Sunday, September 15, 2013

 Judge John M. Pacheco is being looked at….


 My name is Walter Ellis, an AFRICAN AMERICAN who believe and can confirm that most AFRICAN AMERICANS cannot receive justice especially in San Bernardino and Riverside, the most racist judicial system in CALIFORNIA. It has been my contention that when AFRICAN AMERICANS make complaints Federal agencies and the Judicial System most times fail to investigate.
In my opinion it is a miscarriage of justice to allow the JUDICIAL SYSTEM to be basterized in order that Judges such as John Pacheco, Chris Willmon can continue to support the discriminatory, unlawful employee treatment practiced by SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS INC., a company that has such influence over these judges that they rule in favor of SNI, at times when other judges have ruled in my favor on the same case.
The judge, who threatened a young mother with loss of custody if she complained to his court, and her child was then beaten to death by the father, slapped a $640 sanction on a children’s advocate who is leading his recall. - See more at:
  Now Judge John M. Pacheco is also being looked at…….

This same Judge stated to me an AFRICAN AMERICAN:
THE DEFENDANT: Due to the fact that you don't have any black judges which proves that there's racial discrimination. You don't abide by the admission for the whole court system.
THE COURT: Mr. Ellis, I have to -
THE DEFENDANT: And I would be willing to agree and I think it would be very unfair when the documentation is buried in the court with the Judge Frangie and she was the only judge that I felt that had jurisdiction over this case. And she had given me to the eighth to -- to present my case as far as the change of venue and she was going to hear that case in November and because of her court calendar she put it off until December the 15th.
THE COURT: Just for the record we do have black judges and Hispanic judges and Asian judges, we have female judges.
THE DEFENDANT: How many blacks judges do you have, your Honor?
THE COURT: Well, I can think of at least one. No, we've got three of them.
THE COURT: You got three in San Bernardino County?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
THE DEFENDANT: When did that happen?
THE COURT: It goes back, let's see, nine years ago. When I was appointed we have a black judge, female. A female, too, that Katrina West.
THE DEFENDANT: I was told there was no black judges. I know there is only one black judge in Riverside County.  And I have -- I don't think that an African/American can get a fair trial in these counties without a fair representation in the workman comp systems which has no black judges. They agreed to that and that's on YouTube.

MR. BINDER: Your Honor, can we submit it?

THE DEFENDANT: But anyway. I appreciate you not putting me in jail. I used to be a police officer who never spent a day in jail up until now. I'm seventy-two years old. I hope I never have to go to jail. I'm a pretty bright citizen.
I don't lie like Luke Simendinger does and most of those employees of the Schneider.
And Mr. Binder, he's one of the biggest liars.  See:

This is the same Judge who has since 2009, joined with:
SCHNEIDER / John M. Pacheco v Ellis                    Case # CIVDS 906-308
 We will not find justice at the hands of corrupt judges. (See YouTube videos) Judge to Judge on Illegal Payments to Judges / Evil Triangle of Court Corruption / Richard fine / DR. Shirley Moore slush funds /SBX 211. To end this title wave of corruption in our country must start with the corrupt judges. We cannot bring evidence of corruption to corrupt judges. Los Angeles Superior Court judges are illegally and unconstitutionally taking 50,000.00 each for a total of 23 million per year.
A major investigation should take place in the interest of JUSTICE.  Please contact:
Walter L. Ellis   see:
Lake Elsinore, CA   951 805-1156


September 12, 2013


The judge, who threatened a young mother with loss of custody if she complained to his court, and her child was then beaten to death by the father, slapped a $640 sanction on a children’s advocate who is leading his recall. - See more at:

                    Justice for Caylee - A Voice for Those Who Have No Voice  
by TomTerrific0420 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:40 pm
Gallegos said she noticed bruising and other injuries on her son when he would return
from visits with his father.
After Gallegos noticed the injuries, she asked a San Bernardino County Superior Court

judge in September 2009 to revoke Baeza's visitation rights.
Judge John M. Pacheco dismissed Gallegos' abuse claims as unfounded, and told her, “If

you continue to act this way, what I have to do is I'll have to take custody away from     you,"  according to a transcript.
Gallegos said that after the hearing, she feared she would lose her son if she made more abuse allegations or kept her son from visiting Baeza.

 This is the same Judge who has since 2009, joined with:
 SCHNEIDER / John M. Pacheco v Ellis                    Case # CIVDS 906-308

Sunday, August 18, 2013

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:


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.

Walter L. Ellis,

Cc:  Attorney David Binder

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: (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.*: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


P.O. Box  2545

Green Bay, WI  54306

920 592-2000            

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.


Gr\-6-Kk Ali0/12gi\

(of Mark G. Oesterle Division Administrator


Bickley v Schneider Case Administrator

 PO Box 2730

Portland, OR 97208-2730





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  

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.   

 Walter L. Ellis 

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: