I filed a few documents in the United District Court in Missoula, Montana today, one of which is in response to an action of that court which is a demonstration of the ongoing abuse of process that Court has so readily demonstrated against me through the years.
As a reminder, I turned to the U.S. District Court with a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the Montana courts – specifically the Montana Supreme Court, though by chain of command to all lower courts, as well – to provide me equal protection under the law, and to provide me the right to which I am already entitled under Montana law: to prosecute claims on behalf of my grandmother’s estate (See MCA Section 72-3-613(22)). Without much surprise, the U.S. District Court is trying to deny me federal protection and oversight.
Because, as I have said previously, the U.S. District Courts of Montana are run by the State, not the federal government, in spite of pretense to the contrary. Every position in every federal agency I have been able to identify has been raised from a position within state government, or at the very least from a position loyal to state government. When every actor in a position to represent the federal government within Montana is actually appointed from within Montana, is it any surprise that the “federal” courts act more as extensions of state government than in their proper capacity to be separate, oversee and prevent violations of civil liberties perpetuated by state into its citizens?
Every other citizen in Montana is entitled to the privilege of representing their loved ones’ estates in court, but I alone am denied the basic protection of the law, which is standard practice for this corrupt government that routinely abuses its position to deprive me basic human dignity. The reason is because I am an heir to the estate, and if I were to prevail in my claims on behalf of my grandmother’s estate, I would gain a significant resource to draw upon to fight back against my political imprisonment – something the state of Montana has been doing their level best to prevent for over thirteen years now.
Money equals power, and so long as I am kept impoverished, I have little voice – all I have are my words, but they are buried behind the propaganda mounted against me by those who have money and can use that money to control who speaks and when. I have this blog and I have my book, and frequent readers of this blog know the abuse I have suffered for continuing to speak.
The federal courts is a perfect example of how I am kept silent for lack of money. Because I am poor, I must file waivers of fees to proceed in the courts – something called proceeding in forma pauperis. Now, though the law does not actually provide for it and it represents a HUGE example of invidious class discrimination, the courts of Montana (and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals endorses this practice, though I cannot find whether any other district does this) pre-screen any complaint filed by someone declaring themselves poor and indigent. This is a practice adopted for PRISONERS whose civil liberties have been restricted, but the federal courts of Montana have extended it to poor petitioners, as well – effectively stripping poor citizens of their constitutional rights of due process.
Simply put, the Montana U.S. District Courts pre-screen 99% of cases filed by indigent litigants through this method. And they use ridiculous, illegal and unconstitutional justifications to do so. The premise here is that under pretense of due process, the federal courts dismiss the bulk of cases filed by indigent parties as a way of silencing claims brought against the State of Montana.
Now, if I had money and could afford to file without seeking in forma pauperis status, there would be no pre-screening. None. Zero. Nada. I could file the most ridiculous pleadings imaginable, and they would proceed through the normal process of litigation without any pre-screening by the federal courts.
I could literally file a lawsuit against a fictional leprechaun for turning the sky a rosy shade of pink with baby blue polka-dots, and the federal court would not prescreen the complaint. All because I was not poor and could afford the filing fee.
In other words, remove my financial impoverishment, and suddenly I have a legitimate voice in court. I suddenly have all my rights of due process restored (at least in the federal courts), and the state of Montana simply cannot allow that.
Case in point: though my petition for writ of mandamus is a clear issue of Fourteenth Amendment equal protection civil liberties deprivation and the state is clearly ignoring the law in this case to advance a vendetta against me personally, Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch decided to use the pre-screening process to recommend dismissal of my petition.
Just because I am poor. Forget that I am poor because these kinds of corrupt officials are keeping me poor by denying me equal protection of the law and due process in the first place – the fact that I am poor is being used to stop me from proceeding in the first place.
And what was Lynch’s reason based on? A case that only applies to criminal cases!! A petition for writ of mandamus is a civil cause, not criminal – just as the state-based claim against the predatory lending company, Reverse Mortgage Solutions, is also civil. Therefore, the justification to dismiss my civil petition is therefore based on an area of law that has no relationship to the subject matter before the U.S. District Court. And yet, Lynch is using this wholly irrelevant precedent as justification to once again shelter Montana from criminal misconduct.
Following is the “decision” issued by Jeremiah Lynch, for any who wish to review it:
053117 Federal Order Recommendation
As stated, the problem here is that Lynch is using the illegal practice of pre-screening poor and indigent causes to dismiss cases brought against the State of Montana. From what I have seen, he rarely has a legitimate reason to do so – he just creates official-sounding reasons and uses his power to quash the proceeding. And then whomever presides over the case as the actual judge just rubber-stamps it.
The example above is a perfect example of what I am saying. In spite of the fact that Lynch actually acknowledges that the subject of my petition is within the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court, he seeks out a completely irrelevant precedent as a justification to dismiss it – and in this case, he chose a decision that is founded upon a U.S. Supreme Court case that gives the federal courts the capacity to decline taking a matter based upon a criminal case. In fact, that is the exact language found in the precedent:
“[W]e hold that a federal court must not, save in exceptional and extremely limited circumstances, intervene by way of either injunction or declaration in an existing state criminal prosecution…” (Younger v Harris (401 US 37 (1971) @56).
And yet, this is precisely the legal foundation under which Lynch seeks to yet again step in front of a criminal misconduct claim raised against the State of Montana.
At any rate, I have provided you the words of the U.S. District Court, and now I am providing the language of my own pleading at the end of this post.
As I always, I urge you to speak out about this – because I cannot make this more plain than I am now. It is blatantly obvious that I am being denied fair and equal treatment, and the only reasonable explanation is that this a coordinated effort (or even uncoordinated effort aiming at the same end-goal) to keep me impoverished so I cannot fight back.
Because of this, my only hope remains in others fighting for me, because I am clearly powerless in my efforts to fight back myself…
Ron Glick
40 1st Avenue West #2
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 257-0479
ron_glick@yahoo.com
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
Cause No. CV 17-062-M-DLC-JCL
MT Supreme Court Cause No. DA 17-0113
Ronald Dwayne Glick,
Petitoner,
v.
Montana Supreme Court,
Respondent.
______________________________
Mary Mullins,
Appellant and Plaintiff,
v.
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.,
aka, RMI, and Does I-X,
Appellees and Defendants.
OBJECTION TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE LYNCH
COMES NOW Petitioner to object to the findings and recommendations of Judge Jeremiah Lynch, and to wit:
Petitioner filed for a writ of mandamus on or about May 8, 2017, and Judge Lynch issued findings and recommendations on or about May 31 (though Petitioner did not receive same until on or about June 2, 2017). The Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are grossly prejudicial and are anathema to law and constitution, should be rejected, and Petitioner’s relief should be granted without further delay.
DISCUSSION
Though Judge Lynch openly acknowledges that this Court would have jurisdiction, he then extends considerable effort to deflect responsibility from doing so. Principally, Lynch relies upon the premise that Petitioner is seeking to have this Court intercede in a simple subject matter adjudication, when in fact, Petitioner is seeking to have this Court act to prevent the Montana Supreme Court from depriving his right of access to court under the First Amendment and equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Even Lynch’s hinge reliance upon San Jose Silicon v San Jose (546 F3d 1087, 1092 (notably improperly notated by the Court)) is critically flawed, as the requirements of San Jose are not met here. For the requirements of San Jose to be met, all the conditions are required – and the Montana Supreme Court has specifically barred Petitioner from pleading whatsoever, much less permitting Petitioner to “[litigate] federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding”. The Montana Supreme Court’s order seeks to compel Petitioner to retain counsel for an estate they are fully aware is bereft of assets (as an in forma pauperis application was filed and granted on behalf of the estate).
Indisputably, Petitioner is seeking this Court to compel the state courts to provide Petitioner his lawful right to litigate, federal constitutional issues and otherwise. And the Montana Supreme Court – as the highest state court – has effectively barred Petitioner from pleading at all. There is simply no conceivable rationale in which Lynch could possibly believe that Petitioner is somehow capable of litigating federal constitutional issues if he is not permitted to plead in the first place.
Further, the foundation of Lynch’s sited cases is based on criminal law, not civil. Younger v Harris (401 US 37, 56 (1971) (…[W]e hold that a federal court must not, save in exceptional and extremely limited circumstances, intervene by way of either injunction or declaration in an existing state criminal prosecution”)) requires the limitation be limited to criminal issues. Likewise, San Jose – in directly relying upon Younger – is addressed toward abstention in enforcement of fines, which is a criminal issue.
The current issue before the Court is not criminal, and therefore is not encompassed within either of the standards set forth by Lynch in his recommendations. Consequently, the rule to abstain from ongoing criminal causes is simply not applicable to civil causes.
The criminal subject aside, the Montana Supreme Court’s conduct is precisely the extraordinary circumstances under which the United Supreme Court envisioned in Younger, which specifically finds that such extraordinary circumstances “exist only when there is a threat of irreparable injury ‘both great and immediate.’”
In the instant case, the Montana Supreme Court seeks to forever bar Petitioner’s claim on behalf of his grandmother’s estate. No further remedy would exist for Petitioner, his family’s legacy property would forever be lost, and the predatory lending practices of a reverse mortgage lender would be given carte blanche authority to continue. Irreparable injury is both great and immediate.
There is no simply no other way to view this. Lynch has misapplied the law to advance a personal grudge against Petitioner, who has challenged the integrity of this Court in the past. Lynch has already acknowledged that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, and his sited exception is not even remotely applicable to a civil proceeding. Consequently, this Court should reject Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendations and instead grant Petitioner’s relief without further delay so as to prevent the very great and immediate irreparable harm that Younger specifically references as legitimate cause for federal intervention.
Though Petitioner is fully aware of this Court’s prejudice upon the subject, he must again object to the procedure of pre-screening poor and indigent filings in this fashion as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibitions against invidious discrimination and in violation of applicable law. This procedure sets up a class-based discriminatory practice practice of deprivation of civil liberties based solely upon the lack of finances of a party that permits the very inherent abuse present in Lynch’s Findings and Recommendations in this cause, and is anathema to the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the right of access to court protected by the First Amendment.
Further, as Lynch’s reason for denying Petitioner’s motion for stay of state proceedings is equally flawed, Petitioner moves of the Court to overturn Lynch’s denial and to grant Petitioners stay pending the resolution of the federal court proceedings in this matter.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully objects to Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendations, moves of the Court to reject same and to grant the relief sought by Petitioner instead, and to grant the stay separately moved for by Petitioner.
Dated: June 11, 2017
Ron Glick, Petitioner
The Great Montana Conspiracy 