Okay, in a not-so surprising turn, the Montana Supreme Court has once again issued a memorandum order against me, refusing to strike down the grossly unconstitutional injunction issued against me by the person who stole my trademark – both violating all precepts of constitutional law while making sure their ruling against me only applied to me by barring the decision’s use as precedent. Yes, I know that’s a circuitous way of saying it, but remember: part of this injunction at issue is that I can’t use the name of the referenced thief nor my own trademark.
So a brief summary before I go further for those who have not followed my blog previously: In February, 2015, I sent a cease and desist notice to the thief of my intellectual property, and later filed an actual suit in March, 2015 for trademark infringement in the U.S. District Court. She responded by committing multiple felonious acts ranging from false reports of alleged crimes against me, trying to get my probation revoked and even filing for a restraining order whose principle purpose was to seek a backdoor injunction against me in the state district court to bypass the federal court. Well, she used her influence to have the cause heard in a completely wrong court (by law, city orders of protection are heard in the municipal court and county orders are heard in justice court, but she managed to have the matter heard in the district court) so it could be heard before a judge her law firm held influence over, then had a grossly unconstitutional order imposed against me that included the aforementioned injunction against me using her name or that of my own trademark, which she has stolen. The matter was submitted on appeal to the Montana Supreme Court (Cause No. DA 15-0313), and that order came down a few days ago as I mentioned above.
What is surprising this time though was that while preparing a motion for rehearing en banc, I found out that the Supreme Court’s ruling attracted the attention of someone at the UCLA School of Law, who then posted an article refuting the court’s decision through The Washington Post! One summary of the posted opinion states, “A court order that clearly violates the First Amendment, but that the Montana Supreme Court nonetheless upheld last week.”
Of course, the reporter had no clear background on my situation, but he saw that the decision was a clear violation of the First Amendment and wrote his article with that conclusion. I contacted him and informed him I was writing the motion for rehearing en banc and to look for its posting on this blog, so with luck I might have gained an advocate who actually sees through the legal pretense that the Montana Supreme Court is hiding behind.
I am not going to hold my breath, though. I have been trying to draw the attention of the national media now for a dozen years, and have had many disappointments that once looked promising. But nevertheless, it is a move in the right direction, and I hope in the interests of preserving our American system of government, he will step up and do what is right. That being said though, I am deliberately withholding his name here to remove any potential suggestion that he in any way endorses my fight.
At any rate, I am – as always – posting my response to this heinous ruling, a motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc, along with the affidavit included as an exhibit:
120215 Motion For Rehearing En Banc
112315 Affidavit To Recuse
The problem here, is that the Montana Supreme Court’s order in this matter is not about establishing or enforcing any principle of law. In fact, as is very common with orders this court imposes against me, the Montana Supreme Court deliberately made the order one that could not be cited as precedent, which means – for those who do not realize this fine point – that the determination that a court can bar constitutional right of access to court and due process, impose restrictions upon freedom of speech, and otherwise deprive an individual of human dignity is only permissible against one person: Me.
That’s right – the Montana Supreme Court has said it’s alright to deprive someone of dignity, civil rights and even their own property – so long as that person is Ron Glick, and only Ron Glick, because this decision to deny these basic civil liberties and human dignity cannot be used to justify this being done to anyone else – because the order cannot be used as a legal precedent to justify doing it to anyone else.
As I said, this decision – as with every decision thrown down by the Montana Supreme Court against me – is not based on law. It’s based on power. Power to do whatever they want without consequence or penalty – and my constantly speaking out against them gets in the way of that. This is a question of power, pure and simple: they have it, I do not, and they have no qualm against abusing it to keep me imprisoned as a dissident of the state.
This is about keeping me detained as a political prisoner, nothing more. I have said for a very long time – and reported ad nauseam in other posts of specific examples – of how the courts have made sure to bar my access to any kind of serious financial resource. I only recently – after seven years – had the local court issue summonses in the case against my former girlfriend and business partner who took off with all the business assets after being threatened with prison if she let me have access to them (the court clerk Peg Allison refused to issue summons when the case was transferred to her court, and I expect the delay to be used to shut down the suit entirely, even though its blatant administrative obstruction of justice); they refused to let me act as administrator of my grandmother’s finances as power of attorney (actually forbidding me to “earn” anything for helping her fight against a predatory reverse mortgage loan); they are blocking my claims against the estate of my former attorney (see the affidavit above); and now they are making sure they do everything they can to keep me from claiming any interest in the several hundred thousand dollars the thief of my intellectual property has collected to make a movie with my title. This gets old, but it always boils down to the same thing: keep me oppressed, keep me poor, and make sure everyone focuses on me as a sexual predator and not their own innumerable felonious acts.
This decision is not one that even makes sense. Courts cannot do this kind of thing legally – but these Montana officials are doing it. And it has finally caught the attention of someone in national media – now let’s see if it sticks…
The Great Montana Conspiracy 