Complaint(s) against
Judge Pacheco, Willmon, Fontana PD, San Bernardino DA
1. I was denied due
process SCHNEIDER, first with the W/C case when I was denied while in Pro-Per
to question defendants and witness.
2. The contempt order
should be void due to Judge Pacheco violating my right to due process when he
denied the 170.6 complaint that I filed timely, as Judge Frangie agreed, see
transcript 12/15/2011
This Malicious Prostitution
should not have been allowed by Judge Pacheco:
Count (1) Libel Per Se was dismissed by Judge Frangie, see:
Schneider National, Inc.,
et al. v. Walter Ellis CASE No. CIVSS 800507, see:
11/02/10
San Bernardino District
Civil/Probate Division (Court room S-31)
Re: Case # CIVDS 906308
303 W. Third Street, San Bernardino, Ca. 92415-0302 Civil - (909) 382-3626 Fax-
(909) 382-7683
Judge Frangie,
This fax is regarding a
hearing in Court room 31 re: an attempt hearing I didn’t think I was to
attend.
If attendance was
necessary my medical condition will not allow.
I am being fitted for a wheel chair at the VA due to my inability to get
around. I have asked and been granted a
stay until 12/15/10 by Judge Janet M. Frangie.
The Judge in S-31 was
dismissed with a 170.6? It was my
belief that I didn’t have to appear before Judge John M. Pacheco.
I received the following
docs and telephone conversations indicating that my next court appearance would
be in s-32 12/15/10 at 8:30AM, see attachments.
We have looked at the
court calendar and cannot find an appearance for 11/3/09.
Attorney David Binder
called at 4:25Pm this date and threatened that a warrant would be issued for my
arrest if I didn’t appear 11/3/10 in court room 31, which I wasn’t aware, nor
able to appear.
I am faxing you the court
these documents from S-32 and documents I have recovered from the court
calendar.
Cc: Attorney David Binder
TENTATIVE RULINGS
The court
rules as follows on the Motions of Defendant Walter Ellis for Judgment on the Pleadings of the Complaint
and for a Stay of Proceedings:
Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings By Defendant Walter Ellis
1.
The motion is
denied as to the First and Third Causes of Action. These causes of action are pleaded sufficiently. The Court cannot consider the "facts"
or "evidence" Defendant seeks to show
that are outside the face of the pleading in determining this motion.
2.
The motion is
granted as to the Second Cause of Action. The
allegations are insufficient to establish that Defendant Ellis violated Business & Professions Code
Section 12425 which requires that Ellis used Schneider's
mark in connection with the sale, distribution,
offering for sale, or advertising of
goods or services.
The First and Third cause
of action are trumped up charges in order to retaliate against me for:
My being a WHISTLE BLOWER and filing:
OSHA Whistleblower Protection for Trucking Employees
When
reporting DOT violations and other safety conditions, many drivers are not
aware of the protection provided for drivers under the "whistleblower
policy." See links below for
more info and how to file a complaint: www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA-factsheet-whistleblower-trucking.pdf
www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/dlseDiscrimination.html (there
are different reasons for the complaint that can be clicked on and includes
"retaliation")
The link below is a reply from FMCSA/DOT re the above complaint against SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GZEZ&q=schneider+truckers+complaints&start=10&sa=N
DOT complaints:
Title of Document U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Motor
Carrier Safety
Administration OFFICE REPORT
(Detailed)
FMCSA / DOT violations:
Please Expedite:
Date/date range of
document: 01-June-1998 – 29-July-2011
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC.
P.O. Box 2545
Green Bay, WI
54306
To include: March 16, 2009
From:
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration
Walter Ellis
33432 Hillcrest Ct Wildomar CA 92595
Dear
Mr. Ellis;
This
is in response to your fax to our office concerning the safety practices of
Schneider National Carriers Inc. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration is very much concerned with acts of noncompliance with the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations by motor carriers and their employees. Your comments
have been noted and an investigation will be conducted regarding the safety violations you
allege. It may be necessary during this investigation for the safety specialist
to contact you for additional information.
Your
interest in motor carrier safety is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Gr\-6-Kk Ali0/12gi\
(of
Mark G. Oesterle Division Administrator
Bickley v
Schneider Case Administrator
PO Box 2730
Portland, OR 97208-2730
To:WALTER ELLIS
MURRIETA CA 92562
NOTICE OF LAWSUIT AGAINST SCHNEIDER
NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC.
ON BEHALF OF CURRENT AND FORMER CALIFORNIA-BASED
LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEDICATED AND INTERMODAL DRIVERS
A lawsuit has been filed
against Schneider National Carriers, Inc.
("Schneider") by two former drivers on behalf of themselves and all other current and
former California-based local and regional Dedicated and Intermodal drivers. The attorneys bringing this
lawsuit have asked Schneider to release your
name and home address, so that they may send you a letter regarding the case.
On January 12, 2010, Morris
Bickley and Michael D. Patton filed an amended complaint against Schneider National Carriers, Inc., on behalf of
themselves and all other current and former California-based local and regional Dedicated and Intermodal drivers. The
lawsuit is entitled Morris Bickley, et al. v. Schneider
National Carriers, Inc., et al., and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, before the Honorable Jeffrey S. White, Case No.
08-CV-05806-JSW. Mr. Bickley and Mr. Patton allege that Schneider's drivers were not properly
compensated for all of the time they worked. Specifically, they allege Schneider did not compensate drivers for certain
tasks they performed, such as performing pre-and post-trip inspections, fueling tractors, waiting for
dispatch to notify them of their next assignment over the on-board computer
after delivering a load, waiting in lines for periods of extended time
("Detention Time"), washing vehicles, hooking and unhooking empty trailers, and filling out and
submitting paperwork to the corporate office_ Mr. Bickley and Mr. Patton also allege Schneider did not
provide its drivers with thirty (30) minute,
uninterrupted meal breaks
or paid ten (10) minute rest breaks for each four (4) hour period during which
drivers worked. They further allege Schneider failed to pay all accrued
vacation wages upon any driver's separation from the company. Schneider denies that it has violated the law.
To assist in their
investigation of these allegations, Mr. Bickley's and Mr. Patton's attorneys
wish to send you a letter advising you of the
pending litigation. To do so, they have requested the release of your name and home address so that a letter may be sent to you.
The release of your name and home address will be kept confidential and used only for purposes of
sending you a letter regarding the case. THIS NOTICE IS NOT A COMMUNICATION FROM THE COURT AND IS
NOT an EXPRESSION OF ANYOPINION BY THE COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE CLAIMS OR DEFENSES BY EITHER
SIDE IN
THIS
LITIGATION. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT.
SCHNEIDER’S possible DOT &
other Violations
On January 12, 2009 a representative of UAAD spoke to a US FMSCA
representative in Sacramento, CA regarding possible DOT violations committed
by SCHNEIDER trucking. These possible violations include the
following complaints by drivers:
1. DBLs require that drivers start their
work day in an off duty status while: a. Pre-tripping
truck/trailer
b. Trip planning during load assignment process. These duty assignments are required prior to
starting the 14 hour work day. Some of
the accounts, as WAL-MART,
are assigned that will not allow for the load(s) to be delivered within the 14
hour DOT work rule, if drivers show their actual starting time.
2. Trips are dispatched at an average speed of
45-50 MPH not taking in consideration road conditions, terrain, traffic, time
zones etc.
3. Most WAL MART trips are scheduled so
tight that many, if not most, have little or no time after the 14 hour shift to
get back to the terminal, or a reasonable DOT break site. DBLs and their supervisors are aware of these
conditions, but fail to make corrections.
The DOT representative stated
these were clear violations his department would investigate, and in his
opinion were clear violations of DOT rules and regulations.
Health and Safety Issues:
Drivers are assigned to trucks that reek of cigarette
smoke and other unsanitary conditions.
Those who complain are told by some DBLs to clean the truck on their own
time, and they will be paid a maximum of $40.
Upon contacting OSHA at 909 383-4321, they advised that a complaint
would have to be made to:
San Bernardino Department of Public Health “Tobacco Use
Deduction Now”
909 387-6000
After OSHA have received three complaints from that
agency, OSHA will than investigate, or take action. www.truckerscomplaint.com
Lake Elsinore, CA
92530
3. After the Fontana PD,
the SB DA's office, and Judge Willmon stated I had a right to go on the
premises due to it being a public place, I was later accused by Judge Pacheco
of violating his prejudiced order, stating I had violated his contempt order.
4. Ask for a jury trial
to address the default and contempt, based on improperly being served 9 or
10/2010 which is a matter of record and I believe I had advised the court of my
moving to the Sandpiper address. If denied a trial I will take all the appeal
documents to court and insist that I am able to defend myself, taking days if
needed to present my defense.
5. If the Judge decide
to put me in jail, I should be able to bail out and file a civil rights claim
against the W/C Judge, Pacheco, Fontana PD, DA's office also naming SNI.
As far as the telephone
recordings:
They
were all legal whereby they recorded out of state or in my office(s) UAAD see: California
Although California is a two-party state, it is also legal to
record a conversation if you include a beep on the recorder and for the parties
to hear. This information was included with my telephone bill.
632). There is no statutory business telephone exception and the
relevant case law all but excludes this possibility. California courts have
recognized "implied" consent as being sufficient to satisfy the
statute where one party has expressly agreed to the taping and the other continues
the conversation after having been informed that the call is being recorded.
Violation is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500, imprisonment for not more
than one year, or both. A civil plaintiff may recover the greater of $3,000 or
three times the amount of any actual damages sustained.
Generally,
you may record, film, broadcast or amplify any conversation where all the
parties to it consent. It is always legal to tape or film a
face-to-face interview when your recorder or camera is in plain view. The
consent of all parties is presumed in these instances.
Because this guide was written with the needs of journalists in mind,
it does not address all aspects of electronic recording laws, including
the issues of taping family members’ calls and using a tape recording as evidence in a
lawsuit or prosecution. Others who have questions about taping should
contact a local attorney directly.
The Supreme Court of California in Kearney v. Salomon
Smith Barney applied California wiretap law to a company located in Georgia
who routinely recorded business phone calls with its clients in California. California
law requires all party consent to record any telephone calls, while Georgia law
requires only one party consent. The state’s high court, applying
choice of law principles, reasoned that the failure to apply California law
would “impair California’s interest in protecting the degree of privacy
afforded to California residents by California law more severely than the
application of California law would impair any interests of the State of
Georgia.”
Federal law may apply when the conversation is between parties who are
in different states, although it is unsettled whether a court will hold in a
given case that federal law “pre-empts” state law. In Duncan, the
newspaper argued that the federal law should pre-empt the state statutes,
because the telephone call crossed state lines, placing it under federal
jurisdiction. However, in that case, the court did not address the pre-emption
issue. Moreover, as noted above, either state may choose to enforce its own
laws.
The case arose from a cell-phone conversation in
Pennsylvania about contract negotiations for local school teachers. During the
conversation, Anthony Kane Jr., president of the local teachers’ union, told
Gloria Bartnicki, a union negotiator, that if teachers’ demands were not met,
“we’re gonna have to go to their, their homes . . . to blow off their front
porches, we’ll have to do some work on some of those guys.” While Bartnicki and
Kane spoke, an unknown person illegally intercepted the call, and a tape
recording was left in the mailbox of a local association leader. The
association leader gave a copy of the tape to two radio talk show hosts, who
broadcast the tape as a part of a news show. Local television stations also
aired the tape, and newspapers published transcripts of the conversation.
Bartnicki and Kane sued some of the stations and newspapers that had
disclosed the contents of the tape. The case made its way to the Supreme Court,
which found that First Amendment principles trumped the privacy concerns of the
union leaders.
In ruling that
disclosure of a matter in the public interest outweighed claims of privacy, the
majority of the Court supported “a profound national commitment to the
principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and
wide-open.” The majority explained that those who participate in public affairs
have a diminished expectation of privacy, especially when they propose to carry
out wrongful conduct.
The case was a significant win for the media, but its
implications for newsgatherers are not yet entirely clear. The Court’s decision
was premised on three factors: the media did not engage in or encourage the
illegal recording, the topic of the intercepted conversation was of public
concern, and the conversation involved proposed criminal acts. The Court did
not indicate whether disclosure by the media under different circumstances
would be considered legal. (Bartnicki v. Vopper)
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in
Massachusetts decided in 2007’s Jean v. Massachusetts State Police that
the First Amendment prevented Massachusetts law enforcement officials from
interfering with an individual’s Internet posting of an audio and video
recording of an arrest and warrantless search of a private residence, even
though the poster had reason to know at the time she accepted the recording
that it was illegally recorded.
The Court applied Bartnicki and determined that the
state’s interest in protecting the privacy of its citizens — encouraging
uninhibited exchange of ideas and information among private parties and
avoiding suspicion that one’s speech is being monitored by a stranger — was
less compelling in this case than in Bartnicki, in which it was not
given much weight.
The Court of Appeals said that in Jean, when the identity of
the interceptor is known, there is even less justification for punishing a
subsequent publisher than there was in Bartnicki, and the public
interest in publication of truthful information of public concern was equally
as strong. The Jean court also cited the concurring opinion in Boehner,
stating that if Rep. McDermott had been a private citizen, like Jean, the court
would have concluded that his disclosure of the tape was subject to First
Amendment protection regardless of the fact that he received the tape directly
from the Florida couple, who recorded it illegally.
Recording in a public place and not on the phone is legal and
permissive, see: