|
|
Posted by Humorous One on 08/04/06 22:08
Humorous One wrote:
> Humorous One wrote:
> > Humorous One wrote:
> > > Findings of Fact:
> > >
> > > For these allegations against Salt Lake attorney Eric C. Olson, #4108,
> > > a complaint has been filed with the Bar's OPC and it was also deemed
> > > necessary to 'cross-file' a complaint with the Judicial Conduct
> > > Commision alleging Olson's collusion with Judge Stephen Henroid,
> > > alleging violations of both The Rules of Professional Conduct and the
> > > violation of Canon(s) 2 and 3 against Judge Henroid.
> > >
> > > I should mention that, originally, it was not my intention to publish
> > > this on the Internet, but I'm facing challenges in a hearing tomorrow
> > > relative to the above subject line and could possibly lose my right to
> > > express myself and use the Internet, plus face jail time, I'm Pro Se,
> > > up against 2 lawyers, including Olson, 2 brothers that have been
> > > diagnosed as mentally ill and have concocted a story that I was going
> > > to commit double murders and other horrible acts, in an attempt at
> > > retailiation and retribution over the turbulent dissolution of
> > > friendship and a judge who made national headlines several months ago
> > > for telling a woman (who apparently was fostercaring for more dogs than
> > > is allowed), 'You should've just shot the 8 dogs before you came to
> > > Court so you wouldn't be going to jail' and upon being told she had 2
> > > dogs waiting for her downstairs, 'Henroid stated, 'They're going to die
> > > too, because you're going to jail'.
> > >
> > > These outrageous comments created a firestorm of controversy among
> > > animal rights activists, whose lawyers, were purportedly going to file
> > > a Complaint against 'lovable Steve', seeking his removal from the
> > > bench.
> > >
> > > These remarks prompted the press to look into Stephen Henroid's
> > > 'background' and it was found that in early '05, law enforcement had to
> > > be dispatched to his residence 3 times, apparently for domestic
> > > violance issus and 1 once as a suicide threat. Upon examination of the
> > > police reports documenting these events, it was found that all 3
> > > reports had been 'watered down' and much critical documentation that
> > > should've reported was, not surprisingly, edited out, as he is a
> > > judge.
> > >
> > > This prompted the Presiding Judge to mandate Henroid underfo counseling
> > > for his issues, which he did for 2 weeks, stepping down from his post
> > > briefly, but then reinstated by the P J after his completion of the
> > > counseling.
> > >
> > > It should also be noted: That given these terrible predications of
> > > death and murder I was about to commit, get this, NO POLICE REPORT WAS
> > > EVER FILED, thus eliminating what would've been an investigation by
> > > police, leaving the Cope brother's testimony vulnerable to suspicion
> > > and redress.
> > >
> > > Instead, and under the fraudulent and deceptive manuvering of Eric
> > > Olson, the bothers alibi is confirmed by each other under oath, then
> > > Olson merely submits their depo's as truth.
> > > I showed this Complaint to law enforcment and that couldn't believe,
> > > given the gravity and severity of the murderous acts about to be
> > > committed, that NO POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. This shows Eric Olson feels
> > > he has a 'comfort level' with Judge Henroid and the 'hearing' is
> > > nothing more than a metaphor to unlawfully place Def in jail.
> > >
> > > Over the last 16 years duration of this case, it's been necessary to
> > > remove the original judge who presided over this case for _14_ years
> > > then recused himself within 5 days after learning he had been reoprted
> > > to the JCC amid my allegations of impropriety. The judge got caught in
> > > bias and predjudicial behavior and thus recused himself or he would've
> > > continued with the case.
> > >
> > > My complaint under review with the OPC, alleges, Mr. Olson uses the
> > > deceptive and manipulative device of Unfair Surprise as he did so in an
> > > evidentiary held on 12/29/04 by not announcing or informing Def his
> > > client would be present. Each side is to advise as to whom they chose
> > > to call for witnesses so that questions can be crafted for their
> > > specific cross examination.
> > >
> > > Eric Olson did not previously inform Def of the scheduled appearance of
> > > his client, thus upon entering the courtroom on 12/29/04 and seeing
> > > plaintiff, I was effectively 'derailed and thrown off balance' by
> > > 'Doe's appearance. This is Unfair Surprise in it's purest form. And
> > > Judge Henroid went right along with it. More evidence of collusion
> > > between attorney and judge.
> > >
> > > Eric Olson, in July 2004, files a pleading with the court REQUESTING
> > > THAT A SPECIFIC JUDGE BE ASSIGNED TO THE CASE. This was in light of the
> > > fact the original judge had recused himself amid my allegations, and
> > > subsequently the next 2 judges this case was assigned to, recused
> > > themselves for being acquainted with 1 of Def's parties (voluntarily
> > > recused) and the following judge, our families have been friends for
> > > years and noting a possible conflict of interest, recused themselves as
> > > well. It is reprhensible for Olson to think he has the latitude to
> > > 'chose his own judge'. Subsequently, Olson's request for the Presiding
> > > Judge's recruitment was not accepted.
> > >
> > > Apparently frustrated the case was without jurisdiction, Olsin then
> > > files the above reported pleading leveling this cheap shot at Def,
> > > 'apparently the court is unable to provide judiciary to the liking or
> > > satisfaction of Def, therefore, Counsel moves/requsts that the
> > > Presiding Judge hear the case'. I've left out some names specifically
> > > for their privacy but have elected to include only the one's who are
> > > unjustly and unlawfully are denying Def his right to due process.
> > >
> > > Eric Olson, it is also alleged with the OPC and supported by Olson's
> > > own pleadings and evidence submitted by Def for foundation, that Eric
> > > Olson committed deceit and fraud by his tampering with evidence and
> > > thus committing obstruction of justice,
> > >
> > > FACT: Theough the carelessness and recklessness of Olson's clerical
> > > staff a copy of an email from his client found its way into Plaintiff;s
> > > 7/03 Answer to Def. Def did not acquire this through ill gotten means.
> > >
> > > Def visited the Court one day to compare or 'parallel' that all the
> > > docs he had were also in the Court's file. This document which has
> > > earned the designation of Smoking Gun # 1 was deleted from the Court's
> > > file (it had been there before) after Def noticed the doc's absence and
> > > brought this to the judge's attention.
> > >
> > > Olson now springs into action 'It was a document inadvertenly produced'
> > > and should be returned to Counsel, when it was Counsel's clerks that
> > > generated it to Def in the 1st place.
> > >
> > > Eric Olson wanted this document and selfishly proved why for these
> > > reasons:
> > >
> > > The document was a 'letterhead' of Olson's client listing Doe's name,
> > > address and phone numbers. Coincidentally, there was yet another
> > > document, Smoking Gun # 2, that was a copy of a police report filed
> > > against Def by Plaintiff, when I was only following upon info
> > > transmitted to Def by Plaintiff's Caller I D. This is significant
> > > because Doe was unpublished/unlisted so the only way Def could've
> > > gotten ANY info, was through the transmission of Doe's personal data by
> > > Caller I D.
> > >
> > > Olson then lists in his pleadings that the 'doc inadvertently produced'
> > > contained his client's personal info and should be returned, when
> > > again, his staff was stupid enough to make the error.
> > >
> > > Say, for eample, if this doc had been found in the street. Is it then
> > > the finder's responsibility to be the doc's custodian and hence the
> > > finder's responsibility to return such doc? The answer is no, and
> > > Olson, the OPC, and officials in the CA Atty General's Office know it.
> > >
> > > So now Olson, directs his selfish attention to retrieve ONLY THE
> > > DOCUMENT WITH HIS NAME ATTACHED TO IT, AND NOT REQUESTING THAT_ANY AND
> > > ALL_ DOCS THAT CONTAIN HIS CLIENT"S INFO BE RETRIEVED AS WELL.
> > >
> > > THIS BECAUSE THE DOC HE ONLY CHOSE TO RETRIEVE, CONTAINED ALL OF DOE'S
> > > INFO AS THE POLICE REPORT GENERATED BY PLAINTIFF IN 7/97, I WAS MERELY
> > > FOLLWING UP ON ACTIVITY HAPPENING TO ME< BUT WAS APPARENTLY "CLOSING
> > > IN" ON WHO WAS PERFORMING THE HARASSMENT AGAINST DEF AND THUS
> > > CORRESPONDING WITH DEF'S INFO SUBMITTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT IN 12/01 AND
> > > NOW THIS EMAIL TO OLSON IN 7/03, ALL THAT INFO COINCIDES WITH WHAT DEF
> > > HAD GLEANED BY HIS CALLER I D, PLAINTIFF'S INFO WHICH HE COULDN'T HAVE
> > > RECEIVED OTHERWISE.
> > >
> > > So, 'under the guise of concern' for the privacy and preservation of
> > > his client's info, Olson selfishly and deliberately directs his designs
> > > for retrieval on Smoking Gun #1, IGNORING AND NEGLECTING other Doc's
> > > such as the police report which also contained Doe's info--Thus the
> > > Smoking Gun # 2.
> > >
> > > By Olson's self centered selection of retrieving ONLY THE DOCUMENT WITH
> > > HIS NAME ATTACHED TO IT, the neglect of other doc's that shared his
> > > client's info but NOT OLSON'S NAME, SHOC> OLSON WAS LOOKING OUT ONLY
> > > FOR HIMSELF 1ST, INSTEAD OF A SHARED CONCERN FOR HIS CLIENT.
> > >
> > > Can't get much more deceptive and manipulative than that, Olson's above
> > > conduct are a violation of Rule 8.4--The Rules of Professional Conduct,
> > > Rule 8.4-Not to deceive, manipulate, etc evidence that would force the
> > > outcome of an action by bias and prejudice.
> > >
> > > My time is up, probablu in more ways than 1.
> > >
> > > Olso needs to realize that whether Def is alive or Dead in Jail or not,
> > > an actiagainst his client is being constructed by CA attys.
> >
> > Please forgive the above typos.
> >
> > As my timed session previously ran out, it is necessary to point out
> > the deficiences of the Cope Brothers as they pertain to the credibility
> > as witnesses.
> >
> > David Cope relayed to Def in 4/06 he has been clinically diagnosed with
> > acute to severe Bipolar 1 Mental Disorder.
> >
> > As such, Cope is on powerful doses of Lamictal, Wellbutrin, Effexor, and
> > Seroquil.
> >
> > This example will attest to the behavioral problems of David Cope.
> >
> >
> > Cope had struck up a casual conversation with a woman from FL, the
> > daughter of a LDS bishop.
> >
> > The relationship, as told to Def was platonic.
> > As it happens, 1 of Cope's friends had generated to Cope's videophone an
> > animation depicting the intimate sex act of fellatio,
> >
> > Cope, finding this very funny as he put it, then presumptiously transmits
> > this video to this young woman, unannounced and without her permission.
> >
> > Affronted and repulsed, she brought the behavior of David Cope to their
> > superiors, and placed a 'Frame Blow Up' of the act in Cope's H R File as
> > evidence.
> >
> > Cope was found to have violated the TheCompany's Code of Conduct with
> > respect to other employees and had to sign an admission of guilt and
> > accept probation.
> >
> > Def maintains this action brought against Def by the Cope brothers is pure
> > retaliation and retribution against Def over the turbulent dissolution
> > of their friendship.
> >
> > It is a frame a set up in its purest form.
>
> When the fallout occurred, on 5/30/06, David Cope repeatedly called Def
> and sent him text messages which Def ignored. Cope's final text msg to
> Def was 'You'll regret this'.
>
> Because of such, on 5/30/06 I filed a police report alleging the issues
> of the situation, Cope's constant harassment and my refusal to accept
> his calls.
>
> Fantastically ironic, the Cope Brothers filed their Complaint against
> Def on 6/20/06 NOW RIGHT ON THE HEELS OF THE DISSOLUTION OF FRIENSHIP
> BETWEEN DAVID COPE.
>
> David Cope alleges he is a video gamer, and while he had me on his cell
> phone, he also had me on speakerphone while playing video games with
> his brother Josh, who, accorfing to D. Cope has also been clinically
> diagnosed as severe to acute Bipolar 1 Mental Disorder and as such is
> on the med Seroquil but has become addicted according to D. Cope
> necessitating that the brother's parents dispense Josh Cope's meds
> (he's 27) or Josh steals it in excess of the prescribed quantity.
>
> The diagnosis of the Cope Brothers Mental Disorder were done. according
> to David Cope by the clinical psychologists at Intermountain Health
> Care.
>
> In the Cope Brother's Complaint, they allege they both heard Def state,
> as he was on 'speakerphone' Def had guns, was going to murder both Eric
> Olson and his client 'Doe', was going to send to 'Doe' a 'powdery
> substance' to Doe (possible Anthrax to scare Doe, D. Cope, in his 15
> allegations, in summary, alsosaid Def told him if Def couldn't kill
> both, the killing of 1 or the other would make up for it.
>
> Cope also testifed under OATH, for God's Sake, That I had guns and
> repeated his claim Def was going to CA to kill Doe. And, of Course,
> brother Josh backs everything up making what appears to be an airtight
> argument in that both Copes have been deposed under oath and then Eric
> Olson merely submits their depos as truth.
>
> The Glaring Omission To All Of This As Observed By the Executive
> Director Of the JCC, Law Enforcement and other atty's is, given the
> gravity and severity that 2 murders are about to be committed and all
> the aforementioned above--WHY WASN"T THEARE police report ever
> filed???The reason--Filing such would've created an investigation,
> leaving the Cope Brothers vulnerable to suspicion and redress. Thus,
> with the aid of Eric Olson, the dane around a formality.
>
> Out of time again.
>
> Do Not Do business, based on my experience, with Olson
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|