As is my normal custom, I usually do a disclaimer on my commentaries. I wish to carry on that tradition by saying that having spent 27 years in law enforcement I hold law enforcement officers in high regard. Unfortunately, there is a very small percentage, probably less than 3% of the officers out there, should be BEING ARRESTED instead of making arrests.

In my commentaries I deal with the less than 3%. These are the ones who file false police reports, commit perjury while testifying in court, manufacture evidence, brutally assault innocent citizens, sometimes murder innocent citizens and bring dishonor and shame a to the other 97% of the officers who put their lives on the line every day protecting us from the dregs of society who are running loose on the streets.

I wish to say here that what I write is my own opinion generally borne out by facts and in no way reflects the opinion, views or beliefs of anyone who may publish or make my commentaries available to the public.

This commentary is about a Stanislaus County deputy sheriff by the name of timothy luke schwartz. This case was heard in federal court in Fresno by judge Lawrence “schlemiel” o’neill. Case citation is: Eugene Forte v. Stanislaus County Deputy Luke Schwartz, 1:13-01980-LJO. There had been a inquiry as to whether or not schlemiel o’neill could have me arrested for contempt of court. I would have to say that if he did that, I have no defense because I have nothing but contempt for his court.

The only day I was available to attend court in Fresno was on Thursday, March 1, 2018. As I was seated in the gallery observing the proceedings of the court, my attention was drawn to the jury and in particular a female by the name of Ortiz who was seated in the back row on the end closest to schlemiel.

I arrived in the courtroom at 8:30 AM just as Mr. Forte was beginning his defense. He was seated in the jury box and presenting his oral defense. As was observing the demeanor of those in the courtroom, I noticed that the juror, Ortiz, was avoiding looking at Mr. Forte and ignored what he was saying. She would rest her head on her right hand on the armrest and at times closer eyes.

Then she would sit there with her head back looking up and refusing to acknowledge or listen to anything that Mr. Forte was saying. On another occasion she began fussing inside of her purse as if looking for something and then go back to resting her head on her hand looking around the courtroom while avoiding looking at Mr. Forte during his presentation. This went on for the whole morning.

Later in the morning when the defense stood up and went to the lectern to cross examine Mr. Forte, juror Ortiz as if she had been zapped with a stun gun immediately snapped to attention with a fixed stare at defense counsel as he posed questions to Mr. Forte. It was obvious from the demeanor of that juror that she had already made up her mind about what decision she was going to make.

Typical oath for a federal juror:

“Do each of you solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will well and truly try, and true deliverance make, in the case now on trial and render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence, so help you God?”

Conduct of the Jury during the Trial (Taken from the Handbook for Trial Jurors Serving the United States District Court: Jurors should give close attention to the testimony. They are sworn to disregard their prejudices and follow the court’s instructions. They must render a verdict according to their best judgment. Each juror should keep an open mind. Human experience shows that, once persons come to a preliminary conclusion as to a set of facts, they hesitate to change their views.

Therefore, it is wise for jurors not to even attempt to make up their mind on the facts of a case until all the evidence has been presented to them, and they have been instructed on the law applicable to the case. Similarly, jurors should not discuss the case even among themselves until it is finally concluded.


Juror Ortiz’s contemptuous juror misconduct while Mr. Forte was testifying and subsequently cross-examining of “lying luke” was blatantly obvious. Judge schlemiel was obviously biased because of contacts he had had with Mr. Forte in the past. Judge schlemiel knew that he should have recused himself from this case but refused to do so. His relentless attempt to punish Mr. Forte will come back to haunt him post trial.

During the afternoon session lying luke was put back on the stand for r-direct and re-cross. I immediately noted that rather than sitting up straight in the chair as most officers do when they are testifying and not “testilying”, lying luke was hunched over resting his arms on the rail in the front. His head was down and he was looking downward most of the time.

His demeanor in this courtroom was a far cry from his demeanor when he is in the Stanislaus County court system where he swaggers down the hallway as if he was the BMIC. That stands for big man in court. On those of you that have been following the persecution of the Carson 8 know that lying luke was judge zuniga’s lapdog during the preliminary hearing. Every time zuniga needed something, she always called for ”luke” as if he was the sheriff instead of the bottom of the pole deputy that he is.

It’s getting late and I need to get to bed so I am going to end this commentary which is short and the following ones will be also.

Before I close I will tell you that in midafternoon when the jurors went for a break but were out of the courtroom, Mr. Forte advised the judge that juror Ortiz was committing juror misconduct and has been being observed by a state licensed private investigator in the gallery who is reporting the misconduct to him.

Judge schlemiel appeared surprised that someone would point that out. Schlemiel stated that he had not observed it so therefore he was going to do nothing about it. If schlemiel had any grapefruits, he would have checked the courtroom cameras and verify that the juror was in fact committing misconduct in violation of the federal juror’s handbook. I had been watching him also during the trial and he was busy doing things other than watching the jury. When he’s out to get someone nothing else matters.

In my next commentary I will be getting into several “offers of proof” that verify that on occasions during his direct testimony which I have a copy of, he suffered from prevarication, lack of knowledge that every police officer should have in some type of dementia or convenient memory loss. I also have video clips that help to verify his inadequacy as a law enforcement officer.

Good night for now.




Categories: My Blog.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *