1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Gene Forte 688 Birch Court Los Banos, California, 93635 Telephone: (209) 829-1116 Facsimile: (209) 829-1952 In Propria Persona /Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. INTRODUCTION The motion for sanctions was noticed on February 5, 2010 and heard on May 28, 2010, and the order denying it was filed on June 3, 2010. Plaintiff Forte respectively feels that he must walk on egg shells in presenting his valid reasons for reconsideration of his Motion for Sanctions. It appears from the courts unwarranted derogatory statements in the order denying the vexatious litigant motion that Ratliff, along with the Hayes Bonino Law Firm, attorneys in the Tetra Tech case which was also before this court, has succeeded in getting the court personally embroiled with plaintiff. Attorneys that have reviewed the courts order have shaken their heads in dismay at the courts statement, which plaintiff believes indicates obvious bias, that the motion is denied without prejudice to renew the motion in the future if there is any new evidence of or continuing conduct prohibited by CCP 391(b)(3).
Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857

EUGENE FORTE

Case No. CU150880 Stanislaus Case No. 637857 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR ORDER DENYING SANCTIONS [C.C.P. 1008(a)] Defendants. Date: July 20, 2010 Time: 8:30 am Dept: Judge William Mayhew

vs. TOMMY JONES

Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As

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

Motions are never denied with prejudice. Plaintiff takes the statement by the court as sending a message to Ratliff to continue to frustrate, harass, and exhaust Plaintiffs time and resources, and the court basically saying, by the way, this is how you can do it next time so I can grant a repeat motion. Each attorney said that plaintiff should challenge the court, not because of the order, but due to the superfluous comments that reveal the courts biased thinking. Plaintiff requests that the court consider voluntarily disqualifying itself, instead of plaintiff needing to file a well founded Challenge for Cause, CCP 170.3. Out of over 80 pieces of purported evidence submitted by Mr. Benjamin Ratliff in his Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant (VLM), compiled largely of items protected under plaintiffs First Amendment Freedom of Speech rights, this court could not latch onto one that could support a granting of an order to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant without the courts ruling being overturned on appeal. It is clear that this court is personally embroiled with plaintiff due to plaintiff losing his composure after being taunted by Ratliff and calling Ratliff a jerk and Judge Mayhew a jackass during the deposition of plaintiffs underage son, Jordan Forte. The court points to a brief exchange of 10 pages of a 192 page deposition between Ratliff and plaintiff to proffer that plaintiff was trying to impede the deposition. Not so. Plaintiff was attempting to stop an unethical attorney from harassing plaintiffs son, a fine young man who is the number one student at Central Catholic High School with a 4.71 GPA, senior class president and who was also a first time deponent at the age of 16. Before the court determines from a 10 cherry picked deposition pages of 193 to find that plaintiffs action toward Ratliff were totally uncivil, appear calculated to delay and impede the deposition and certainly could be found to be frivolous in nature, in fairness, the court should have allowed Forte to argue Ratliffs conduct at the oral hearing instead of stopping Forte short. The court should also look at the first 40 pages of Jordan Forte deposition and see what Ratliffs conduct was that outraged plaintiff. Plaintiff was unable to get a copy of Jordans deposition in time for this reconsideration motion. Since the court opened the door of deposition incivility and

Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857

Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As

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

tied it to the accusation of impeding discovery, it must now take into consideration the conduct of Ratliff at the two day deposition of defendant Tommy Jones taken prior to Jordan Fortes. Ratliff did not use one page out of Jones two day deposition to indicate that Forte was impeding the deposition or asking harassing questions. The reason for this is that Plaintiff was not. It is obvious the only pages (10) used by Ratliff were the ones that the court was called a jackass in and that is what really ticked this court off to lose its judicial temperament and lash out at plaintiff in the way it could best hurt plaintiff in denying plaintiff legal fees he had paid an attorney to oppose the vexatious litigant motion. The court overreached to justify denying the Motion for Sanctions based upon the form declaration of plaintiffs ex-attorney Mr. Charles Belkin that Belkin submitted in support of his Motion to Withdraw. Belkins declaration was not submitted in support of the Opposition to the Motion for Sanctions and was not part of the defendants vexatious litigant motion. Plaintiff therefore was not given the opportunity to argue against the declaration or its use until now, within this Motion for Reconsideration. It is a discovery of new or different facts, circumstances, or law thrown in by the court after the bell had rung on argument in Opposition to the Motion for Sanctions. The court asserts that the declaration of Mr. Belkin provides evidence for a finding of vexatious litigant under CCP 391(b)(3). It provides no evidence at all. The declaration was not evidence, it was a conclusory statement. Plaintiff submits that in his opinion, protected by his First Amendment Right, the only thing the Belkin declaration establishes is that Belkin is an unethical, lying attorney that stabbed plaintiff in the back. It is also no small matter that this court is presiding over the case of Tetra Tech v. Marion Santos. It knows that Belkin has been working for Santos, who had sued plaintiff, during the time period when Belkin was still representing Forte. The court put blinders on to avoid seeing the blatant breech of ethical duties by Belkin to Forte [Rule 3-310. Avoiding the Representation of Adverse Interests.] There would be no reason in the world why Plaintiff should have, or was required to, sign a substitution of attorney for Belkin with pending motion oppositions due. It would have been cutting his own throat for the sake of whom, this court, Ratliff, and Belkin? This court cannot submit that due to Forte requiring that a Motion to Withdraw be made, that it is
Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857

Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As

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

evidence of plaintiff being able to be declared a vexatious litigant. The court again reveals its prejudice and has abused its discretion. The court cannot use such purported evidence to justify that what Ratliff did was not sanctionable in bringing an unmeritorious motion. II. NEW EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANCES A. DOUBLE STANDARDS - DEFENDANTS INCIVILITY AT DEPOSITION Defendants counsel, Ratliff, prior to the taking of the deposition of Jordan Forte displayed outrageous, uncivil conduct toward plaintiff to impede and delay the deposition of defendant Jones. Plaintiff has no doubt that an unbiased court would believe that Fortes conduct paled in comparison to Ratliffs. It is the court, by its ruling, that has brought forward the need to compare Ratliffs uncivil, vindictive, and unethical conduct to Plaintiffs. It was the court that prevented plaintiff from commenting upon Ratliffs unethical conduct at the start of oral argument, but then focused upon the allegations of Ratliff against Forte to deny sanctions to Plaintiff. It is utterly unfair of the court to do such and an abuse of discretion. The vindictive and unethical conduct of Ratliff would be relevant to Ratliff to filing an unmeritorious and frivolous vexatious litigant motion. Ratliff, a licensed attorney, made dozens of improper objections such as assumes facts not in evidence, asked and answered, misstates prior testimony, irrelevant, and continually coached the witness. Plaintiff has never asked to be held to a lower standard than an attorney, but Plaintiff should not be held to a higher standard than that of Ratliff, an attorney. Plaintiff has attached as exhibits to this motion for reconsideration deposition pages taken of defendant Jones when represented by Ratliff as an offer of proof of Ratliffs uncivil, unethical conduct, improper objections, and coaching of the witness which were all done to impede the deposition and obstruct discovery. Ratliffs conduct at the deposition of Jordan Forte was worse than at Jones deposition. The court is directed to the pages (Exhibit 2 to Fortes Decl.) wherein Ratliff objects to facts not in evidence when plaintiff is informing that any corrections to the deposition may be commented upon at trial. Plaintiff submits pages 6-8 of Exhibit 2 below as an example. 10 BY MR. FORTE: Q Good morning, Mr. Jones, 11 my name is Gene Forte. I'm representing myself in this
Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857

Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As

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

12 action. Mr. Jones, would you please again just state your 13 name for the record. 14 A Tommy Jones. 15 Q Do you have a middle name? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And what is that? 18 A Corniel. 19 Q Okay. Have you ever been known by any other name besides 20 that? 21 A No. ------------------------7 Q Has your attorney today explained to you prior to the 8 deposition what this deposition will be used for? 9 A No. 10 Q You're aware that your testimony given here today is 11 under sworn penalty of perjury testimony? 12 A Correct. 13 Q And that you will have an opportunity to go ahead and 14 review the deposition after it's completed and make any 15 corrections to that. Do you understand? 16 A Correct. 17 Q And you understand that if you do make corrections to the 18 deposition, I will also have the opportunity to use that 19 before a jury if possible and point those corrections out. 20 MR. RATLIFF: Is there a question pending? 21 MR. FORTE: Pardon me? 22 MR. RATLIFF: Is there a question pending? 23 MR. FORTE: Yes. I'm asking that question. 24 MR. RATLIFF: You didn't end with a question 25 so -1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MR. FORTE: Q Okay. So the question is you're aware that if you make corrections at the deposition afterwards, that I can comment upon those corrections to a jury? A Correct. Q Okay. If you do not understand the question that I state to you, you understand that you're also to go ahead and ask me to restate that question so it is clear? MR. RATLIFF: The -- that question assumes facts not in evidence. But you can go ahead and respond if you understand the question. THE WITNESS: I don't understand the question. The improper objection of assumes facts not in evidence, coaching, .incredulous answers, i.e., doesnt know what the deposition will be used for, perjury, occur within the first three pages.
Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857

Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As

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

If Ratliffs conduct is not addressed by this court, it shows a double standard applied by the court between Ratliff an attorney, and Forte an In pro per. Jones did in fact commit perjury on a material issue. Defendant Jones real middle name is Carnell not Corniel. Now, why would a deponent under penalty of perjury conceal his real name? Is there a criminal record lurking out there somewhere? Plaintiff is searching and will find what is buried under the rocks. The objection of assume facts not in evidence during the admonition stage keyed plaintiff that Ratliffs deposition conduct would only go downhill from there. Plaintiff included sections of Jones unbelievable testimony, wherein defendant believes that including maybe in an answer gives him an escape door to lie at will, and Ratliff believes that he can then assert the improper objections assumes facts not in evidence. Again, the courts ire at being referred to as being a jackass is obvious. Plaintiff submits that being called a racist is far worse than being called a jackass. Respectfully, at this time, Plaintiff apologizes for referring to this court in the heat of the moment as a jackass to Ratliff, but as the court says, plaintiff does so without prejudice to renew his opinion if there is any new or continuing evidence of conduct prohibited by the courts own Judicial Canon of Ethics. If the court cannot deal with that then it should disqualify itself. Forte did not think or consider, nor did his counsel, Charles Belkin, that the court would somehow divine, or use the purported uncivil conduct of Forte at the deposition of Fortes son to justify the denial of sanctions against Ratliff. The court should also be reminded that it is on First Amendment thin ice when asserting that due to Forte calling Ratliff a jerk, he should be denied sanctions. Forte was not acting as Jordan Fortes attorney and the court should of taken into consideration a fathers right (custodian) to protect his son when his son is being assailed by yes, your honor, a jerk like Ratliff. Plaintiff did have a right to be there, and plaintiff had a right to make objections on his own behalf. Ratliff had legal remedies via a motion to compel that he could have pursued if he thought the deposition was being impeded. Ratliff made none and sought no sanctions against Forte for his conduct at the deposition. It cannot now be used to justify the denial of sanctions, just as it could not be used to justify the granting of a vexatious litigant motion.

Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857

Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As

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

Plaintiff has sat through many depositions and has conducted many depositions. Plaintiff, though not an attorney, has always conducted himself in a proper manner at such depositions and has never been the subject of a motion to compel. Even though Ratliff paints Forte as an attorney hating radical, and in his opinion, lost control at City Hall meetings, it is not so. Forte has many attorneys as acquaintances. One, a Mr. Samuel Goldstein, was in fact an opposing counsel in a case out of Monterey County. Goldstein has sat through depositions that Forte has conducted and states that Forte conducts himself properly, professionally, and cordially. (See Goldstein Decl.) Ratliff was able to incite the ire of this court against Plaintiff by providing a snapshot of the relationship, out of context, wherein Plaintiff referred to the court as a jackass at the deposition. It should be known that the reason as to why plaintiff thought the court was a metaphorical jackass was due to this court not sanctioning the Hayes Bonino Law Firm for Requesting Judicial Notice of a defeated Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexation Litigant. It is this court that has sanctioned a run-away, no hold bars by the attorneys that are assaulting Forte in this case and in the case of Tetra Tech vs. Santos. The Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant was denied. PERIOD, END OF STORY! The courts statement that the motion was denied without prejudice, and that it could be brought if there was continuing conduct when there was no conduct to begin with, solely for the purposes of making it seem that there was a basis for the motion, reveals a bias against plaintiff. The courts reasoning which appears done from personal embroilment does not support the denial of the motions for sanctions. When the court could not find any legal reason out of the alphabet soup of exhibits purported to be evidence supporting the vexatious litigant statute which was mixed with both apples and oranges by Ratliff, the court added its own sour grapes to punish plaintiff by denying sanctions, and to reward Ratliffs bad conduct. Ratliff admitted that he did over $15,000.00 in legal work, which was not paid out of Jones pocket, but in fact the insurance carrier for the City of Los Banos. The court has allowed Ratliff to bilk an insurance company. Plaintiff has no doubt that the court was angry when Plaintiff began his rebuttal to Ratliff, who spewed venom endlessly against plaintiff. All plaintiff said was that it was amazing to plaintiff that Ratliff still had a bar card. The court snapped that such comments would not help Fortes case. Plaintiff is positive the court is aware of First Amendment Rights, and they certainly
Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857

Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As

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

do not stop at the courtroom doors. There is a plethora of cases concerning what rights an attorney has to be critical of the court and not be subjected to contempt charges. Such rights are not lessened because plaintiff is in pro per. Plaintiff does not lose his Freedom of Speech just because he has to take off his belt and shoes when going through a court security check point because he doesnt have a bar card. Plaintiffs attempted argument upon Ratliffs conduct was put forward was to support plaintiffs motion for sanctions to show Ratliff conduct was uncivil to plaintiff. By the court throwing in the derogatory commentary on a motion that was denied proclaiming The conduct of plaintiff during the deposition of Jordan Forte, Plaintiffs son, might well be enough be itself to justify the granting of this motion. Not only did plaintiff illegally attempt to act as his sons attorneys without being an attorney, his actions towards counsel, Mr. Ratliff, were totally uncivil, appear to be calculated to delay and impeded the deposition of Jordan Forte and certainly could be found to be frivolous in nature was nothing but shear clap trap and opened up a can of worms for both the court and Ratliff. There was no conduct at the deposition that would justify the granting of the vexatious litigant motion. If there was, then the court was required to grant the motion. When the court brought in matters, i.e., conduct at a two hour deposition for which no motion to compel was made, or a declaration of a back stabbing officer of the court, that are not germane to the granting or denial of the vexatious litigant motion, to improperly deny the sanctions, a whole new can of worms opened for reconsideration of the sanction that should be awarded plaintiff. The court is now going to get an eyeful of uncivil, delaying, and impeding conduct by its officer of the court, Ratliff, during the deposition of Tommy Jones. Lets see if the court is as critical of its fine officer (said facetiously) Ratliff. Heres another one for the court evidencing Ratliffs uncivil impeding conduct (Pages 157-160, Ex.2): 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Q And again, why don't you pay attention to anything Mr. Forte tells you? A Because I just don't consider Mr. Forte to be a valuable human being that I would listen to. Q A very what? A A valuable human being that I would listen to. Q Well -The screen isn't blocking the view? MR. CALA: No. MR. FORTE: Oh, I'm sorry. Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857 8
Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As

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

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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

Q You're saying you don't consider Mr. Forte to be a valuable human being? MR. RATLIFF: I think that's what he said. Is there another question? MR. FORTE: I think that you don't need to be -- are you stating an objection? MR. RATLIFF: I'm trying to move the deposition along. I think he answered one question so -MR. FORTE: Q So I'm asking what do you consider a valuable human being? A A person that would give an unbias opinion on any subject. And any of your opinions would be bias. Q And why is that? A Because that's just the person you are. Q Well, would you elaborate. A No. I'm through with it. Q What makes you believe Mr. Forte is a -- not a valuable human being? MR. RATLIFF: He's answered. The question has been asked and answered and that's all he has to say on that subject. Q So what you're saying is if I played the recording of what this gentleman stated -A I would hear it at that time. Q And would it refresh your recollection then to what was said? MR. RATLIFF: That assumes facts not evidence. He won't know unless he hears it. If that's what you want to do, you do it. THE WITNESS: It's up to you. MR. FORTE: Well, then let's go ahead and take the time to go ahead and play what the previous gentleman had gone and said. MR. RATLIFF: You could just easily say what the guy said and ask him if it refreshes his memory instead of wasting time. That's the easiest way to do it. That's the way most attorneys do it. MR. FORTE: Well, I'm not an attorney, am I? MR. RATLIFF: Obviously, yeah. MR. FORTE: Now, is that a plus or a negative? MR. RATLIFF: That's probably a little bit of both. MR. FORTE: Q And Mr. Jones, do you consider attorneys valuable human beings? MR. RATLIFF: Don't answer that question. 9
Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As

Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857

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

1 It's irrelevant. 2 MR. FORTE: No, it is not. 3 MR. RATLIFF: Yes, it is. He's not going to 4 answer it. 5 Unless you want to answer it. 6 MR. FORTE: Are you instructing him not to 7 answer? 8 MR. RATLIFF: I'm suggesting that he not 9 answer it. I'm not instructing him. I'm just saying that 10 it's irrelevant. 11 He can answer it if he wants to. 12 THE WITNESS: It's irrelevant. 13 MR. FORTE: Q Are you refusing to answer 14 that question? 15 A It's not a question. 16 Q Do you consider attorneys valuable human beings? 17 A It's not a question. 18 Q It is a question. 19 A I have no comment. 20 Q "No comment" is not an answer? 21 MR. RATLIFF: That's his answer. 22 THE WITNESS: That's what I'm giving you. 23 MR. FORTE: Q So you're refusing to answer 24 the question? 25 MR. RATLIFF: He doesn't want to comment on 1 that subject and it's irrelevant so let's move on. You're 2 wasting time, Mr. Forte. Close your mouth before something 3 flies in it. 4 MR. FORTE: Pardon me, Mr. Ratliff? Are you 5 making a personal insult? 6 MR. RATLIFF: Oh, never. I don't do that. 7 It's an idiosyncrasy that you have. 8 MR. FORTE: I see you say that facetiously. 9 MR. RATLIFF: No, no. It's an idiosyncrasy 10 that you have. Whenever you do something, you have your mouth 11 wide open so -12 MR. FORTE: You know what I appear to find 13 any time you open your mouth lies come out. How is that one? 14 MR. RATLIFF: You're wasting time so let's 15 move on. 16 MR. FORTE: Let's dispense with the personal 17 insults you're throwing at me. 18 MR. RATLIFF: I wasn't -19 MR. FORTE: And Mr. Jones has the audacity 20 to state that apparently Mr. Forte is not a valuable human 21 being, but will not go ahead and answer -- stating that he has 22 a value system to denote who is valuable and who is not. But 23 when he's asked if an attorney is a valuable human being, you 24 prevent him from answering that question essentially because
Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857

10

Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As

1 2

25 the record is going to reflect there has been some very foolish testimony here today. Attached deposition pages show more uncivil comments by Ratliff to Forte, and the continued unethical and obstructive impeding of the deposition of Jones by Ratliff making improper

3 4

objections, coaching the witness, answering for the witness, Jones flat out lying, being evasive, intentionally answering unintelligibly and insulting plaintiff. The video of the deposition shows all

5 of this. Let the court take the deposition of Jones and compare it to the 10 pages that Ratliff threw 6 7 8 9 The enumerated pages from Exhibit 2 show examples of the improper conduct by Ratliff: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 The above is not complete; indeed, virtually every page exhibits an uncooperative witness 21 and improper conduct by Ratliff. Plaintiff requests that in fairness to plaintiff, Ratliff should be 22 required to provide the court the entire deposition of Jordan Forte, not just the 10 pages excerpted 23 out of 193 pages before it asserts that Forte was illegally attempting to act as an attorney, or that he 24 was trying to impede the deposition. It must be pointed out to the court that the deposition of 25 Jordan Forte was taken after Forte took the deposition of Jones. Forte was already well aware of 26 Ratliffs abusive nature and unethical conduct. 27 B. 28
Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857

into the court record. Plaintiff submits that Ratliffs reprehensible conduct was far worse. The case of Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency (2001), 87 Cal.App.4th 1006 indicates that Mr. Ratliffs conduct at the deposition was wholly improper based upon his improper objections.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Jones not producing documents p. 201-207. Jones perjury p. 6, 131. Ratliffs objection of asked and answered p. 351-355, 361, 366, 386-387, 390, 394, 401, 407-412, 421-427, 507-508, 523-525, 539-541, 592. Ratliff coaching the witness p. 14-16, 18-20, 22, 30-32, 50-52, 60-65, 93-100, 195-197, 200-201, 242, 357-372, 391-393, 397-400, 402-405, 418, 425-427, 436-449, 488, 521-522, 525-531, 556-557, 561-562, 592-595, 607-616. Ratliffs uncivil and insulting behavior p. 93-99, 132-133, 160-161, 195-196, 324-329, 526-527, 550-556, 564-565, 568-570. Ratliffs objection of irrelevant p. 35-36, 146, 151-156, 160-162, 176-178, 192-199, 311-323, 405, 414, 435-437, 444-446, 482, 499-502, 507-509, 522, 529-531, 559-563, 568, 587. Ratliffs objection of assumes facts not in evidence p. 8- 15, 22, 34, 40, 44-45, 57, 7576, 111, 118, 146-148, 159-161, 199, 352, 355, 357, 359, 386, 413, 464-465, 495, 499, 518, 524, 585, 603, 615, 623, 626-627. Ratliffs objection of mischaracterizing testimony to coach and lead witness on material matters regarding issue of KKK p. 347-377. Ratliff and Jones obstructing and impeding testimony, game playing p. 383-429.

SANDBAGGING: DECLARATION OF BELKIN 11

Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As

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

In the courts order, the court refers to the form declaration of Charles Belkin, Plaintiffs former attorney, which was used in Belkins Motion to Withdraw. The court is well aware of the events which led up to such withdrawal and told plaintiff not to submit the emails which evidenced that Belkin was not fired by Forte. It was the court proffering that too many trees are wasted and told Forte not to submit them as evidence. The emails are attached (Exhibit 1). The court should have kept that in mind as Ratliff stacked five and one half inches of paper on its desk and said this is why plaintiff is vexatious. Not one piece of it was used, and of course, the motion was denied. No ethical duly licensed attorney in the State of California would have dared to put such rubbish before the court to support a vexatious litigant motion. That is what the court should be focused upon, not the declaration of Belkin that was not submitted in Opposition to the Motion for Sanctions, or that Plaintiff had referred to Judge Mayhew as a jackass for not holding the Hayes Bonino Law Firm accountable for requesting Judicial Notice of a defeated vexatious litigant motion that Ratliff then plagiarized. The court must look at the substance of what Ratliff did, and that which Ratliff knew as licensed attorney should have not done to determine if sanctions should be granted. The court states, In addition, the declaration of Mr. Belkin provides evidence of a finding of vexatious litigant under CCP 391(b)(3). It emphatically and legally does not. If this court was to grant the motion based upon such declaration, the Fifth Appellate Court would have reversed the ruling. A declaration with no evidence attached does not establish the truth of the matter, but it was new evidence presented by the court after the close of arguments and submission of evidence, to improperly support a denial of sanctions. Why would this court overreach so far? Plaintiff submits that Chief Justice George must be looking over the top of this case himself, or what plaintiff has referred to as Georges minion, a chubby little purple telly-tubby DAG Paul T. Hammerness who filed the defeated purported vexatious litigant motion in 2005 that this motion was sloppily cloned from. Plaintiff had no opportunity to address Belkins declaration except at the withdrawal hearing, and in fact, at such time, plaintiff asked the court to have Belkin elaborate on his referring to Rule 3-300(b) in order to avoid the impression that it was based upon any misconduct of Forte. The court did not. Forte surmises that the only part of the declaration of Belkin which could
Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857

12

Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As

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

possibly be relevant (not that it is) refers to the following: Rule 3-700. Termination of Employment. (B) Mandatory Withdrawal. A member representing a client before a tribunal shall withdraw from employment with the permission of the tribunal, if required by its rules, and a member representing a client in other matters shall withdraw from employment, if: (1) The member knows or should know that the client is bringing an action, conducting a defense, asserting a position in litigation, or taking an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; or (2) The member knows or should know that continued employment will result in violation of these rules or of the State Bar Act; or (3) The member's mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment effectively. Forte submits that court has abused its discretion by choosing obviously the best choice for the courts purpose from the three choices without it being tested or argued against by Forte. It is patently unfair and not in the interests of justice. It evidences a bizarre bias. III. THE COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO RECONSIDER ITS PRIOR RULING UPON A SHOWING OF NEW OR DIFFERENT FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES, OR LAW "When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order." C.C.P. 1008(a). "The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown." C.C.P. 1008(a). "This section specifies the court's jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to
Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857

13

Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As

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

this section." [Except as described below.] C.C.P. 1008(e); Darling, Hall & Rae v. Kritt, 75 Cal. App. 4th 1148, 1156, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 676 (2d Dist. 1999), as modified on denial of reh'g, (Oct. 26, 1999). [Except as described below.] New or different facts, circumstances or law: The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. [Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 CA4th 1494, 1500, 38 CR2d 626, 629630; Mink v. Sup.Ct. (Arnel Develop. Co., Inc.) (1992) 2 CA4th 1338, 1342, 4 CR2d 195, 197; Baldwin v. Home Sav. of America (1997) 59 CA4th 1192, 1198, 69 CR2d 592, 597] Also, the court must act sua sponte: The court must act on its own motion, either as the result of its own second thoughts or in response to a party's request (below). [Le Francois v. Goel, supra, 35 C4th at 1108, 29 CR3d at 261]. Thus, in spite of the fact that a motion to reconsider may be found to be filed in violation of 1008, the court has inherent power to correct its own errors when they are called to the court's attention by way of an improperly filed motion (if it is determined to be an improperly filed motion). [Marriage of Barthold (2008) 158 CA4th 1301, 1308, 70 CR3d 691, 695]. Plaintiff therefore requests that the court correct the error of the order denying plaintiffs motion for sanction on June 3, 2010. Plaintiff submits that it is a denial of due process when he is not allowed time to present his best evidence in support of his argument in a motion that prejudices him and therefore his case, and that the court can now rectify its order. IV. THIS MOTION IS TIMELY MADE C.C.P. 1008(a) provides that this application must be made "within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order." As further stated in the Declaration of Eugene Forte, service of written notice of entry of the order was effected on June 3, 2010 by mail and this Notice of Motion for Reconsideration has been served and filed by June 18, 2010, within 10 days plus 5 for service by mail. V. THE NEW EVIDENCE COULD NOT REASONABLY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED EARLIER
Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857

14

Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As

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

Courts have held that a party seeking reconsideration must provide not only new evidence but also a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time. See Glade v. Glade, 38 Cal. App. 4th 1441, 1457, 45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 695 (2d Dist. 1995). As stated above and in the Declaration of Eugene Forte, this new evidence could not have been produced at an earlier time due to the court preventing Forte from addressing the issue of Ratliffs improper behavior as an attorney and officer of the court and due to the absence of the Declaration of Belkin in the VLM motion which Forte therefore did not address. Both these reasons are valid as to why they were not presented before. VI. CONCLUSION The purported acts by the plaintiff gleaned from a partial transcript of a two hour deposition in of itself could not be used to establish that Forte was a vexatious litigant or in any way impeding discover. An untested declaration by Fortes ex-attorney Belkin, which was not presented by Ratliff in the vexatious litigant motion, could not be used to establish that Forte was a vexatious litigant. Because none of the evidence presented by Ratliff supported his VLM motion and none of it was used to establish that Forte was a vexatious litigant and the court was required to deny the motion, the motion was frivolous. Forte was damaged in the amount of $11,090.00 in attorneys fees in opposing the motion. It is required in the interests of fairness and justice for Forte to be awarded the full amount of his sanctions. In view of the foregoing facts and authorities, and the new evidence which has come to light in this matter as set forth in the Declaration of Eugene Forte filed herewith, hereby respectfully requests that the Court reconsider and vacate its prior ruling denying the earlier MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, and enter a new Order upon said this motion consistent with the new facts and circumstances as set forth herein and in the attached Declaration.

Dated: June 18, 2010

Respectfully submitted, __________________________________ Eugene Forte, In Propria Persona

Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857

15

Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As

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 __x__ STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED ) ) )

PROOF OF SERVICE

ss.

I, the undersigned, declare that I am employed in the County of Merced, State of California; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 688 Birch Court, Los Banos, CA, 93635. On June 18, 2010, I served the following document: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR ORDER DENYING SANCTIONS; [C.C.P. 1008(a)] _____ _____ personal service on the below-named party(ies) at the address(es) given. facsimile machine pursuant to Rule 2008. Said document was sent to the below listed party(ies). The fax number I used was: (209) 829-1952. The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2004, and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2006(d), I caused the machine to print a transmission record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to this declaration. depositing the sealed envelope(s) with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid addressed as follows:

Mr. Benjamin L. Ratliff, Esq. The Law Firm of Weakley, Ratliff, Arendt, & McGuire, LLP 1100 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 124 Fresno, CA 93711 (559) 227-2166 phone (559) 227-0846 fax

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 18, 2010 at Los Banos, California.

_______________________________________ Eileen Forte

Forte v. Jones, et al., Stanislaus Case No. 637857

16

Mem. Of P&As in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Order Denying Sanctions; Mem. of P&As