired from their jobs because of her I can provide names.
file:///C:/Users/msowards/AppData/Local/Temp/notes58C3E5/~web3072.htm 7/6/2015
EXHIBIT D
From: Michelle Roone; To: Angela Alvare: Cc: Renee Gaumnitz Date: 07/07/2015 08:23 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Order in 12cv633, William Jones
Angela,

Good morning. Just received a call from Helen Jones, a relative of William Jones, re the two docket entries I recently put on the docket (documents 105 and 106). She, again, is saying that the signature on document 106 is not Judge Ishii’s. She, also, had observation about Attorney Susan Hatmaker’s email address. Anyway, she wanted to know who told me to docket these and I told her I was instructed to do so by my supervisor, Angela Alvarez. I did not give her your direct dial but told her to call the clerk’s office first and ask for you. She is a handful.
06/30/ vi SERVICE BY MAIL: 106 Order on Motion for Reconsideration served on 2015 e William Ray Jones Sr., (Rooney, M) (Entered: 06/30/2015) w 06/30/ vi ORDER DENYING plaintiffs second motion for relief from judgment, document 2015 e 104. Order signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/30/2015. (Rooney, M) w (Entered: 06/30/2015) 10 6 06/22/ vi SERVICE BY MAIL: 105 Minute Order served on William Ray Jones Sr. 2015 e (Rooney, M) (Entered: 06/22/2015) w 06/22/ v. MINUTE ORDER: (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) The Court is in receipt of a document, 2015 e 104, that is requested to be filed in case number 1:12-CV-633 AWIJLT, which w requests reconsideration by plaintiff. Defendant is directed not to respond unless 10 directed to do so by the Court. Minute Order signed by District Judge Anthony W. 5 Ishii on 6/22/2015. (Rooney, M) (Entered: 06/22/2015) 06/19/ vi MOTION for RECONSIDERATION of Motions for Relief Under FRCP 60(b)(d) 2015 e 3 and 56, by William Ray Jones, Sr. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 06/19/2015) w 10 4
EXHIBIT E
From: To: “aespana-purpur Date: 07/07/2015 02:12 PM Subject: Complaint
Adele,

We are making a complaint against Michael Sowards, Judge Ishii Law Clerk . . . I have received another fraudulent order supposedly signed by Judge Ishii. I just filed a reconsideration on the motions and received a fraudulent order back. This unacceptable and illegal, the clerk of the court Marianne Matherly cannot contain the acts of her employees. We have a lawsuit pending against the Eastern District Employees and the behavior of this court is unacceptable. Judge England is supposedly in charge of these employees and we would like to make a complaint.
William R. Jones cc: file
EXHIBIT F
From: To: “:mmatherly Date: 07/08/2015 09:27 PM Subject: Witness & Evidence Tampering “Under the Cover of Law”
I received a phone call from someone identifying himself as US Marshal (Gil Rodriguez) with the Eastern District Court Fresno, California office. Mr. Rodriguez called our home stating he wish to speak with me about my Federal Lawsuit against Lehigh Southwest Cement or the Lawsuit against; the Eastern District Court Employees and Attorneys Susan Hatmaker, Brett Sutton, Jared Hague, and Joseph Macias. He did not specify which Judge.

The phone call stated,” Hey Mr. Jones, I spoke to the Judge and he wanted me to tell you that your case is finished and it’s over with. He also stated,” call me at 559-442-2800, so that I discuss your case with you.” The is beyond outrageous, how dare the employees use the US Marshals Service again to intimidate me and my family regarding our filing a lawsuit This is definitely against the law, first and foremost, “What Judge.” Secondly, I have never heard of a Federal District Judge using the US Marshal to contact a Pro Se Plaintiff regarding their lawsuit. As United States citizens we have rights and the Employees of the Eastern District Court, Fresno, California and the US Marshal Office. The act of intimidating a Plaintiff involved in any federal court case should be illegal. The actions of officer Rodriguez are criminal and will not be tolerated.

We have complained to your office previously regarding the Civil Rights violations, the Federal Rules of Procedure violation, and the violation of my Constitutional Rights are federal crimes. Officer Rodriguez intervening in this matter does not make sense. What Federal Judge asks a US Marshal to call a Pro Se Plaintiff to tell them that their case is over . . . and he wants to discuss this case with me. This is the second attempt to dissuade me from filing documents, and continuing with my case. Before the US Marshals came to my home to intimidate and threaten me in October 2014.

Again, we have asked your office to intervene with this matter of the employees, forging the Federal Judge signature, attorney being allowed to write order and sign a Federal Judge name. This is not only intimidation, this is harassment and they are making threats. As an American Citizen I ask that your office to intervene into this civil rights violation . . . what is next to murder me and my family in our home. I will be making a police report about this phone call and notifying all other pertinent individuals involved.

Tampering with a witness is a crime and this crime is being reported. I have every right to continue to fight for justice in my case and if they don’t like it they call the US Marshals . . . e, so that’s where taxpayer dollars go intimidating witness also the is the second time the Marshal have attempted to silence me and my family regarding my lawsuits against them, I’m thinking next they will bring harm to me and my family. So I will have to report this to the FBI also.
William and Helene Jones cc: Judge Anthony W. Ishii Chief District Judge Morris C. England Jr. Federal Bureau of Investigation
EXHIBIT G
From: To: “aishii Date: 07/08/2015 09:54 PM Subject: Jones-vs-Lehigh Southwest Cement: 01:12-CV-00633-AWI-JLT
Dear Honorable Judge Ishii;

This may not be acceptable or legal to contact you by e-mail because considering the rules of ex-parte communication, but supposedly you gave Attorney Susan Hatmaker a “Summary Judgment” in May 2014. We filed a “Motion for Relief Under 59 & 60 separately and you supposedly denied the motions that we based upon “Fraud Upon the Court.” So on June 22, 2015 you supposedly signed a minute order and advised defendant not to respond unless told to do so by court. However, on June 30, 2015, you supposedly signed an order denying the Reconsideration.

Judge Ishii, we have been trying to contact you the correct way since 2012, when you signed the last order in this case. But all of our attempts have been denied, misdirect and re-route to Attorney Hatmaker who forged your name to a court order. It is very important that you review this case because, there are Civil Rights violations, Constitutional Rights violations, and Federal Procedural Code Rules that have not been adhered too.

Did you make a ruling on this case without the legal language required? Did you remember the Jones -vs- Lehigh Southwest Cement case? Harold Nazaroff your former Deputy Clerk, committed acts of fraud upon the court without your knowledge. Judge ishii, please review this case we also asked you to vacate the judgment, you denied it. Please, it’s very important that we resolve this case, thank you.

Helene Jones for William R. Jones Sr.

EXHIBIT H
From: To: “lhecke” Date: 07/09/2015 01:29 AM Subject: No Response
Mrs./Ms. Heckr;

Is there a reason why you will not respond to my phone calls/messages or my emails? I have contacted you for a reason, it’s very disheartening that you will not even take the time to respond to me? Nobody deserves to be treated less than a human being as your title reads civil rights lawyer; is this true or not. Okay, so don’t answer my question about Judge Ishii contacting you, but just don’t ignore my calls or e-mails. I’m a person and deserve much more than your giving.

I seem to have lost faith in the Fresno Judicial system. All of the corruption, entitlement issues that going on with everyone I have come into contact with is unbelievable. Every law that could be violated has been violated, and nobody answers to anyone. The court employees run the court and are allow to do whatever they please. The Deputy Clerks run the Judges and the Clerk of the Court, the Law Clerks only allow Judges to see what they want. Attorneys can sign Judges names to orders and present these documents as truthful legal orders. As a Pro Se Plaintiff I should be given the same rights as the attorney but no, I can’t get a motion pass a cowardly Law Clerk and the Clerk of the Court agrees with this.

Your are a civil rights lawyer, well my civil rights have been violated, trampled on and mostly I have been discriminated against. Because I strongly believe that any white citizen that would have been treated this way, somebody would have rushed to their defense. The court is actually making a difference with the color of a Plaintiff, I have done nothing illegal but file my document and truthful statements.

I’m able to afford to hire you but do you only deal with Fresno citizens and perhaps the only Black people you see are defendants. We are not all criminals we are entitled the rights that were provided for us in 1964, but when you have court employees and law clerks selecting who and what gets by them is criminal.

I’m taken aback by your non-response, at least have the courtesy to return my call Mrs./Ms. Hecker, be a civil rights attorney. This entire ordeal is beyond believe as to what these people have done. How can an attorney write her own Summary Judgment order sign the judge name and have the case close. I have filed a motion 59 & 60 for relief based upon fraud upon the court but yet they are being denied and not by Judge Ishii. Seriously, I will forward this email to Judge Morris C. England office also. Because I complained to his office to no avail and his deputy clerk sent the US Marshals to are home to intimidate and harass my family. This is how a Federal Court works, God help us all. William Jones Sr.

Sent from Windows Mail

EXHIBIT I
Federal Witness Intimidation and Tampering with Evidence freefalling880 to: msowards 07/11/2015 12:30 PM Cc: “internal.affairs@usdoj.gov” Hide Details From: To: “msowards Cc: “internal.affairs@usdoj.gov”
Mr. Sowards, (Law Clerk for Federal Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii);

Your racially motivated attacks of intimidation against me will not be tolerated, there is a Federal Lawsuit pending against: Deputy Clerks, Harold Nazaroff, Renee Gamunitz, Stephanie Detsuch and Attorneys, Susan Hatmaker, Brett Sutton, Jared Hague, and Joseph Macias. We know that you and your cohorts (Susan Hatmaker and the employees of the Eastern District Court) would have never attempted this against a white Pro Se Plaintiff. You and Susan Hatmaker are racist and the worst type of racist, the ones that hide behind the law and others. Do you both get your sheets dry cleaned at the same shop? Your poor choice of words in your Order to Show Cause “are you serious” this information is going to Washington, D.C., Attorney General Office, and the Department of Justice. Since you want to continue your campaign of harassment, by involving the US Marshals with your personal vendetta.

You know very well that Judge Ishii has not reviewed the Jones -vs- Lehigh Southwest Cement since 2012. You can write any order you want, but you are not a Judge, you are a Law Clerk for now. I will do what’s necessary to protect my family from you and the employees of the Eastern District Court. You seem to have a little authority/control over these inept individuals only if they new the trouble they will eventually be in they would definite jump ship.

Your a coward, and Susan Hatmaker has made you her whipping boy since Harold Nazaroff got fired. That’s right continue to protect her because you will sitting right next to her in Federal Court facing charges. Did you really think that I would fall for your sorry attempt to forge orders, and other documents. . . . you have another thing coming.

Will you be sending US Marshals out to our home again, if you do you better be prepared for the consequences of your actions Mr. Sowards. Because, my Father and your determination to “get us” will eventually cause your down fall along with all your cohorts include Susan Hatmaker (that whack job). Your little paydays are over with, your a criminal and I will let that be known. Your family should be important to you, think about how this will effect them . . . you will never, never, ever be a Federal Judge Mr. Sowards.
Respectfully, The Jones Family. Sent from Windows Mail file:///C:/Users/msowards/AppData/Local/Temp/notes58C3E5/~web2954.htm 7/13/2015
EXHIBIT J

“Order to Show Cause”. . . . Really Renee. . . . freefalling880 to: rgaumnitz 07/15/2015 12:21 PM
I would like a conference time with Judge Ishii for an “Order to Show Cause” calendared for July 20, 2015. Even though this is calendared with Judge Ishii, why do I have to show cause, the cause is stated in my current lawsuit. Judge Ishii, never reviewed this case since October 20212. There is a pending lawsuit 01-15-CV-00*757-SKO-LJO, and Judge Ishii is has for an order to show cause and adding my wife Helene Jones who is not a party to this you better check yourself. Because we are not going to give up with our pursuit of justice. I would like to know why I would have to show cause for anything when I filed a lawsuit with my cause of action was the misconduct in the prior lawsuit of 01-12-CV-00633-AWI.

This case was closed illegally (01-12-CV-00633-AWI) and now I have an “Order to Show Cause” including Helene Jones my wife who was not a party to the case. The “Order to Show Cause,” why I’m filing a lawsuit against the employees and attorneys. I’m not understanding any of the on goings that are taking place within the court systems. I have the Eastern District Federal Court Rules pamphlet however, this situation is not mention in the pamphlet. Clarification is required on all the this for me as a Pro Se Plaintiff to understand my rights.

Erin Fahey, wrote the order of minute but you place this on calendar for Michael Sowards, in order for him to use the US Marshals office to intimidate, threat or arrest Mr. and Mrs. Jones. This attempt to intimidate is really going over board Judge Ishii did not issue this order and you are aware of this. How long will this continue, you are aiding and abetting Michael Sowards criminal activity. Judge Ishii will have to issue a bench warrant, because we know for a fact this is not a request by Judge Ishii and Marianne Matherly is on vacation this week, right. And let it be know if a bench warrant is issued you better make it stick, cause the whole lot of you are going to eventually end up in prison.

Also, Renee you should think why things happen to you, why the heartache. You are not right and if you have a conscience and a soul which I speak to; your conduct and actions will continue to cause you heart break. You really should think but if you don’t have a conscience your not able to think, but only to do what your told. Honesty in your life might help with your heart break. You need therapy, you really do. Because if you do the things you have done you don’t have a soul and you go to hell. That’s real talk Mrs. Renee. Don’t let Mr. Sowards continue to use you and don’t let Susan Hatmaker use you, because you are responsible for own soul. And you have let it become corrupt. God is still with you for now, but don’t let Him take His hands off you because that will leave you with a reprobate mind:The phrase “reprobate mind” is found in Romans 1:28 in reference to those whom God has rejected as godless and wicked. They “suppress the truth by their wickedness,” and it is upon these people that the wrath of God rests ( Romans 1:18). This is part of your heartache you cannot be happy.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.Org/reprobate-mind.html#ixzz3fzOtvsup

Hopefully I can scheduled a conference with Judge Ishii, with parties involved, myself because as a Pro Se Plaintiff I am not understanding exactly what’s going on. Please contact me at your earliest convenience, 510-705-2857, thank you.

William R. Jones Jr.

cc: Internal Affairs: Department of Justice OIG US Marshals Office.

EXHIBIT K

US Marshal: Enforcers for the US District Court freefalling880 to: internal.affairs@usdoj.gov 07/15/2015 12:27 PM Cc: “:mmatherly
I would like a conference time with Judge Ishii for an “Order to Show Cause” calendared for July 20, 2015. Even though this is calendared with Judge Ishii, why do I have to show cause, the cause is stated in my current lawsuit. Judge Ishii, never reviewed this case since October 20212. There is a pending lawsuit 01-15-CV-00757-SKO-LJO, and Judge Ishii is has for an order to show cause and adding my wife Helene Jones who is not a party to this you better check yourself. Because we are not going to give up with our pursuit of justice. I would like to know why I would have to show cause for anything when I filed a lawsuit with my cause of action was the misconduct in the prior lawsuit of 01-12-CV-00633-AWI.

This case was closed illegally (01-12-CV-00633-AWI) and now I have an “Order to Show Cause” including Helene Jones my wife who was not a party to the case. The “Order to Show Cause/’ why I’m filing a lawsuit against the employees and attorneys. I’m not understanding any of the on goings that are taking place within the court systems. I have the Eastern District Federal Court Rules pamphlet however, this situation is not mention in the pamphlet. Clarification is required on all the this for me as a Pro Se Plaintiff to understand my rights.

Erin Fahey, wrote the order of minute but you place this on calendar for Michael Sowards, in order for him to use the US Marshals office to intimidate, threat or arrest Mr. and Mrs. Jones. This attempt to intimidate is really going over board Judge Ishii did not issue this order and you are aware of this. How long will this continue, you are aiding and abetting Michael Sowards criminal activity. Judge Ishii will have to issue a bench warrant, because we know for a fact this is not a request by Judge Ishii and Marianne Matherly is on vacation this week, right. And let it be know if a bench warrant is issued you better make it stick, cause the whole lot of you are going to eventually end up in prison.

Hopefully I can scheduled a conference with Judge Ishii, with parties involved, myself because as a Pro Se Plaintiff I am not understanding exactly what’s going on. Please contact me at your earliest convenience, 510-705-2857, thank you.

William R.Jones Jr.

cc: Internal Affairs: Department of Justice OIG US Marshals Office.

FootNotes

1. The Court has ordered e-mails from the Joneses to be filed as exhibits. Each e-mail post-dates June 30, 2015.

Comment

Name

Email

Comment Your Comments on this Decision
1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

What they forgot to mention is that Attorney Susan Hatmaker was arrested by order of District Chief Judge Morris C. England Jr. on Sept 09, 2014. The copy of arrest information for forgery : Federal District Judge Anthony W. Ishii’s signature. The signature gave Susan Hatmaker: Hatmaker Law Group a false summary judgment and Judge Ishii in order to save face went along with this. What they forgot to also state is that file clerk C.Marjuco (sp) signed a arrest warrant. According to federal law only a federal judge in a federal court case can issue a warrant.

We contend and will continue to state the truth, the public has a right to know just how corrupt the federal judicial system is and makes fools out of the general public. As a Pro Se Plaintiff William R. Jones had every right to accused these employees of their misdeeds. Judge England and Ishii but have committed crimes. They can be charged, but every California attorney refuses too even help with even with offers of payment. Oh…we were arrested and filmed, by U.S. Marshalls that came to our home with a meth head officer with AK-15 weapons.

Here is a copy of the arrest by U.S. Marshals by reminded this is a wrongful termination case that went awfully bad. My neighbors video, excuse the shakiness of the video and other misgivings the marshals’ did not want this filmed. Believe me Judge Ishii was really surprised by what was told to him on August 25, 2015, he lied and he know this. Also all his bailiffs, deputies know that were innocent and lies and corruption went on that day.

The Youtube videohttps://youtu.be/jU6pJUTwm9c info:

You don’t know me, but I filed court documents and evidence was removed, not only removed but court employees allowed attorneys to forge a Federal District Judge name on a Summary Judgment Order written by the attorney herself. We had complaints to all relevant agencies FBI, DOJ and others to no avail. We were told by the Judicial Council to contact the Chief District Judge and he called our home. After advising the Chief District Judge of what happened, the attorney involved was arrested and arraigned (the DA stated she was arraigned for not registering a boat) Yeah Right…After all of this the US Marshal were sent to our home saying that we had threatened a judge. So now we are forced to sue the court employees and attorneys involved. Just wanted to share : This was filed on May 18, 2015: PRO SE PLAINTIFF Case # 1-15-CV-00757-GSA.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT COURT FRESNO, CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff,
vs.
Susan K. Hatmaker, Brett Sutton, Jared Hague: dba Sutton and Hatmaker and Susan K. Hatmaker of Hatmaker Law Group. Brett Sutton and Jared Hague of/dba: Sutton and Hague. Harold Nazaroff and Renee Gaumintz
Defendants SUMMONS & COMPLAINT:
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN VIOLATION OF: US CODE: 18 U.S. Code § 242, 18 U.S. Code § 505, and 28 U.S. Code § 951 and 42 U.S. Code § 1983

THE PLAINTIFF , REQUEST THE COURT PERMISSION TO PROCEED IN THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, DISTRICT COURT IN HIS ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS. THE DEFENDANTS ATTORNEYS; SUSAN K. HATMAKER, DBA: HATMAKER LAW GROUP, FORMERLY WITH SUTTON AND HATMAKER, BRETT SUTTON AND JARED HAGUE, DBA: SUTTON AND HAGUE, FORMERLY: SUTTON AND HATMAKER AND HAROLD NAZAROFF, FORMER DEPUTY CLERK FOR CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE ANTHONY W. ISHII AND RENEE GAUMINITZ , CURRENT DEPUTY CLERK FOR CHIEF JUDGE ANTHONY W. ISHII.
CAUSE OF ACTION
THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS RELIEF IN THE IN THE EASTER FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNDER ON THE FOLLOWING U.S. CODE : U.S CODE: 18 U.S. Code § 242; DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW, Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
ALL DEFENDANTS MENTION IN THIS CAUSE OF ACTION DID AND HAVE PARTICIPATED IN DEPRIVING THE PLAINTIFF OF HIS INDIVIDUAL CIVIL RIGHTS. ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF DOES HAVE TO SET FORTH HIS CASE WITHIN HIS SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, HE SHALL REQUEST THE COURT INDULGENCE TO REVIEW THE PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT FRESNO, CALIFORNIA UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ANTHONY W. ISHII, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE CASE NO. : 01-12-CV-00633-AWI.
THE PLAINTIFF FILED MOTIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER FEDERAL PROCEDURE
RULE 56 (a) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense — or the part of each claim or defense — on which summary judgment is sought.
The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion. THE PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR RELIEF UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56 (d) AND THE MOTION FILED UNDER FRCP 60 WAS SUPPOSEDLY DENIED BY JUDGE ISHII, HOWEVER, THE PLAINTIFF PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A GENUINE DISPUTE AS TO MATERIAL FACTS AND THE PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO JUDGEMENT (SEE EXHIBIT-A and B-PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR REFLIEF UNDER FPCR 56 & 60-ATTACHED). THE COURT DID NOT STATE ON RECORD THE REASON WHY THE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION WAS DENIED. HOWEVER JUDGE ISHII SUPPOSEDLY ADDRESSED THE ISSUE IN AN INFORMATIONAL REGARDING HIS DECISION TO DENY THE MOTION (SEE EXHIBIT-C-JUDICIAL INFORMATIONAL ATTACHMENT-ATTACHED). THE PLAINTIFF BELIEVES THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE COMPLICITY WITH EACH OTHER BY REMOVED EXHIBITS (EVIDENCES) THAT WAS DOCUMENTED IN THE BODY OF MOTIONS. THE PLAINTIFF ALSO INFORMS THE COURT THAT THE SIGNATURE ON THE FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS ARE NOT THAT OF CHIEF SENIOR JUDGE ANTHONY W. ISHII.
THE INFORMATIONAL ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT C SHOWS A COPY AND PASTE SIGNATURE THAT WAS PUPORTEDLY AN E-SIGNATURE (ELECTRONIC) THAT’S THE STATEMENT ON THE INFOMATIONAL DOCUMENT. THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS SHOW THAT THE SIGNATURES ARE MORE THAN LIKELY SCANNED COPIES NOT E-SIGNATURES AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT
FOR AUTHENICITY. THE DOCUMENTS ARE MISSING THE SEAL OF THE FEDERAL COURT THAT HAS JURISDICTION; UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF THE US COURTS THE FOLLOWING IS ALLOWED FOR FEDERAL JUDGES SIGNATURES: COURTS MEET THE FEDERAL RULES REQUIREMENTS OF AN “ORGINAL “SIGNAUTURE ON DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE COURT IN DIFFERENT WAYS. ON PAPERS FILED ELECTRONICALLY, THIS REQUIREMENT MAY BE MET WITH THE LOG-IN AND PASSWORD, AND THE SIGNAURE INDICATED BY s/ or /s. ALSO, ALL DOCUMENTS RECEIVED BY THE PLAINTIFF ARE MISSING THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE COURT. ACCORDINGLY UNDER U.S. CODE 18 § 505; Seals of courts; signatures of judges or court officers; Whoever forges the signature of any judge, register, or other officer of any court of the United States, or of any Territory thereof, or forges or counterfeits the seal of any such court, or knowingly concurs in using any such forged or counterfeit signature or seal, for the purpose of authenticating any proceeding or document, or tenders in evidence any such proceeding or document with a false or counterfeit signature of any such judge, register, or other officer, or a false or counterfeit seal of the court, subscribed or attached thereto, knowing such signature or seal to be false or counterfeit, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. THE PLAINTIFF STATES THAT UNDER FEDERAL COURT GUIDELINES: A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE COURT ELECTRONICALLY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE SIGNED BY A PERSON (“THE SIGNATORY”) WHEN THE DOCUMENT IDENTIFIES THE PERSON AS SIGNATORY AND THE FILING COMPLIES WITH SUBPARAGRAPH A OR B. ANY FILING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY OF THESE METHODS SHALL BIND THE SIGNATORY’S SIGNATURE, WHETHER FOR PURPOSES OF RULE 11 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, TO ATTEST TO THE TRUTHFULNESS OF AN AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION, OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. THE SIGNATURE ON DOCUMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED FROM THE COURT ARE FALSE DOCUMENTS WITH FORGED SIGNATURES AND NO SEALS. THE SIGNATURE DOES NOT IDENTIFY ANTHONY W. ISHII AS THE SIGNATORY BECAUSE HIS JUDICIAL TITLE IS NOT PRESENT. THESE FALSELY FILED DOCUMENTS AFFORDED ATTORNEYS SUSAN K. HATMAKER, BRETT SUTTON AND JARED HAGUE AN ILLEGAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FOR THEIR CLIENT (LEIGH SOUTHWEST CEMENT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA CASE NO.: 01-12-CV-00633) IN FEDERAL DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT (SEE EXHIBIT-D- SUSAN HATMAKER ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND HER DECLARATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT).
IN ORDER FOR THE ATTORNEYS MENTION IN THIS CAUSE OF ACTION TO PROCEED WITH THEIR FRAUDLENT ACTIVITIES (FILINGS, FORGERY OF JUDGE ISHII SIGNATURE, AND CLOSING OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ CASE) THEY MORE THAN LIKELY HAD TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE FROM AN INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED WITHIN THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT. ACCORDING TO TITLE 28 U.S. CODE 951; Oath of office of clerks and deputies; Each clerk of court and his deputies shall take the following oath or affirmation before entering upon their duties: “I, XXX XXX, having been appointed XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of such court, and will faithfully and impartially discharge all other duties of my office according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God.” IT’S APPARENT THAT THIS OATH MEANS LITTLE OR NOTHING TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND THE DEPUTIES OF THE COURT, BECAUSE OF THEIR PARTICIPATION IN UNDERMINING THE PLAINTIFF CASE AND VIOLATING HIS CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER TILE 42 CODE § 1983 –
Civil action for deprivation of rights: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. THE PLAINTIFF HAS ATTACHED EMAILS FROM FORMER DEPUTY CLERK, HAROLD NAZAROFF STATING HIS REFUSAL TO CONTACT THE OFFICER OF THE COURT WITH THE PLAINTIFF CONCERNS OF FRAUD, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND FORGERY. ALSO, ATTACHED IS ONE OF THE MANY CORRESPONDENCES DELIVERED TO THE COURT, SIGNED AND STAMPED BY THE COURT ON JULY 28, 2014, THE EMPLOYEES FOR JUDGE ISHII STATED THAT THIS LETTER WAS GIVEN TO THE JUDGE, HOWEVER, THE PLAINTIFF NEVER RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE FROM THE COURT AS THIS LETTER WAS ATTACHED TO MY MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER FRPC 60, THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY DENIED BY JUDGE ISHII (SEE EXHIBIT-E-LETTERS, EMAILS, CORRESPONDENCES FROM THE COURT EMPLOYEES).
THE PLAINTIFF ALSO WISHES TO ADVISE THE COURT OF HIS CONVERSATION WITH CHIEF JUDGE MORRIS C. ENGLAND JR. ON SEPTEMBER 05, 2014, AT 11:20AM. JUDGE ENGLAND WAS INFORMED OF THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT REGADING THE BEHAVIOR OF HIS COURTROOM ADMINISTRATORS, AND DEPUTY CLERKS. HE WAS INFORMED THAT HIS EMPLOYEES CONDUCT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO CITIZENS, TAXPAYERS AND RESIDENCES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW, THEY HAVE USED THEIR POSITIONS TO INTIMDATE, HARRASS AND THREATEN THE PLAINTIFF. JUDGE ENGLAND WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT ATTORNEY SUSAN HATMAKER, WAS/IS AWARE THAT JUDGE ISHII SIGNATURE WAS FORGED; HE SEARCHED THE PACER WEBSITE ALONG WITH MYSELF AND FOUND THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS FORGED AND STATED, “I GOT YOU….I GOT YOU” ….. THEN JUDGE ENGLAND IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS STATED HE WOULD GET BACK WITH THE PLAINTIFF CONCERNING HIS COMPLAINTS REGARDNG THE COURTROOM EMPLOYEES. HE ALSO APPRISED ME THAT HE COULD NOT GET INVOLVED WITH THE CASE BUT WOULD ADDRESS THE BEHAVIOR OF HIS EMPLOYEES AND SPEAK WITH JUDGE ISHII.
JUDGE ENGLAND NEVER RESPONDED BACK AS HE STATED, SO THEREFORE I PHONED HIS CHAMBERS AS A CITIZEN, TAXPAYER AND CALIFORNIA RESIDENT TO REQUEST A MEETING TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS. HIS ASSITANT, ADELE PURPUR-ESPANA STATED THAT JUDGE ENGLAND HAS ADVISED HER TOO NO LONGER HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION WITH ME. THE EMAIL THAT I RECEIVED FROM JUDGE ENGLAND (JUDGES HAVE EMAILS) WAS SIGNED “MCE.” ALTHOUGH, I AM NOT FRIENDS WITH JUDGE ENGLANCE BUT FOR A FEDERAL JUDGE TO SEND AN EMAIL WITH ONLY HIS INITIALS “MCE” WHO IS “MCE.” (SEE EXHIBIT-F- JUDGE ENGLAND EMAIL.
AFTER REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT THE JUDGES’ ASSISTANT ADELE AND HIS DEPUTY CLERK STEPHANIE TO NO AVAIL, MY WIFE HELENE JONES RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM THE US MARSHALS OFFICE IN SACRAMENTO. OFFICER JOE MCKEOUGH (SP?) STATED THAT, SHE NEED TO STOP CALLING THE JUDGES CHAMBERS. MY WIFE INFORMED HIM THAT SHE DID NOT BELIEVE HIS CALL BECAUSE WE HAD THE RIGHT TO CALL CHAMBERS WITH OUR COMPLAINT ABOUT HIS EMPLOYEES. WE HAD BEEN RECEIVING MANY CALLS FROM PEOPLE THAT WERE STATING THAT WERE FROM DIFFERENT ENTITIES.
HOWEVER, OFFICER MCKEOUGH (SP?) DEEMED OTHERWISE BECAUSE ON OCTOBER 01, 2014, OFFICERS FROM THE US MARSHALS OFFICE SHOWED UP AT MY HOME AT 7:30PM, WITHOUT ANY WARNING OR AUTHORIZATION. THEY DID NOT PROVIDE ANY IDENTIFICATION NEITHER WOULD THEY TELL US UNDER WHOS’ AUTHORITY THEY WERE THERE UNDER. MY FAMILY AND I SAW THIS AS AN ACT OF AGGRESSION, INTIMIDATION, HARRASSMENT AND THREAT AGAINST MY FAMILY. THE US MARSHALS DID NOT FOLLOW THEIR OWN PROCTOLS AND GUIDELINES BEFORE ASSESSING A SO-CALLED THREAT TO A FEDERAL JUDGE. THE ACTIONS OF THE US MARHALS IS COVERED UNDER TITLE 18 CODE § 242.
SINCE THE EVENTS OF OCTOBER 1, 2014, WE HAVE TRIED REPEATEDLY TO CONTACT THE COURT FOR SOME TIME OF RESOULTION. JUDGE ISHII’S LAW CLERKS AND CURRENT DEPUTY CLERK RENEE GAMNITZ HAVE REFUSED TO COMMUNICATE WITH ME. HOWEVER, JUDGE ISHIIS’ LAW CLERK RAY HORNG STATED, “OH…I SEE THE VISIT BY THE US MARSHALS DIDN’T SEEM TO DO YOU ANY GOOD.” THIS STATEMENT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT JUDGE ISHIIS’ LAW CLERK WAS WELL AWARE OF IMMENIENT THREAT THAT THE MARSHAL OFFICE WAS PREPARING. ANY DOCUMENTS THAT I HAVE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT HAVE NOT BE PRESENTED TO JUDGE ISHII. HIS LAW CLERKS, MICHAEL SOWARDS AND HIS FORMER RETIRED DEPUTY CLERK HAROLD NAZAROFF BOTH HAVE WIVES WHO ARE INVOLVED IN A RELATIONSHIP/FRIENDSHIP WITH THE LEAD ATTORNEY SUSAN HATMAKER ON THE PLAINTIFF’S PERVIOUS COURT ACTION (JONES –VS- LEHIGH SOUTHWEST CEMENT 01:12-CV-0633-AWI).
THIS INFORMATION WAS REPORTED TO THE COURT AS THE PLAINTIFF AS NOW BEEN FORCED TO FILE A NEW ACTION WITH THE COURT AGAINST THE ATTORNEYS AND THE COURTROOM EMPLOYEES. THE PLAINTIFF ASKED THE COURT TO ALLOW HIS COMPLAINT TO BE HANDLED IN ANOTHER VENUE UNDER TITLE 18 US CODE 1404 (a). IT’S THE PLAINTIFF BELIEF THAT HE CANNOT AND WILL NOT RECEIVE FAIR TREATMENT WITHIN THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT. THE PLAINTIFF IS AWARE THAT THE FRESNO DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF WHERE THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES AND DEFENDANTS ACTIONS OCCURRED.
THE PLAINTIFF CURRENTLY LIVES IN THE KERN COUNTY AREA, HOWEVER I SHALL BE CHANGING RESIDENCES AT THE FIRST OF THE YEAR. THE PLAINTIFF REQUEST THAT HE BE ALLOWED A CHANGE OF VENUE TO THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURT, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.