1 Gene Forte fILE iE 0 COw 2 20 II JU 27 AM 9: 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fILEGene Forte iE 0 COw

1312 Sierra Creek Court Patterson, CA 95363 20 II JU 27 AM 9: 13 Telephone: (209) 894-5040

In Propria Persona

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF MERCED

EUGENE FORTE

Plaintiff,

vs.

ANTHONY DONALDSON BATES, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. CV001307

VERIFIED CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE REQUESTING RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE RONALD HANSEN; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

[CCP § 170.3]

TO JUDGE RONALD HANSEN:

Defendant EUGENE FORTE (hereinafter "Forte") hereby respectfully submits this Verified

Statement requesting that JUDGE RONALD HANSEN recuse himself from any hearing which

involves a contested issue of law or fact, or, alternatively, that another judge assigned by the

judicial council, pursuant to CCP §170.3(c)(5), consider Plaintiff Forte's challenge for cause and

order the disqualification of Judge Hansen.

This motion is based upon this VERIFIED CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE REQUESTING

RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE RONALD HANSEN, all declarations of

Eugene Forte, the memorandum of points and authorities served and filed herewith, any other

Forte v. Bates, CV001307 1 Challenge For Cause Against Judge Hansen

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

supplemental documents filed in support, and on such evidence as may be presented. All exhibits

referenced are attached to the Declaration of Eugene Forte filed herewith.

I. INTRODUCTION: WELCOME TO THE CABAL

This is not your run of the mill CCP §170.3 Challenge for Cause Against Assistant

Presiding Judge Ronald Hansen. It is a public indictment against the integrity of the entire Merced

County Superior Court Bench and the airing of its dirty laundry to what is suppose to be an

impartial judicial officer assigned to rule upon it ....and far more. It is a request for the judge ruling

upon this to immediately intervene according to his or her Judicial Canon of Ethics 3D and request

an investigation of the retaliatory and vindictive prosecution of Forte which is being covered up and

condoned by judicial officers of the Merced Superior Court.

Assistant Presiding Judge Ronald Hansen and Presiding Judge Brian McCabe have literally

not only shirked their responsibilities but, by their inaction, have participated in obstructing justice

for District Attorney Larry Morse. Judge Hansen is aware that Presiding Judge McCabe attempted

to leave Forte without an attorney assigned for his defense by letting public defender Ms. Barbara

O'Neill out based upon what he said was a declaration of conflict by O'Neill provided by her on

May 4th, 2011. Take a look at what Judge McCabe and Judge Hansen having knowledge of called

her declaration of conflict attached as Exhibit 10. Forte submits that such one piece of evidence

alone should be enough to raise the hair on the neck of any self respecting honest jurist.

Forte's letter to Judge McCabe and Judge Hansen asking for intervention and a request for

investigation of corrupt acts by Merced public officials (with evidence attached) was sent back to

Forte three times for no valid reason, and appears it was sent back because it contains evidence that

they do not want to see and do not want to have to address.

The cabal all began when Gene Forte, being the publisher of the Badger Flats Gazette,

exposed public corruption by the Merced County public officials. Forte is not a criminal gang

banger looking for a free ride in the justice system. He is an outstanding father and family man.

Forte's son recently graduated from Modesto's Central Catholic High School as senior class


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

president, was the valedictorian with a 4.8GPA, and will be attending Duke University in the fall.

Forte's daughter was also valedictorian of her class and is now in her third year at U.C. Berkeley.

Forte is a true blue mainstream American with mainstream values that stepped on the toes of

public official corruption in Merced County. When attending a case management conference (that

could not be due to the recusal of the bench) he was viciously attacked by Merced County Sheriff

Chris Picinich. Forte and his wife had been waiting patiently for over an hour and 30 minutes in the

hallway ofthe Merced Superior Court to have a disqualified pro tern judge James Padron (meaning

that he was not in fact ajudge and was absent of all jurisdiction) placed under citizen's arrest.

Deputy Picinich and Deputy Hymiller kept on telling Forte that he could arrest Padron

outside. Forte said he would not and said that for the safety of all involved, he wanted it done after

Padron finished his case management conferences for the day, and right below the surveillance

cameras above their heads.

James Padron is now the partner in the Law Firm of Canelo, Hansen, Wilson, and Padron,

the same law firm that Judge Ronald Hansen, the subject of this Challenge, was at one time a

partner of. It is not known if Hansen still has a vested interest in the law firm or not. Judge Hansen

has been requested to uphold his duty to his Judicial Canon of Ethics 3D and investigate the

admitted retaliatory prosecution by District Attorney Larry Morse of Forte for allegedly attacking

Padron.

Forte did not attack Padron. Has the judge that reviews this Challenge listened to the

recording of DA Larry Morse admitting that he could not investigate or file charges against Forte?

Has he or she had to ask themselves why the charges were filed by the Merced DA's Department?

Forte submits that he could go on infinitum to roast Judge Ronald Hansen to a crisp for his

injudicious actions thus far. But there is no need to.

Forte has little doubt that Judge Hansen will disqualify himself the minute this Challenge is

filed or he will refuse to answer it and default out. There is no way in hell that judicial joke Brian

McCabe, Judge Mark Bacciarini, DA Larry Morse, or Merced County Sherriff Mark Pazin, or the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

real players at the top, ex-AG Bill Lockyer and a little crooked Italian by the name of Leon Panetta,

will let this Challenge for Cause be seen by any other judge who is on the up and up.

But, if they think they can jerry rig the denying of it by another judicial officer ... well the

only thing Forte can tell the other judicial officer not granting this meritorious CCP 170.3 is the

same thing he told Judge John Golden prior to his denying what he called the "purported motion" to

declare Forte a vexatious litigant (made in their individual capacity) by ex-Attorney General Bill

Lockyer, ex-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and real party in interest ex-Chief Justice Ronald

George, "you'll be explaining your erroneous ruling for the rest of your retirement." There will be

books about this and it will make it to both big and little screens one day.

Forte submits that if Judge Hansen disqualifies himself as he should, it is an admission of

his guilt and that of the Merced County Superior Court. The only questions that remains is why

didn't he do it before.

II. THE FACTS

1. Judge Hansen previously was recused as part of a bench recusal by the Merced Superior

Court in Forte v. Jones, CU150880 (see Exhibit 1), on November 5th, 2008 wherein Forte is

the plaintiff and ex-Mayor Tommy Jones is the sole defendant.

2. The reason for recusal was that Judge Hansen knew "one or more of the parties involved,

and/or are a close friend of one of the attorney(s). Exhibit 1, lines 18-19.

3. Judge Hansen previously was recused as part of a bench recusal by the Merced Superior

Court in Tetra Tech v. MG. Santos, CU150938, on October 1st, 2008, wherein Forte was a

cross-complainant and defendant (see Exhibit 2), and several Merced County public

officials were named as cross-defendants including but not limited to District Attorney

Larry Morse (Exhibit 7, 2:10-11).

4. The reason for this recusal was also because Hansen knew "one or more of the parties

involved, and/or are a close friend of one of the attorney(s). Exhibit 2, lines 18-20.

5. On August 16,2010, Forte filed a verified complaint for 1) Intentional Infliction of

Emotional Distress and 2) Parental Responsibility Statute for Tort Committed by Minor


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Child which was served on Defendant DORIS LOVETT (hereinafter "Lovett"), the parent,

on September 8, 2010. (See Exhibit 3.)

6. The complaint alleges that Lovett's son, Defendant ANTHONY DONALDSON BATES

aka ANTHONY DONALDSON (hereinafter "Bates"), issued a death threat to Forte on

February 24th

of2010 which resulted in emotional and physical distress suffered by Forte.

Bates was not served by the process server who could not find his address. Lovett refused

to divulge her son's address upon request. Lovett filed her answer to the complaint on or

about October 5,2010. See Declaration of Forte, Item #10.

7. Forte subsequently conducted discovery in the form of interrogatories. Lovett refused to

respond, therefore, Forte filed a motion to compel which was granted. The order is

attached to Exhibit 5, page 6. Lovett was ordered to respond without objections, but she

refused. Forte met and conferred with her via several letters, providing her ample

opportunity to correct her inadequate responses, which she never adequately did. See

Exhibit 5, pg 9-21.

8. Based upon the responses Lovett did provide, it is evident that she has contact with Bates on

a regular basis, and that again, she is deliberately hiding the location of her son. See Exhibit

5, pg. 17.

9. Forte brought the MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,

$100 FOR COSTS, AND CONTEMPT SANCTIONS IN THE FORM OF

IMPRISONMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT LOVETT UNTIL COMPLIANCE WITH

COURT ORDER which was heard on June 21, 2011. See Exhibit 4.

10. At the hearing of June 21, 2011, Forte informed Judge Hansen that the information that

Lovett was refusing to provide him prevented Forte from having the address and/or contact

information for defendant's son, Bates, so that Forte could conduct discovery on him. Forte

informed the court that due to the death threats alleged in the complaint (see Exhibit 3, #8)

and the statement that the threats would be carried out "out of respect and love for my

teacher, mayor, and close family friend Tommy Jones", Forte believed that discovery would


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reveal that the adult beneficiary and influencing adult of the then minor child, Bates, would

be ex-Mayor Tommy Jones who was also a history teacher of Bates at the high school.

(Jones was mayor at the time of the incident of this subject complaint, but no longer is.) See

Declaration of Forte, Item #14.

11. Forte went on to explain to Judge Hansen that Jones had motive for vindictive acts against

Forte due to Forte's exposure of Jones having broken conflict of interest laws in his

publication, the "Badger Flats Gazette", and Forte's complaint to the Fair Political Practices

Commission which resulted in their finding Jones guilty of such the previous month before

the threats were issued. The complaint of Forte v. Jones centered upon Jones allegedly

defaming Forte by stating that Forte was a "dangerous member of the KKK." See


12. Forte also explained that the death threats were timed two days prior to when Jones was to

withdraw a motion against which Forte had filed a Motion for Sanctions in the case of Forte

v. Jones (the case Judge Hansen had recused himself from hearing). Forte was requesting

sanctions for attorneys' fees in the amount of $13,000. See Declaration of Forte, Item #16.

13. Also at the hearing of June 21, 2011, Forte explained to Judge Hansen that service by

publication would not suffice because Forte needs to conduct discovery upon Bates, and

therefore, he needs to discover Bates' location whereby Forte can mail correspondence

including a notice for deposition to Bates. See Declaration of Forte, Item #17.

14. Judge Hansen told Lovett he found her "willful and evasive" at the June 21, 2011 hearing,

and that he believed she could get Bates' address because she obviously communicates with

him by phone and that she must have his phone number. See Declaration of Forte # 18.

15. Judge Hansen sanctioned Lovett for being as he said, "willful and evasive." Prior to ordering

the sanctions, Judge Hansen told her he believed she had Bates' phone number and even

went on to suggest that he would not sanction her if she revealed the phone number. She

refused to state the information. See Declaration of Forte #19.

16. At the hearing, Judge Hansen ruled as follows (See Exhibit 6, Proposed Order):


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a. That defendant Lovett has been willful and evasive in answering plaintiff's

interrogatories and has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process in this

litigation and has violated or disobeyed this Court's prior order regarding discovery

thereby impeding Plaintiff Forte's ability to effectively prosecute the action.

b. That Defendant Lovett knows her son's, defendant Anthony Donaldson Bates',

phone number, but has refused to reveal it.

c. That evidentiary sanctions are granted against Defendant Lovett deeming Item #8 of

the Verified Complaint filed on August 16, 2010 as admitted and true.

d. That Defendant Lovett reveal to plaintiff her California Driver's License Number.

e. That monetary sanctions in the amount of $200.00 plus $40 for the cost of the

motion totaling $240 are awarded against Defendant Lovett payable immediately to

Plaintiff Forte.

f. That Plaintiff Forte may serve Defendant Anthony Donaldson Bates by publication,

and

g. That Defendant Lovett- must pay for such publication by service of Defendant

Anthony Donaldson Bates.

17. Forte's motion papers had requested that if necessary, Lovett be sanctioned for contempt by

imprisonment until she provided the information pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

§1219(a), however, the court said he would never put a person in jail for this kind of thing.

See Exhibit 4,6:21-25, Declaration of Forte, Item #20.

18. Judge Hansen did not instruct Lovett to provide Bates' phone number to Forte, although he

did instruct her to provide her driver's license number. See Declaration of Forte, Item #22.

19. As of February 28,2011, in the unrelated case ofCRL001412 and CRL003409, Forte's

attorney Barbara O'Neill informed him that she would no longer by his attorney. See


20. On March 7, 2011, Forte wrote a letter to Judge John Kirihara and all the Merced County

Superior Court Judges regarding "CRL001412/Eugene Forte/Request for Intervention /Sold


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

out by Assigned Public Defender" which he faxed and then hand delivered a copy to each of

the judges through the Superior Court Clerk's Office. See Exhibit 8 Decl. of Forte, Item

#24.

21. Forte received no answer to the letter dated March 7, 2011 to the judges. See Decl. of Forte,

Item #26.

22. On May 4th, 2011, without a Motion to Withdraw by attorney Barbara O'Neill, Judge

McCabe issued a minute order that she was relieved as Forte's counsel. See Exhibit 9. Upon

request to the court for the attorney conflict declaration referenced on its minute order when

it states that it "accepted atty conflict declaration," Forte received from the court a letter to

the clerk of the court regarding Barbara O'Neill and her "conflict" from the Merced Defense

Associates, Thomas M. Pfeiff. See Exhibit 10, Decl. of Forte, Item #29.

23. On May 25th

, 2011, Forte wrote and hand delivered through the Court Administration's

Office a letter regarding "Revelations in CRL001412 & CRL003409/ Recusal of Judge Mark

Bacciarini & Judge Hugh Flanagan" both to Presiding Judge Brian L. McCabe, to Assistant

Presiding Judge Ronald W. Hansen, and Judge Mark Bacciarini. See Exhibit 11.

24. Forte received no answer to the letter dated May 25 th, 2011 to the judges. See Declaration of

Forte, Item #34.

25. Forte had no attorney until June 1,2011. See Decl. of Forte, Item #31.

26. On June 2nd, 2011, Ms. Melanie Myers, judicial assistant to Judge Brian McCabe and Judge

Ronald Hansen returned the letter of May 25th, 2011 with the regarding line reading "Re:

Case Number: N/a" stating that the letter was an ex parte communication. See Exhibit 12.

27. On June 3rd, 2011, Forte sent the letter of May 25th

, 2011 with exhibits again to Presiding

Judge Brian McCabe and Assistant Presiding Judge Ronald Hansen through the court clerks.

28. On June 8, 2011, Melanie Myers again returned the letter to McCabe and Hansen dated May

25,2011, via mail with a cover sheet attached as Exhibit 12, pg. 2.

29. Ms. Myers stated that the letters were ex parte, but they were not. See Decl. of Forte, Item

#39.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30. On June 8, 2011, after receiving the mail from Ms. Myers, Forte wrote a cover letter in

response dated June 8th, 2011 (see Exhibit 13) and returned the letter of May 25th, 2011 with

the cover letter of June 8th, 2011 to Judge McCabe, Judge Hansen, and Judge Bacciarini and

had them delivered by process server to the administrative office of the court.

31. On June 13,2011, Forte again received the letters of May 25 th, 2011 and the cover letter of

June 8th, 2011 back from Ms. Myers.

32. On June 13,2011, Forte called Ms. Myers to ask why she kept returning the letters since the

letters were not ex parte as a copy of the letters were given to the prosecutor, Assistant

District Attorney Alan Turner in the cases ofCRL001412 and CRL003409 which were the

subject of the letters. Ms. Myers hung up the telephone on Forte. See Declaration of Forte,

Item #43.

33. After this occurred, Forte wrote a letter dated June 13,2011 to Judge McCabe and Judge

Hansen regarding "Second Return of Letter with Exhibits & Your Judicial Whore of

Babylon" and faxed it to the court. See Exhibit 14.

34. On June 22,2011, Forte received a letter dated June 17,2011 from Presiding Judge Brian

McCabe regarding "Communications with the Court" wherein he informs Forte that he has

instructed the clerks of the Merced Superior Court to no longer accept phone calls or

facsimile messages from Forte. See Exhibit 15.

35. On May 24, 2011, Judge Mark Bacciarini informed Forte in a pre-trial hearing that the

Merced Superior Court bench had recused itself from the cases of CRLOO 1412 and

CRL003409 and that a judge from another county would be assigned to these cases. This

makes it the third case of Forte's that Judge Hansen is recused from. See Declaration of

Forte, Item #47-48.

III. ARGUMENT

Code of Civil Procedure §1219(a) allows imprisonment, i.e., "when the contempt consists of

the omission to perform an act which is yet in the power of the person to perform, he or she may be

imprisoned until he or she has performed it ... " for contempt as Forte cited in his memorandum of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

points and authorities, (see Exhibit 4, page 6:21-25). Although the ruling of Hansen sanctioned

Lovett with an evidentiary and monetary sanctions (see Exhibit 6 for proposed order currently being

submitted reflecting his orders), the ultimate result was that Forte was deprived of information

germane to his complaint and his ability to amend into it, other culpable defendants.

Forte is aware that ajudge has wide discretion in his decision making process, but the issue

here is not whether he was actually fair or not, but whether a reasonable person knowing all the

facts would entertain a doubt that he was. Forte submits that due to 1) Judge Hansen's previous

disqualification in a case involving Tommy Jones, 2) his previous disqualification in a case wherein

Forte was suing Merced public officials, and in particular DA Morse, 3) his disqualification in the

cases CRL001412 and CRL003409 against Forte wherein Forte is claiming vindictive prosecution

by some of those very same Merced public officials as well as excessive force in arrest and

falsification of police reports (Exhibits 8, 11 and evidence attached therein including audios on a

CD), 4) Judge Hansen's failure to address any abuses against Forte according to his Judicial Canon

of Ethics that he has been informed of, 5) his awareness of Forte's objective to conduct discovery

on Bates and Forte's belief that Jones, the same party in the case Judge Hansen disqualified himself

from, was involved, and 5) combined with the ultimate result of Judge Hansen's order which failed

to allow Forte's discovery of such information that Judge Hansen knew Lovett was concealing, a

person would entertain a doubt of Judge Hansen's impartiality. After all, despite the sanctions

granted, Lovett and Bates were able to "get away," Bates was able to avoid discovery, and Jones

and potential others are protected from potential liability.

As an example, evidence indicates that the DA's office and the LBPD that the mayor had

influence over was involved in allowing Bates to get away with a felony against Forte. See

Declaration of Forte, Item #49-57. Judge Hansen has some sort of relationship with DA Morse due

to his recusal in the Tetra Tech case, and some sort of relationship with Jones due to his recusal in

the Jones case. Would a reasonable person entertain a doubt about his impartiality? Would the

suspicion that Judge Hansen may want to "guide" this case to where only Bates and Lovett are


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

found liable (by preventing Forte's discovery of Bates' contact infonnation) in order to protect acts

by the DA's Office or by Jones creep across their mind? Forte submits it would.

There is a tremendous amount of evidence which Forte cannot include herein due to the

mere voluminous nature. Forte does include, via his declaration (Items #49-57) which he can

support with evidence if given the opportunity, his allegation that it was the police department with

the District Attorney's Office (ADA Turner) that advised the Los Banos police officer in charge of

investigating the death threats by Bates to charge Defendant Bates with Penal Code §653m, a

misdemeanor, rather than arrest him on Penal Code §422. Forte maintains that the then Mayor

Jones, through Los Banos Police Commander Gary Brizzee, (who was promoted to Chief shortly

after), worked with Assistant Deputy Attorney Alan Turner and District Attorney Larry Morse to

obstruct justice by enabling Bates to avoid being charged with the felony Penal Code §422. It's

obvious that if Jones was involved in issuing the death threats, that he would do everything he could

to "get Bates off the hook." It is precisely what co-conspirators do.

Hansen's recusal in Tetra Tech v. MG. Santos stated the reason for recusal was due to some

"close friendship" with one or more of the attorneys involved, which could include the District

Attorney or a member of his offices. A conflict arises, or at minimum the appearance of a conflict

arises when Hansen is in the position to help conceal information about potential improper acts by

the DA's Office from being revealed via Jones' squealing on them if Jones himself is not also

protected and his acts concealed.

Forte adds that Defendant Lovett and Bates are in pro per. They have not attempted to read

the laws and learn as Forte has had to. They filed no opposition to any motions filed, and Forte

believes that they are not fully aware of the consequences headed their way. Due to Judge

Hansen's evidentiary sanctions, Forte believes there is more than a good possibility that he will

prevail in the lawsuit against them, that he will be able to obtain a judgment against the both of

them. Lovett stated in the court hearing, she is on unemployment and living on $1,300 per month,

and Bates is 18 years old and basically has nothing, although Forte will be able to record his

judgment against Bates for many years until it is paid. Lovett may not realize that by continuing to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

shield her son, she is the one hurting him the most and also preventing others that are responsible

from carrying their share of the liability.

The question here is whether a doubt of impartiality is raised by Judge Hansen's prior

disqualifications involving a party, Jones and even the DA's Office, that may also be involved in

this case (if discovery were enforced), and that the disqualifications creates the appearance of a

prejudice against Forte. Forte was a common denominator in all the disqualifications.

Assistant Presiding Judge Ronald Hansen has been delivered several letters requesting

intervention on Forte's behalf for retaliatory prosecution, grand jury tampering, and other acts by

Merced County public officials against Forte in the case ofCRL001412 and CRL003409 of the

Merced Criminal Court division. Forte has provided evidence in the form of documents and audio

recordings to support his claim and request for investigation/intervention by the Merced Superior

Court judges according to their Judicial Canon of Ethics. Forte has not received any response to his

letters (attached as Exhibits 8, 11, and 13) other than a letter from the Presiding Judge McCabe

stating that he has instructed the clerks to destroy any faxes received from Forte and to not take any

of Forte's calls. See Exhibit 15.

The fact that the Merced bench disqualified themselves in the Tetra Tech v. M G. Santos

case, that named several Merced County officials as cross-defendants including District Attorney

Larry Morse, indicates a prejudice against Forte and an inclination to avoid addressing clear abuses

against Forte in order to protect the public officials of Merced County. It goes beyond an

"inclination" to an intentional effort to conceal that the DA's Office was involved in allowing Bates

to avoid being arrested for his death threats for committing the felony violation of Penal Code §422.

Cutting off Forte's ability to have discovery enforced in essence prevents Forte from conducting

discovery on Bates and finding out truly who is responsible, including ex-Mayor Jones, Los Banos

police officers, and the DA's Office.

Judge Hansen certainly was a part of that recusal, and the mere doubt of his impartiality

against Forte in the mind of a reasonable person who knows all the facts, by law, is enough to

justify disqualification from this subject lawsuit.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IV. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

A. The Test For Recusal Or Disqualification Is Objective

Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1 (a)(6) requires the recusal or disqualification of a

judge if, "[f]or any reason," "a person aware ofthe facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that

the judge would be able to be impartial" in the litigation. (Emphasis added.) As one court put it:

"We must continuously bear in mind that 'to perform its high function in the best way 'justice must

satisfy the appearance of justice"" Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847,

864 (1988) (citing In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955» (emphasis added).l

This standard "is fundamentally an objective one." United Farm Workers ofAmerica, AFL

CIO v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.3d 97, 104 (1985). "It represents a legislative judgment that

due to the sensitivity of the question and inherent difficulties of proof as well as the importance of

public confidence in the judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of an actual bias.

Rather, if a reasonable man would entertain doubts concerning the judge's impartiality,

disqualification is mandated." Id. "To ensure that the proceedings appear to the public to be

impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of

the objective person." Id. (quoting In re United States, 666 F.2d 690, 694 (1 st Cir. 1981).) "[A]

judge faced with a potential ground for disqualification ought to consider how his participation in a

given case looks to the average person on the street." United Farm Workers, 170 Cal.App.3d at

104 (quoting Potashnick v. Port City Const. Co., 609 F.2d 1101,1111 (5 th Cir. 1980».2

As the California Supreme Court stated: "It is often stated that it is not only the fact but the

appearance of prejudice that should disqualify a judge. This is the rule that appeals to the reason of

the Constitution .... [l]t is not the fact of prejudice that would impair the legitimacy of the

judiciary's role but rather the probable fact ofprejudice, i.e., the appearance of prejudice ....

Since the legitimacy ofthe Court's role is essentially a perception ofthe people, in whose secure

confidence the courts must remain if their powers are to be maintained, it follows that merely

probable or even alleged facts or a good faith belief in such facts may be sufficient to disqualify a


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

judge." Soldberg v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.3d 182, 193, n.l 0 (1977) (italics in original text, bold

italics added).

Code ofCiv. Proc. §170.l(a)(6). As one commentator has suggested:

[J]udicial authority rests on public acceptance of courts and judges, and such public acceptance rests in turn on a belief in the impartiality and competence ofthose making the decisions. When that belief is shaken by revelations of conflicts of interest, the entire judicial system suffers.

Forte requests the disqualification of Assistant Presiding Judge Ronald Hansen, and the

assignment of a judge to this case by the Judicial Council (not the disqualified Merced County

Superior Court). The failure to do so under the circumstances would create the doubt in a

reasonable person's mind that the court is impartial. And that doubt is all that is required for

disqualification to take place.

B. California Code of Civil Procedure §170.3 Procedure for Recusal of Judge

CCP §170.3 states in parts:

"(c)(1) If a judge who should disqualify himself or herself refuses or fails to do so, any party may file with the clerk a written verified statement objecting to the hearing or trial before the judge and setting forth the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification of the judge.......

(3) Within 10 days after the filing or service, whichever is later, the judge may file a consent to disqualification in which case the judge shall notify the presiding judge or the person authorized to appoint a replacement of his or her recusal as provided in subdivision (a), or the judge may file a written verified answer admitting or denying any or all of the allegations contained in the party's statement and setting forth any additional facts material or relevant to the question of disqualification. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a copy of the judge's answer to each party or his or her attorney who has appeared in the action.

(5) A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party. In that case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the judge's answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson. The clerk shall notify the executive officer of the Judicial Council of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the need for a selection. The selection shall be made as expeditiously as possible. No challenge pursuant to this subdivision or Section 170.6 may be made against the judge selected to decide the question of disqualification."

V. REQUEST FOR HEARl G

CCP §170.3(c)(6) which states:

"The judge deciding the question of disqualification may decide the question on the basis of the statement of disqualification and answer and any written arguments as the judge requests, or the judge may set the matterfor hearing as promptly as practicable. Ifa hearing is ordered, the judge shall permit the parties and the judge alleged to be disqualified to argue the question ofdisqualification and shallfor good cause shown hear evidence on any disputed issue offact. If the judge deciding the question of disqualification determines that the judge is disqualified, the judge hearing the question shall notify the presiding judge or the person having authority to appoint a replacement of the disqualified judge as provided in subdivision (a)." [Emphasis added]

Therefore, Forte requests that the judge set the matter for hearing so that Forte may thoroughly

present his evidence on any disputed issue of fact that he may not have been able to present here.

VI. REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

Forte hereby makes a request to the judge ruling upon this Challenge for Cause Against

Judge Ronald Hansen, that has received a copy of this document, to report to appropriate federal

authorities the crimes being committed against Forte and request investigation.

DATED: June 26, 2011 ~~2fs (/EUgene Forte, In Propria Persona


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERIFICATION

[CCP §§ 446,2015.5]

I, Eugene Forte, is a defendant in this action. I have read the foregoing VERIFIED

CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE REQUESTING RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION OF

JUDGE RONALD HANSEN; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES and

know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters

which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this

declaration was executed on June 26, 2011, at Patterson, California.>?

_./~'

. /

.. ~. ---- ~ne Forte


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

10

11

12

13

14

PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

) ss. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS)

I, the undersigned, declare that I am employed in the County of Stanislaus, State of California; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1312 Siena Creek Court, CA, 95363.

On June 27, 2011, I served the following document:

VERIFIED CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE REQUESTING RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE RONALD HANSEN; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

x by personal service on the below-named party(ies) at the addressees) given.

x depositing the sealed envelope(s) with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows:

by email addressed as follows:

By Mail: By Personal Service: Doris Lovett Judge Ronald Hansen 16375 S. Mercey Springs Merced Superior Court Los Banos, CA, 93635 627 West 21 st Street

Merced, CA, 95340

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on June 27,2011 at Patterson, California.

t[l~* Eileen Forte

Forte v. Bates, CVOOl307 17 Challenge For Cause Against Judge Hansen

Documents

1 Gene Forte fILE iE 0 COw 2 20 II JU 27 AM 9: 13