Judge Robert A. O’Farrell

Does a “Robe” mean a person is honorable or ethical?

Robert Anthony O’Farrell #42099
License Status: Inactive
Address: Assigned Judges Program, 455 Golden Gate Ave, San Francisco, CA 94102
County: San Francisco County
Law School: UC Hastings COL; San Francisco CA
Present Inactive
7/31/2009 Inactive
8/28/1981 Judge
6/19/1968 Admitted to The State Bar of California

In the last segment of this story you read that Eugene Forte filed a lawsuit against Judge Robert O’Farrell only to have O’Farrell assign the case to himself. It is hard to comprehend that anyone with the power that is bestowed on a judge could have the unmitigated gall to totally and deliberately violate a citizen’s right to a fair trial. But this is what actually happened in Monterey County, California.

On December 17, 2004, Forte files his complaint with the clerk of the Monterey County Superior Court, case number M72599.(Read Complaint) This action names O’Farrell in both his public capacity as a judge and his individual capacity as a citizen for civil rights violations against Forte. In addition to the judge Forte names as defendants Dennis McCarthy and the law firm Fenton & Keller as well as real estate agent Stephanie Crabb, along with a host of county employees that participated in the injustices against Forte.

A few months later in February 2005 a Notice of Demurrer to Complaint was filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California and was signed by the Supervising Deputy for Bill Lockyer, Paul T. Hammerness. The document announced that these gentlemen are the attorneys of record for State Judicial Defendant Robert O’Farrell. This is as it should be when it concerns O’Farrell in his public capacity as an employee of the State of California but there was something amiss since O’Farrell was also a defendant in his individual capacity as a citizen. Forte’s main concern was what attorney should he contact with trial related questions for O’Farrell the individual? When Forte raises this question with the Attorney General’s Office he was told that they will defend “both.” Upon further questioning as who constitutes “both,” Forte’s question was met with silence. Is this silence an implied admission that O’Farrell is receiving free counsel at the taxpayers’ expense and the Attorney General is cutting corners with propriety? Additionally, the Attorney General should have conducted an investigation of the charges of corruption regarding O’Farrell’s conduct before undertaking the role as defense counsel. They neglected to do so.

The main thrust of the Notice was to claim that Forte had no grounds to sue the judge because O’Farrell was “clearly acting within his judicial capacity and not in the clear absence of jurisdiction when he held plaintiff in contempt, and ordered plaintiff restrained.” Also it was stated that there is no subject matter jurisdiction for the court to hear this case because, “plaintiff’s contempt conviction was never reviewed and reversed.” Hammerness continues, “The United States and California Supreme Courts long ago established the rule that courts and judges are immune from civil suits arising out of the exercise of their judicial functions.” On the surface this was a very impressive rebuttal if some very germane facts didn’t get in the way of the Attorney General’s argument.

Forte responds to their demurrer with an Opposition to State Judicial Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint on the Ides of March 2005. In it Forte rebuts each and every point of the demurrer. Forte stresses the Code of Ethics that restrain judges from prejudicial treatment toward all parties in their courtrooms but most importantly he points out that O’ Farrell had no jurisdiction over any of Forte’s legal pursuits since December 19, 2003, when Forte filed the California Civil Procedure 170.6 Peremptory Challenge against O’Farrell prior to O’Farrell arresting Forte. (See Part Three) Specifically, Forte references a plethora of case law that states that the challenge is immediate disqualification of the trial judge and is mandatory. O’ Farrell in fact would not allow Forte to announce his intent to use the peremptory challenge in the above mentioned hearing. Note that a party or attorney who announces the intent to exercise a 170.6 challenge must be given an opportunity to provide the sworn statement required by statute.

The Attorney General’s Office overlooks this fine line of law when they state the judge was acting in his official capacity, therefore being afforded immunity from civil lawsuits. However, Forte counters that all of the case law the defendant is relying upon does not take into consideration that the 170.6 Peremptory Challenge was in play during Forte’s run in with O’ Farrell, thereby eliminating the immunity issue. It is hard to comprehend why the State Attorney General’s Office is so anemic in its response to the lawsuit. One reason may lead one to conclude that clouding the opposition’s issues with nonsensical legal arguments, meant to confuse and stifle the legal process, is the preferred tactic utilized by the establishment. Another reason is that they are caught dead to rights trying to deprive Forte of justice. After reading both the Demurrer and Forte’s Opposition documents it may behoove O’Farrell to reconsider his defense team, that is if he didn’t have the entire Superior Court bench providing cover fire for him.

Three days after Gene filed his Opposition to the Demurrer he filed two additional documents; a “Supplemental Declaration” and a “Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities” (see below) that exposes additional proof of his contentions. In the first document he states that the case was assigned to Judge Adrienne M. Grover in Department 13 of the Monterey Superior Court as of March 14, 2005, but two days later the case is re-assigned to Department 14 the courtroom of Robert O’Farrell. What more blatant disregard for the Canon of Ethics that guard against conflict of interests could there possibly be? The entire case revolves around O’Farrell’s assault on Forte’s civil rights and by the very fact that that Forte must now send all motions and other court documents to the defendant/judge is prima facie proof of the shenanigans being perpetrated by the Monterey Court. The biggest problem Forte is faced with is not about the issue of right and wrong but the issue of judicial procedures that separate the common man from the attorneys.

In July 2005 Gene was handed a set back by Judge John J. Golden in an “Order Sustaining Demurrers to Complaint.” Golden found for the defendant, apparently ignoring Forte’s well thought out case law, by stating that Forte failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. He further states that O’Farrell had immunity form a civil suite even though Forte filed a Peremptory Challenge prior to the hearing on December 19, 2003. Actually, Golden omitted mentioning that the challenge was in place and defied the case law that states that it is in force immediately. Somehow the violations of the Canon of Ethics was also overlooked, as well, which is par for the course when you’re playing poker with someone else’s deck of cards. This ruling defies all logic, not unlike sleight of hand card tricks performed by a magician. Let me assure you that this setback is temporary due to the fact that Forte does not cave to the antics of the courts but actually lures his adversaries deeper into his web.

Forte then waits for the Attorney General to prepare the judgment for Golden’s signature and subsequent entry into the court record but it is not forthcoming so Forte being well within his procedural rights prepares the judgment for the judge’s signature. The significance of his actions is lost on the uninformed because Forte’s appeal can not be submitted until the judgment is handed down. Evidently, the AG was stalling with the hope of causing Forte additional stress and aggravation by denying an opportunity for appeal. Judge Golden staying true to form considers this action a motion and schedules a court date for an exparte application hearing regarding his own order for November 23, 2005. Albeit he does delay the process for two more months, which is no doubt the intended consequence.

In late 2005 Forte is made aware of other tawdry activity by a former court clerk in Monterey County. Crystal Powser comes forward with an affidavit of fact regarding Commissioner Rutledge (See first installment) and the general practices of the Superior Court Judges manipulating court cases and court assignments. (Read her affidavit to see what collusion and utter disregard for the rights of others runs rampant in the chambers of Monterey Superior Court. This declaration is not rated PG.)

Once this tidbit was loosed upon the community desperate measures by desperate people had to be taken and fast. On November 19, 2005, Forte receives in the mail a motion to strike and seal the Powser declaration from the Deputy Attorney General. The hearing was set coincidentally for the same time and day of Golden’s hearing about the application for judgment four days hence. The peculiar twist in this schedule is that it precludes Forte the notice affording him time to prepare for the hearing in violation of court procedure. The rhetorical question is, is this another disregard of Forte’s civil rights?

Next month the focus will be on Deputy Attorney General Paul T. Hammerness’ attempt to control the outcome of Forte’s crusade and Monterey County officials trying to avoid subpoenas from Forte to discuss what knowledge they have regarding obstruction of justice and failure to report a crime. It only gets better. FULL STORY

A dramatic declaration filed in Gene Forte vs. Judge Robert O’Farrell resulted in an historic halt to an unrelated Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) hearing of Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Diana R. Hall.

Forte alleges corruption within the Monterey County Superior Court, and the sworn declaration by Crystal Powser was submitted in his case as supporting evidence.

The CJP stopped the Hall inquiry after learning of the alleged comments by Monterey County Superior Court Judges Michael S. Fields about Judge Russell Scott and Judge Robert O’Farrell contained in the Powser declaration. Fields is one of three judges, known as “special masters,” investigating the conduct of Hall. The other two are San Mateo Superior Court Judge Mark Forcum and Santa Clara Superior Court Judge George Abdallah.

Powser claims she was invited by Fields to the Pierpoint Inn in Ventura, where he and the other special masters were meeting.

“Judge Fields said that they already decided she (Judge Hall) was guilty of all three allegations,” said Powser in her declaration. She also described sexual advances she claims Fields made, which she spurned.

Fields, Scott and O’Farrell have declined comment on the allegations, according to media reports.

The declaration caused a legal reaction that sent a tsunami through the entire California legal system, not because of the sexual allegations as described in media reports, but because of the description of court case fixing, according to Forte. The reaction was to bring a judicial hearing to a halt, dismiss the special masters, and the declaration was stricken from the record and sealed.

Case No. M72599
NOTICE OF THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY
DUE TO MONTEREY COUNTY PUBLIC OFFICIAL
CONCEALING CORRUPTION

Plaintiff has been desperately trying to have neutral public officials address the evidence of gross violations of a citizen’s right to seek redress of a grievance against public officials. The documents attached as exhibits are only the surface of much more detailed and documented evidence of corruption by public officials. The FBI states at its website (1) “public corruption is one of the FBI’s top investigative priorities—-behind only terrorism, espionage and cyber crimes. Why? Because our democracy and national security depend on a “healthy, efficient, and ethical government.” No truer words have yet been spoken. The reality, though, is that the government is covering up gross public official corruption with the excuse that if the public knew, it would cause anarchy. Why does Monterey County public officials think they are above the law and try to portend that the allegations of plaintiff are so irrational? As the article shows, Public Corruption is big business all across our country (2).

The FBI (3) themselves have been far more than negligent in addressing the information, that has been patiently provided, with nothing but cursive non responses in return.

Senator Jeff Denham has been well informed (4) of this matter and has done more than nothing. When a public official ignores his duty, it gives the appearance that there is nothing wrong to take a look at. Plaintiff asserts Senator Denham’s lack of action is assuredly due to the fact that it would cost him financial support from his brethren Monterey Good Ol’ Boy politicians in his quest for re-election. Senator Joe Dunn, (5) Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also stands by with his hands in his pockets, with his impressive attorney board members, when they are provided substantial evidence of potential crimes by public officials.

At the same time, Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Joe Dunn are busily enacting new authority (6) to prosecute non-attorneys who practice law. Perhaps they should take a closer look into the Monterey Public Defenders Office’s practice of hiring attorneys without checking to see if they had a license as they did Margaret O’Shea? Plaintiff is always sure to emphasize that he is not an attorney and cannot provide any legal advice to the hundreds of people he hears from asking what to do about what they believe to be the corruption in the courts.

Monterey County is recognized as a key component in the war on terrorism. Its populace of military related people has had flashed in their faces Monterey Herald newspaper articles such as “Monterey County Judiciary Under Fire. (7)” Shortly before that, they were treated to a another article of “Commissioner Rutledge Resigns”, with District Attorney, Dean Flippo, saying that the most damaging thing was the public losing trust in the judiciary. (8) Recently, Ms. Margaret O’Shea (9) was found guilty of a felony for practicing law without a license while employed by the Monterey County Public Defenders’ office. Monterey citizens question (10) why the public official that hired her, who did not check to see if she had a law license, has not been held accountable. The news media and public officials are silent.

The corker to this is the article entitled “In The Herald’s View (11)” which is a feeble transparent attempt to cover the crimes of the public officials by giving praise to DA Flippo, “the proverbial fox guarding the chicken coop. (12)”

RED ALERT:
POWSER DECLARATION &
THE COURT REACTS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, FROM WHOM?

Plaintiff continues to feel the frustration and stress from arguing the obvious. The Monterey Superior Court and many of its members are involved in the obstruction of justice. There are ample facts to prove it. The terse Press Release of November 17th, 2005 (13) by the Monterey Superior Court is an insult to anyone that is familiar with the plights of plaintiff in seeking fairness.

The Press Release states, “The Court has become aware of the allegations in the declaration (Powser) filed on November 16th, 2005. There are mandated procedures that the Court is required to follow in these situations. These specific procedures are designed to ensure fairness and proper protection for the public, the Court and all parties. The Court has initiated the required process and cannot provide any further information at this particular time.”

The public was not made aware that the procedures, that were not disclosed, were to allow AG Lockyer, attorney for defendant Judge Robert O’Farrell, to have an unnoticed motion heard with in three (3) days in order to strike and seal the declaration of Ms. Powser. The declaration was already a public document attached to the request by the Commission For Judicial Performance (CJP) for new special masters to be assigned (14) in the case of Judge Diana Hall due to the removal of Judge Michael Fields for potential misconduct. Judge Fields is at the center of trial fixing and motion sabotaging with Judge O’Farrell, ex-Judge Silver, Judge Duncan and Mr. Larry Lichtenegger.

The court then said, “Okay, that’s taken care of, next case?” Not one further thought or consideration is given for the protection of the interests of plaintiff so that he is ensured fairness and proper protection from the public corruption. Is it the intention of the court to infer that they were protecting the public from plaintiff? Are the public officials under fire (15) by a vexatious plaintiff (16)? Does the local Monterey County officials need to contact the Attorney General’s Office anti-terrorism squad? Public officials in Ozaukee County did because they said they felt “terrorized” by a man named Steven Magritz. (17)

IS A “VEXATIOUS LITIGANT” THE SAME AS A “PAPER TERRORIST”? NO, AND PLAINTIFF IS NEITHER!

Most Americans would have never heard of the term “Paper Terrorist” had it not been for 9-1-1, and Wisconsin Attorney General James Doyle’s quest for the governorship. It was James

Doyle’s spin machine saying that they were sending out a special anti-terrorist task force to qualm an uprising of some wacky, disabled 57-year old sovereign citizen tax protester that was allegedly terrorizing Ozaukee County public officials. Plaintiff learned of the “Paper Terrorist Story” when contacted by radio listeners in Wisconsin. (18) After 9-1-1, AG James Doyle was running television commercials regarding how he was tough on terrorism. News commercials ran the video clip of the twin towers collapsing with the picture of Mr. Steven Magritz imposed over it, followed by Vote For James Doyle commercials.

The common person on the street may believe that a vexatious litigant and a paper terrorist are one and the same. It is important to point out that they are not, and plaintiff is neither. The attached intentionally misleading order and minute order (19) denying the motion (20) to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant was not clear enough for the Monterey Herald who later ran a correction (21) weeks later. On February 1st, 2006, Congressman Sensenbrenner extended the USA Patriot Act until March 10th, 2006. (22) Congressman Sensenbrenner says he is unaware of any misuse of the USA Patriot Act, or that it has been used against a US citizen by the government improperly. Plaintiff asserts from his personal knowledge that Congressman Sensenbrenner is being disingenuous and stating half truths. Congressman Sensenbrenner avoids saying how the USA Patriot Act can be used by public officials to “turn the tables” on a citizen seeking redress of a grievance of public corruption. A bill sponsored by Sensenbrenner passed was within days of plaintiff’s communication with the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Representative, Mark Gundrum. (23) The bill allows public officials to avoid accountability for potential crimes against a citizen.

Governor James Doyle and his political hit machine are helping to hide the public corruption in Ozaukee County, and Congressman Sensenbrenner is passing bills that look on the surface they are being done to protect “honest government officials” (quickly becoming a oxymoron) from terrorists. It should also be known that Congressman Sensenbrenner, the supposed leader of judiciary ethics, leads the delegation in privately funded travel which is at the center of the Jack Abramoff Lobbyist scandal (24) which also leads to Pebble Beach.

PUBLIC OFFICIAL CORRUPTION CONTROLS THE MONTEREY HERALD

Knight Ridder, who has been intent on making sure that other media organizations hold themselves to a high journalistic standard of reporting accurately and balanced, (25) directs its attention away from the “beyond” journalistic fraud of its own affiliate, the Monterey Herald. The Monterey Herald has Mr. Leon Panetta of the Panetta Institute as their featured commentator. The attached letter (26) shows that Mr. Panetta felt that Plaintiff should just “move on” and let the public corruption go. Of course, that is not what Mr. Panetta preaches publicly. It would be bad for selling tickets to his “leadership seminar series.”

Publisher Gene Lieb and Mr. Mike Fitzgerald of McClatchy Newspaper have been apprized (27) of the more than fraudulent reporting by Knight Ridder. In contrast to what most Americans believe a competitive newspaper would do, they have not spoken word about the specious activities. At the same time, McClatchy Newspaper features Senator Jeff Denham as a regular commentator, just as Mr. Panetta is to the Monterey Herald, and promotes his re-election campaign at every possible juncture. The Monterey Herald article entitled, “Denham Re-election Race: The Back Story,” ran in the Los Banos Enterprise, a McClatchy Newspaper, on January 28th, 2006. It reveals the Republican Senator Denham to be quite the politician, cutting under the table deals with Democrat Perata to undermine his democrat opponent Simon Salinas of Salinas, California.

Mr. Lieb of McClatchy Newspaper goes as far as philosophizing away the responsibility (28)of a journalist to hold each another accountable in conflict with the Journalistic Canon of Ethics. (29) It seems that Mr. Lieb is as little concerned about his canon of ethics as the judges are theirs.

It took three letters to the Monterey Herald (30) by plaintiff requesting a response and correction. There was no response, but a tepid correction. (31) Knight Ridder neglects to respond to plaintiff if its affiliates in Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo area printed corrections (32) of the article entitled “County Judiciary Under Fire.” It is no secret that the San Luis Obispo/Santa Barbara area have been well informed of the CJP Hearings that were halted of Judge Diana Hall. There has been no word about any investigation. The implication of the unethical acts of Judge Fields, and a co-jurist, Judge O’Farrell of the Monterey Superior Court contributed to the halting of the proceedings and the disqualification of Judge Fields.

Has Judge Roger Picquet, who plaintiff was noticed of his assignment on Saturday, February 4th, 2006, read any of these articles with false information? Have the newspapers printed the correction? Knight Ridder does not respond to plaintiff’s inquiry and requests. The Santa Barbara College of Law (33), Dean Goldman, Professor Smith, and its Board of Trustees continue to ignore requests by plaintiff to adequately correct information saying plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant by the court. Does Judge Picquet come into this hearing with undue prejudice against plaintiff thinking he is nothing more than a vexatious litigant with wild accusations of corruption? Will Judge Picquet ascribe to the position of Ozaukee County Counsel saying, “nothing to be concerned about here that we haven’t learned to ignore (34)”?

There is no doubt that plaintiff intends to file a lawsuit against Knight Ridder, The Monterey Herald, Judge Robert O’Farrell, AG Lockyer, Governor Schwarzenegger, Mr. Paul Hammerness and others for the article entitled “County Judiciary Under Fire.” The suit is valid and with merit. The Monterey Herald’s Publisher, Ms. Jayne Speizer, (35) new that plaintiff was not declared a vexatious litigant as early as June 30th, 2005, the day the motion was denied. Ms. Speizer was again informed of the matter on August 14th, 2005. (36) Judge Golden and his rulings in this case are going to be used as evidence of the crime and abuse.

Is there any question that the standard of the test, which is, “a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial CCP170.1 (6) (C), has been met? Plaintiff thinks not. The standard for bias has been met. Read the full document below in PDF form or visit https://attorneybusters.com/threat-to-national-security/

“It’s About Fairness & It’s, About Time”
Is the Monterey County Civil Judicial System Racketeered by
Judges and Local Attorneys Against You?
The Monterey Story
How does an event from 16 years ago have anything to do with a case against a real estate firm here in Monterey? *
Why did local Monterey attorneys say that I should be forced to go to trial without an attorney?
Why did Judge Robert O’Farrell and Judge Richard Silver allow my Monterey attorney to abandon me 30 days prior to the trial and then deny me a continuance to get another attorney?

Well, I had told the Fresno story to a local Monterey attorney I retained and described the similarities of an incident involving a large local Monterey law firm and how I believed they instructed their clients to cancel escrow on me
to avoid being caught perpetrating a real estate fraud.. She told me that the local law firm was well known for making large political contributions to Judges’ campaigns, their members were part of a “Good Old Boys’ Club” of the local judicial community and it very well could be an uphill battle with them.

Little did I know at the time that she was also part of that “Good Old Boys’ Club” (albeit an insignificant member), and looked to me as a sacrificial  lamb that she could later sell-out to get herself higher on the food chain so to
speak.

However, she, along with the local Good Old Boys didn’t realize that I was actually a sleeping Dragon, not a sacrificial lamb, and after 16 years they awakened me. I have grown stronger, not weaker. It is now fire breathing time, but on a much larger scale. I now have four children and have lived here in Monterey for 11 years. I owe it to my children and my country to try and stop this nonsense that goes unchecked.

There is a story unfolding in the local Monterey courts. Several Judges and attorneys are feeling extremely uncomfortable because I have forced them to put some incredible rulings on record. The Good Old Boys are betting I won’t be able to get the story out, or that no one w:ill really care to do anything because they believe, like the Good Old Boys do, that the lay person has no chance against them and the courts and laws are under the Judges and attorneys’ control, I’m out to prove them wrong, but the story cannot be only about me. It has to be about others that have had similar experiences and I need to hear from you.

A local prominent Monterey County newspaper says that possible judicial corruption is too complicated to explain and they don’t have the resources to research it.

Tell me the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of what has happened to you. Let those civil judicial officers that have treated you unjustly, be made accountable and be given an awakening call that they have gone too far.

NEWS STORIES
Judicial Corruption Arrogance
Judicial Corruption Arrogance – Part Two
Judicial Corruption Arrogance – Part Three
Judicial Corruption Arrogance – Part Four
Judicial Corruption Arrogance – Part Five
Judicial Corruption Arrogance – Part Six
THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY DUE TO MONTEREY COUNTY PUBLIC OFFICIALS CONCEALING CORRUPTION
Forte – Crystal Powser Declaration Shows Pattern of Judicial Corruption
Judge orders Carmel to turn over documents in public records lawsuit
Judge Robert O”Farrell set to retire in August
Good for Unions – Good for the Community
In Royal Calkins v. City of Carmel by-the-Sea, a dispute over public records


  • Stay Informed