Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FILED JUL 0 9 ane
Carmen Sabatino 421 McHenry Ave Modesto, CA 95354 (209) 576-7116 In Pro Se mavor(a1backstorvnews.com
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STANISLAUS COUNTY
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff,
VS.
FRANK CLIFFORD CARSON, ET. AL.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 1490969
DECLARATION OF EUGENE FORTE IN SUPPORT OF CARMEN SABATINO'S REPLY TO PEOPLE'S OPPOSITION
DECLARATION OF EUGENE FORTE
I, Eugene Forte hereby declare the following:
1. I am not a party to the subject prosecution of Frank Carson, et, al, Stanislaus
County Superior Case # 1490969.
2. I am not an attorney. I have had extensive in pro per experience litigating in
Federal Court my own cases and was a professional retained high level recruiter
for 20 years. I have trialed an eight-day jury trial before the Honorable Judge
Anthony Ishii and obtained a unanimous jury verdict and awarded both general
1 STATE VS. CARSON, #1490969 SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF EUGENE FORTE
and punitive damages against ex-Mayor Tommy Jones of Los Banos (ED Fed
Court Case #1:11-ev-00718-AWI-BAM, ECF Doc. #183, filed 06/13/14).
3. I am providing this declaration in support of CARMEN SABATINO'S REPLY
TO THE PEOPLE'S OPPOSITION TO HIS MOTION TO QUASH HIS
SUBPOENA IN THIS SUBJECT CASE.
4. I have been engaged by SABATINO to facilitate communications for him and
recruit an attorney to represent SABATINO.
5. On 06/14/2018 I authored an email and sent it to Stanislaus County Clerk Brandi
Christensen and opposing counsels informing them of the defective service. I
requested on behalf of SABATINO to be provided any documentation to the
contrary that would evidence that the court Ordered that SABATINO could be
served documents electronically. There was no response from the clerk's office
or opposing counsel. A true and correct copy of the 06/14/2018 email I authored
and sent is attached to my declarations as Exhibit "1".
6. I had attempted to recruit attorneys to represent SABATINO but was unable to.
The attorneys interviewed were unwilling to step into what has become a high
visibility case (without an exorbitant retainer) which appears to be fraught with
what could be identified as a "fraud upon the court" due to the multiple procedural
filing anomalies that befell SABATINO in putting forth his motion.
7. I have cautioned SABATINO that I was charged by Judge Dale Drozd and found
guilty of Federal Criminal Contempt of Court in ED Federal Court #1 :13-01980-
LJO-MJS, FORTE v. STANISLAUS COUNTY DEPUTY LUKE SCHWARTZ. I
2 STATE VS. CARSON, #1490969 SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF EUGENE FORTE
I
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
informed SABATINO that I was fined $150.00 for arguing in my court papers that
there was a "fraud upon the court" enacted by ED Court Judges Larry O'Neill,
Anthony Ishii and Dale Drozd with Magistrates Barbara McAuliffe and Sandra
Snyder. My USPD, Douglas Beevers, appealed the conviction and was requested
by the Ninth Appellate Court to have oral argument on July 11 th, 2018, however,
on 06/28/2018 the court reversed its request for oral argument.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and that this declaration was executed on July 9t h, 2018, in
Modesto, California, County of Stanislaus.
Date: July 9 th , 2018
3 STATE VS. CARSON, #1490969 SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF EUGENE FORTE
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
1490969-Opposiiton to Sabatino Motion to Quash-Sabatino Has N...
Subject: 1490969-Opposiiton to Sabatino Motion to Quash-Sabatino Has Not Agreed to
Electronic Service From: Gene Forte <[email protected] >
Date: 6/14/2018 9:57 AM
CC: Marlisa Ferreira <[email protected] >, Carmen
<[email protected]>, [email protected] , Preciliano Martinez
"<[email protected] >;" "[email protected] ;"
"[email protected] ;" "[email protected] ;" "[email protected] ;"
Stephanie Mitchell "<[email protected] >;" Orlando Rosales
<[email protected] >, Dave Harris "<[email protected] >;" Kirk Bunch
"<[email protected]>;" Steve Jacobson "<[email protected] >;" Brenda
Cramton <[email protected]>
Greetings Clerk Christensen:
On 06/14/2018, I was forwarded a copy of the PEOPLE'S OPPOSITION TO CARMEN
SABATINO'S REQUEST TO QUASH WITNESS SUBPOENA by Mr. Sabatino which purports to be
"electronic service" to Sabatino.
Sabatino (to his knowledge) has never agreed to be served electronically as required by
CCP§1010.6. I have seen nothing in the files that indicates that he agreed to electronic
service.
According to CCP § 1010.6:
"(a) (1) (B)Electronic transmission" means the transmission of a document by
electronic means to the electronic service address at or through which a party or other person has authorized electronic service. [Emphasis added]"
"(2) If a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or
facsimile transmission, electronic service of the document is authorized when a party has agreed to accept service electronically in that action.
"(3) In any action in which a party has agreed to accept electronic service under paragraph (2), or in which the court has ordered electronic service
under subdivision (c) or (d), the court may electronically serve any document
issued by the court that is not required to be personally served in the same
manner that parties electronically serve documents.
If you have any documentation on file to the contrary, wherein Sabatino has agreed to
sX/2/ '6/ --1-
1 of 2 7/9/2018 2:55 PM
1490969-Opposiiton to Sabatino Motion to Quash-Sabatino Has N...
electronic service, Mr. Sabatino kindly requests you provide it to me.
Sabatino disputes that he has been "properly served" which I will respectfully take up with
Counsel Ferreira and Doris Gergees for Mr. Sabatino.
As to the court, and the clerk's filing office, please be advised that Sabatino will not accept
electronic service of documents in this case, unless of course there is a written
authorization whereby he would have the same privilege of serving documents to the
counsels in this case.
I apologize for the intrusion upon your time, but it is prudent to keep the record clear.
Candidly, Sabatino and I were disappointed in our being denied an email address to
communicate when necessary with the clerk's office when attempting to reserve a date,
and there were no return phone calls.
Though Sabatino and I are NOT attorneys, we still have the right to equal access to the clerk's office.
Ergo, if Ferreira and opposing counsels have the clerk's email, fairness dictates Sabatino is
entitled to it also as an in pro se.
So, there is no hint of an ex parte communication a copy of this email is being cc'd to all
individuals (counsels) listed on the Opposition to Motion email.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Gene Forte
Facilitator for Sabatino
/b/ 2 of 2
7/9/2018 2:55 PM
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
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 3430 Tully Rd., St. 20-429, Modesto, CA 95350.
On July 9th 2018, I served the following documents:
DECLARATION OF EUGENE FORTE DATED JULY 9TH, 2018
depositing the sealed envelope(s) with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows:
Marlisa Ferreira Preciliano Martinez, Esq. Jai Manhar Gohel, Esq.
District Attorney's Office Law Office of Preciliano
County of Stanislaus Martinez
832 12th Street, Suite 300
1120 — 14t h Street, Suite 5
819 Eddy Streret San Francisco, CA 94109
Modesto, CA 95354
Modesto, CA 95354
Hans Hjertonosson, Esq. Mark Dunbar (courtesy copy) Law Offices of Grisez, Opinion Editor Orenstein & Hertle
Modesto Bee 724 —10th Street
948 11th St. Suite 300 Modesto, CA Modesto, CA 95354
95352
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 July 9th 2018 at Modesto, California, 95356.
Eileen Forte
