The Judicial Charade: How to Rig a Legal Procedure

 

Nevertheless, even before my dissolution case erupted, I had to deal with the upshot of Judge Townsend's stinging temporary order of protection. I am pretty positive that she had only granted an order of six months, because she knew the allegations were false. I could, however, correctly guess the severe long term consequences it would bring. Particularly disturbing was the fact that I had not even been allowed to present my evidence. Fact of the matter was that in late Fall 2018 the Self-Help Family Law Center (SHFLC) had denied, on as many as three different days, my requests for reasonable disability accommodations, in the form of assistance filling in my answers on some legal form. Unfortunately, Vincent (the staff member at the time), as friendly and kind as he was, he believed that he was not allowed to do it, since it could constitute legal advice. However, it turned out, not only there was nothing in the law against it; but, pursuant to ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), they had the legal obligation to provide those kinds of 'reasonable accommodations'. Vincent's mistake was most certainly involuntary; but there must have definitely been a protocol in place to cover for this sort of human errors. It just could not be that the very justice system discriminates against disabled people. I therefore resolved to file a complaint of discrimination with the Montana Human Rights Commission. I felt bad for Vincent, because, once he had found out that there was no reason to worry for any unauthorized-legal-advice liability, he had done everything in his hands to help me. I therefore thought I would want him to first learn about the complaint from me, so that I could explain the reasons for it. It turned out to be a bad idea, though. Vincent immediately relayed the information to William Willard, his boss at the Self-Help Center. Willard reacted furiously. The next time I went to the SHFLC to ask for assistance filling in my answers on a motion form, Willard came out to speak with me directly. He could not believe I had filed a complaint against the Self-Help Center, after all the help they had provided over the previous few weeks. He informed me that the SHFLC would not provide any further assistance to me, nor would I be welcom at their office, while my complaint was being processed. When I reported the incident to the Human Rights Bureau intake interviewer, she added a charge for retaliation to the charge for discrimination.

During the following years, my complaint would go from the Human Rights Bureau (HRB) to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and back again to the Human Rights Commission (HRC), and from there into Sleeping Beauty's sleep at District Court. Needless to say, all these institutions are part of Montana's state apparatus. On the other hand, the Self-Help Center belongs to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in turn dependent of the Montana Supreme Court. It was only foolish of me to ever entertain the hope that anyone within Montana's state apparatus would ever admit any wrongdoing by a fellow government office. It was, however, likewise foolish of them to think that a person born with a severe disability would ever give up and let them off the hook. Rather, I was only eager to see how far they would want to go, how much they would indulge themselves rigging my complaint, to what shameless degree they would be ready to expose the judicial charade, and how much evidence they would allow me to accumulate.         

It is not surprising that I achieved my biggest success - albeit still moderate - at the initial phase, during the Human Rights Bureau's investigation. Clearly, it took a while before the matter came to the ears of the high ranks, and they could put everybody on notice on how serious it was. Tam Newby, my complaint's investigator found cause for the retaliation charge, but not for the discrimination charge. Back then I was really unhappy that they did not admit the discrimination; but with time I came to understand that it was truly remarkable and extraordinary, that they gave in the retaliation charge. Undoubtedly, my complaint was most definitely a hot potato for the investigator.

In order to prove the discrimination, I had to show that I had requested the reasonable accommodations (assistance writing down my answers on legal forms), and that they had been denied by the Self-Help Center (SHFLC). For that purpose, a key piece of evidence was the literacy agreement, which the SHFLC required me to sign before they would accept providing the reasonable accommodations. Basically, I needed to state that I was not able to read the legal form nor write down the answers by myself. More importantly, I was giving my permision to the SHFLC staff to write down my answers for me, and releasing them from any potential liability which could otherwise result. The whole problem had been that Vincent did not know about this literacy agreement, and he only needed me to sign it to dissipate his fears of unauthorized-legal-advice liability. Unfortunately, it was not until December 11th 2018 that he found out, had me sign it and started providing the reasonable accommodations. However, for the previous month I had kept coming requesting his assistance, because I kept being told that the SHFLC was supposed to provide this kind of reasonable accommodation. On November 6th, I even had a clerk-of-court coming with me to the SHFLC to explain which exact form I required to file a motion. When Vincent handed the form, I asked him if he could assist me writing down my answers. Since Vincent replied he could not, the clerk sat down with me and helped me out in lieu. November 20th was the fateful day of Judge Townsend's order-of-protection hearing, where it became impossible to get any assistance with the damn 'Notice of Filing' form, in order to be allowed to file my evidence. However, I did not have a witness for this second occasion. Finally, on December 10th, I spent the entire morning at the Law School, where Hayley and Karlene helped me out filling in my answers on my dissolution response form. Yet, eventually they ran out of time and Karlene sent me to the SHFLC, so that they could help me finish up. Karlene also sent Vincent an email to inform him about my impending arrival and what is that I needed. She attached to her message a copy of the fillable PDF file we had been working on that morning, so that Vincent could take it from that point. However, when I arrived at the SHFLC, Vincent explained again he really did not think he was authorized to write any answers in my legal forms. It actually did not bother me too much, since Christa Gabriel at Disability Rights Montana had told me some days earlier, that I could also request an appointment to the Clerk of Court, in order to get the reasonable accommodations I required. Vincent came with me to the Clerk of Court, because he was now starting to remember that, perhaps, there was some form, which resolved the concerns with unauthorized legal advice. He was hoping the Clerk of Court would help shed some light on the question. At the Clerk of Court, however, Molly did not know anything about such form. Still, she offered herself to provide the reasonable accommodations. The problem was that Molly did not have access to the fillable PDF file I had been working on in the morning; so we were going to have to start from scratch again. Hence, I finally resolved to leave it for the next day, December 11th. In fact, when I arrived at the courthouse the next morning, I found Vincent happy to tell me he had finally learned about the literacy agreement and what was that he needed to do, in order to be able to assist me.  

               

Clearly, there was overwhelming evidence showing that I had made repeated attempts to receive reasonable accommodations, but I had not been able to get this assistance from the SHFLC until December 11th, the day Vincent finally had me sign the literacy agreement. My November 6th motion stood as proof, that I had needed reasonable accommodations, and the clerk who helped me filling it out was witness, that I had unsuccessfully tried to obtain them from the SHFLC. If that was not enough, Hayley, Karlene and Molly, as well as Karlene's email message, were further testimony that it had just been impossible to receive reasonable accommodations from the SHFLC. Still, the HRB investigation did not find cause for the discrimination cause. Newby pointed out that I had told her, that, on Novemberr 20th, I have found SHFLC's door locked, even if it was before closing time. Consequently, unless I was able to prove that the SHFLC staff had intentionally denied me entry, in order to keep me from requesting assistance; the prepondarance of evidence played against me, since there had been numerous other occasions, where the SHFLC had assisted me. I had to correct her making clear that, as a matter of fact, the SHFLC had only provided reasonable accommodation on December 11th; so I did not know what preponderance of evidence she was talking about. Indeed, she was ignoring the denials of November 6th and December 10th. Newby alleged that she had asked around at the clerk of Court Office, but could not find the clerk, who, allegedly, had walked me into the SHFLC on November 6th. With regards to December 10th, she argued that the problem had not been that Vincent did not know about the literacy-agreement form, but that he only could not find it.        

Now, with respect to the retaliation charge, eventually it became impossible to dismiss it. In order to establish a prima facie case for retaliation, I had to show that I had been subjected to a significant adverse action, and there was a casual connection between the filing of my complaint of discrimination and the significant adverse action. In this case, I did not have to work very hard, since the SHFLC itself provided all the evidence I needed. Indeed, in the March 8th Judicial Branch's written response, the director of the Office of the Court Administrator admitted that in mid-January 2019 I had informed the SHFLC staff about the filing of my complaint for discrimination. He denied, however, that the SHFLC had ever declined providing any service to me. Yet, on the other hand, Willard admitted to Newby, that he had indicated to Vincent, he should not assist me anymore, until my complaint had been resolved. Consequently, the Judicial Branch submitted a supplemental response correcting its line of argument: now they denied I had informed SHFLC that my complaint was for discrimination. They alleged I had not specified the nature of my complaint, nor had I ever explained that the SHFLC was a target. Moreover, they likewise denied Willard had ever taken any adverse action against me. Rather, allegedly, he had only informed me, that they would have to "limit interactions" with me; but did not precise what form said limitations would take. Allegedly, I did not ask either; but simply turned around and left, wondering where else is that I could get any assistance with the motion for an extension of deadlines that I needed to file. From the email exchange between Newby and OCA which I could have later access to, I can tell that Newby was put under a lot of pressure. However the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) only had itself to blame: Clearly, it was not going to cut it that they would now argue that their March 8th written response had only been hastily prepared, and they had actually never meant to say that I informed SHFLC staff about my human-rights complaint. After Newby met with her supervisor, they resolved to dismiss the discrimination charge, but to find reasonable cause of retaliation.  

 The upshot of HNB's retaliation determination was that my complaint would next proceed to theOffice of Administrative Hearings (OAH), where the matter would be trialed "de novo": that is, it started again from scratch, and nothing which had been said to the HRB investigator was kept. Clearly, there was no reason to fly off the handle over HRB's determination; the System would give them plenty of opportunities to bring my complaint down.    

Ironically, however, I was every bit as unhappy with HRB's decision as OCA. I was as determined to have the discrimination acknowledged, as they were to eliminate the retaliation charge. It was actually good that I was so clueless about the reality of the charade , and so foolishly hopeful about what I could expect. I was really frustrated with Newby's argument, whereby the entire courthouse was released of any and all liability for my inability to file my evidence for Judge Townsend's hearing, just because it was not discriminatory that the SHFLC had closed early that day. Fact of the matter was that I had not been able to receive reasonable accommodations from the Clerk of Court either. Hence, I decided to file another complaint against the courthouse globally. This time they were on notice and they would not budge an inch, though. This time HRB's vicepresident took care himself of the investigation and made sure it would not go anywhere. He never addressed if or why I had not been able to receive reasonable disability accommodations; but simply argued that my whole problem was that I was frustrated by the complexity of navigating the legal system.  

My perseverance found a reward as sweet as unexpected, though. In response to my complaint, the Courthouse's county attorneys elaborated a list of all the instances, where the courthouse staff had assisted me. That is how I learned that, in early November 2018, Deputy Clerk of Court Latishia Atkins had walked me into the SHFLC and, subsequently, sat down with me to assist me filling in my answers on my motion form. 

"Deputy Clerk Latishia Atkins went with Mr. Bautista to the SHLC and helped him fill out a motion to extend deadlines in his dissolution case because he needed medical care in Europe. She also  assisted Mr. Bautista in filling out a Notice of Filing and Certificate of Service. She also assisted  Mr. Bautista by helping him fill out  an Affidavit. For each pleading, she read him verbatim what  the form said and wrote his answers down on the form for him. It appears that he later filed those  pleadings typed. She also recalls assisting him in helping him dial a phone number on his phone  and providing him with contact information for Montana Legal Services."

Voila!!, for the life of her, Newby had been unable to find my witness for my November 6th visit to the SHFLC. As much as Newby had asked around, nobody at the Clerk of Court Office had come with me to the SHFLC. Now here she was! I had only needed to poke them with a complaint, and they most absolutely took the bait all the way in. Now their very crookedness was blowing up right in their faces.

After OCA's screw-up over the retaliation charge, for the hearing at OAH no more mistakes would be tolerated . This time they will pull out all the stops and charge with full force. No more room for amateurs: they now placed Montana Supreme Court Attorney Jeanine Blaner in command. Initially, Blaner introduced herself in a very friendly manner, offering her help with anything I might need in preparation for the hearing. I knew, however, I could not trust an opposing-party's attorney's friendliness. Blaner's initial strategy centered around the argument, that the true reason for my complaint was that I got upset, because I could not receive legal advice from SHFLC. However, she would eventually realize that said strategy was not going to reep her any yield. The hearing was first scheduled to be held in Montana in December 2019. However, as the date approached, I realized that during that winter I was going to have to pay regular visits to my cornea specialist in Boston, and therefore decided to request to be allowed to appear remotely from the East coast. Blaner suggested instead that we asked for a postponement, and offered herself to prepare the motion to the hearing office. Blaner was preparing the underground prong of her strategy. The hearing was so rescheduled to late winter, but the outbreak of COVID led the hearing officer to rescheduled it further back to late July. Blaner then adviced that she would not accept any other postponement.        

Blaner had indeed started unrolling her psychological warfare; she would make matters as difficult and complicated to me as she could: she will obstruct the most reasonable of my requests and I will have to put all my energies before I could accomplish anything; she will get me bogged down working on endless paperwork, consuming my time, until I would be barely able to prepare the actual hearing.

I did try to get the assistance of a professional lawyer, but this became a really complicated process. During those months of Spring 2020, COVID had sent everybody to work from home and it became really hard - if possible at all - to get hold of anybody. First it took forever before the Montana state bar emailed me a list of referrals. When they finally did, it seemed like nobody would be able to take my case. Most people alleged to have some conflict of interests with the Office of the Court Administrator. However, when I had almost given up, I finally found one lawyer who was available. It was clear to me that I would benefit of his knowledge of legal procedures; but I was disappointed to learn, that, should he represent me, I would not be allowed to have any say in the witnesses' examination. I knew exactly all what had happened, I had a very clear idea of what is that I wanted to get from each witness, and I had elaborated my own plan to prevent them from slipping away. Moreover, it was no indecipherable mystery what exactly was that had to be proven, and I knew how I could get all the evidence needed for that sake. If any key witness tried to lie, I had a plan to have them run into some contradiction. A professional lawyer would be certainly better suited to navigate through the labyrinth of rules of civil procedures, and give proper response to any rabbit Blaner may try to pull out of her hat; but the hearing officer was supposed to ensure that the procedure would stay within reasonable levels of legality and rightfulness. Given my experience with Judge Townsend and Judge Marks, I did have my serious concerns. Yet, at the end of the day, I thought I just should not allow any conspiratorial paranoia get the better of me, and distract me from the paramount objective of showing beyond any reasonable doubt, how the SHFLC had discriminated and retaliated against me. Consequently, I dared to continue without a lawyer. 

I was right that I was going to be able to show, beyond any reasonable doubt, that SHFLC discriminated and retaliated against me. However, I was wrong that the hearing would be maintained within reasonable levels of legality and rightfulness. Most importantly, I misjudge that the paramount objective was to prove the charges and justice would prevail. I am not sure how it had gone if I had been represented by a lawyer, but I certainly never stood a chance proceeding pro se. Just a succint review of the hearing leaves no doubt, that the hearing officer was in cahoots with Blaner. Without a lawyer on my side to cover my back, they will have no restrain rigging the entire procedure. Just to name a couple of samples of the corruption involved, hearing officer Caroline Holien will ultimately not admit as evidence OCA's letter admitting I had informed SHFLC staff of the filing of my Human Rights complaint. More grotesquely, the hearing officer will find credible Vincent's testimony, according to which he did not realize that a blind person like myself (who required a blind cane in order to be able to move around the courthouse) would not be able to read or handwrite anything on a printed form,   

The whole procedure, from beginning to end was a real torture, and Blaner would not give me any respite. Spring 2020 will forever be remembered as one of the most difficult times in our lives; it certainly was not any different for me. First, I had to go through the trauma of Paul and Judge Marks' rip-off over my dissolution case. Shortly after, over the span of a handful of days I could notice a dramatic worsening of my cornea. If that were not bad enough, the cornea surgery which I had scheduled for that month got cancelled due to COVID. It was definitely one of the most stressful times in my life: something was going really wrong with my only functional eye, and I was not even allowed to visit a specialist to try to stop it. During those months, I kept writing my specialist's office in Boston, begging for some appointment, hoping to have the surgery rescheduled; but all elective procedures had been grounded. It is terrifying to think how many stories of that kind played out for so many people during those months. I remember hearing a brief note on some woman in the last phases of cancer, whose hopes were shattered when COVID led to the cancellation of the experimental treatment, that her doctors saw as the only option to save her life. In comparison, my ordeal was insignificant: I only had to worry about my eyes and I was finally able to have my surgery re-scheduled for mid-July. 

Life could never be perfect, though: my new surgery date was just a couple of weeks prior to my Human-Rights-complaint hearing; so I was going to have to figure out how to reconcile both things. Blaner, on her part, not only was not going to help, but she would make sure to squeeze the biggest benefit out of my struggles. In mid-May she wrote to the hearing officer complaining about the procedure's lack of progress, because, allegedly, I continued refusing to commit to any specific date to hold the hearing on. I had to reply clarifying that I was not refusing to commit to any date; but, as I had explained to Blaner, I was being confronted with endless obstacles trying to find out the availability of my witnesses. Needless to say, I wanted really badly to call as witnesses some of the deputies clerk of court, who I interacted with during those weeks of late 2018; however, they were now on notice not to talk with me, but insisted to refer me to the courthouse's attorneys. Yet, the attorneys likewise declined to answer any of my questions, and instead instructed me to request subpoenas for each of the deputies. Clearly, they did not like at all to see the deputies testify on my complaint, and I was concerned that, once the hearing date had been fixed, I would be told the deputies would not be available on said date. 

 

In her mid-May message, Blaner complained as well about my delay responding to her discovery request. She had got it into her head that I reply to some interrogatory questionaire. I understood I needed to be very careful with anything I write in response, because she would be sure to exploit to the nth degree any slight mistake I could make. She had only inquire about it a couple of days earlier and I had already explained, that I was trying to figure out how to answer the question on the relief I was seeking. I was trying to gather some information, but those days it was really difficult to get hold of anybody. If I had explained that to her just some hours earlier, it was not reasonable, that she would now bitch about it to the hearing officer. Undeniably, the whole matter was just annoying to me. Quite frankly, I had many other more important issues to consume my time with than her 'stupid' interrogatory questionaire and her frivolous bitching. Nevertheless, it all play into her hands. Quite probably, my frustration was exactly what she was seeking and I was only taking the bait.

 

Blaner was most definitely not going to let me off the hook, and, as I kept putting off my response to the interrogatory, eventually, she filed a motion to compel. Oh well, I hated the idea of wasting my time with the stupid thing, now it would be twice as bad, since I was going to have to submit a reply to the motion as well. I need to admit that what really drove me crazy all throughout the procedure was the dishonesty of Blaner's discourse; it all looked like if there had been some law or something, which would prevent her from ever saying anything truthful. Much like Alia's lawyer, Blaner's misrepresentation was as shameless as blatant: she just could not care less if there was plenty of written evidence readily available to expose her lies. She did so from the word 'go' until the very end of her job with my complaint. For instance, in her preliminary statement, she took Karlene's message to Vincent on December 10th and rewrote it to fit her needs. Blaner's case was that all what my complaint was about was that I got upset because I could not get legal advice; hence she quoted Karlene saying:

"...a law student had assisted  him with paperwork for several hours that day; however, Mr. Bautista was frustrated  because the student could not offer legal advice."

Yet, what Karlene actually said in her message was as follows:

"This client is visually impaired and sat with a law student this morning for assistance with his paperwork. I think it was fairly frustrating for the client because she could (of course) only offer legal information. In the end they didn't get very far in the many hours he was here, and I thought y'all might be better able to help."

It does sound similar; but it is actually significantly different. In her message, Karlene does not bitch about me, as Blaner portrayed it; much the opposite, Karlene expresses her empathy for me, because it must have been frustrating for me to complete my dissolution response without any legal advice. If at all, I would say, it may be possible to conjucture, that they were the ones getting frustrated, because I was taking up so much of their time.   

Now, In Spring 2020, I had already witnessed the experience, where Alia's lawyer had placed in the decree of dissolution a finding of fact, according to which Judge Townsend had made findings of acts of domestic violence commited by me. It was completely false, but now anybody could point to the decree of dissolution, and assert that the courts had made findings of fact that I have committed acts of domestic violence. Hence, I had to resolve a dilemma: I could either consume my time going, one by one, through Blaner's endless pile of lies, proving the falsedy of each of them; or I could just let it go and allow her to rewrite all the evidence to suit her case. Moreover, I could see that Blaner was laying the ground to eventually move to have my complaint dismissed altogether. Her mid-May message complaining about the lack of progress, her motion to compel, her warning that she would not accept any further postponement... all led me to suspect, that eventually she will allege all the evidence that she had been rewriting and fabricating, in order to deliver her final blow and have my complaint dismessed.        

Wether that was actually her plan or not, I will never be able to prove. Yet, that is exactly how it played out. Blaner will continue placing hurdles along my way, consuming my time until eventually I would fall behind on some deadline. Since my surgery had been scheduled for a date so close to the hearing, and I would even have to go back to Boston for some post-op appointments, it became clear that I would not be able to travel to Montana for the hearing; but would need to request permission to appear remotely. Needless to say, Blaner opposed my motion. Blaner was of the opinion that, at a time where COVID was at its peak in Montana, a blind person like myself, who had just come out of surgery, should find some room between his post-op appointments in Boston to travel all by himself all the way to Montana. Needless to say, my blood was boiling as I spent a few days working on my motion brief and reply to Blaner's response. I did have quite some thoughts for the hearing officer. I kept wondering what more did she need to warn Blaner for her frivolous litigation. Needless to say, those were just foolish thoughts, that only a naive fool like myself could entertain: the hearing officer was in cahoots with the Montana Supreme Court attorney, and I would not need to wait long before she will give herself away..  

I had been happy to find Karlene among the witnesses Blaner wanted to call at the hearing. I was pretty sure that Karlene's testimony would actually play in my favor. Basically, I knew that anybody who could shed any light on what exactly had happened, was going to help my case. For instance, Karlene would be able to attest for the falsedy of Blaner's allegation, according to which I had just got frustrated, because I could not get legal advice. Unfortunately, Blaner must have got wind of this, since she eventually removed Karlene from her list of witnesses. Consequently, I had to make arrangements to call her myself. The problem now was that Karlene did not hold her position at the Law School's Law Clinic anymore, and, as it is usually the case in this type of situations, nobody at the Law School would be able to help me get hold of her. However, eventually somebody at Montana Legal Services Association (MLSA) told me, that I was going to need a subpoena, in order to have Karlene appear as witness. The problem was that, in order for the hearing officer to issue the subpoena, I was required to provide the witness' address. But I did not have any good way to get Karlene's address. I could only ask MLSA to provide me with that information; but I was not going to get an answer in a timely manner. Eventually, I just had to send my subpoena request with whatever information I had; however, it got denied, because I had emailed it about half hour after 5pm. Thus, since the hearing officer refused to issue the subpoena, Karlene did not appear at the hearing to provide any testimony. Still, the hearing officer would not have any shame to ask me at the hearing, why it was that Karlene was not appearing. I most definitely will never know - if the whole point of the hearing was to clarify and find out what was exactly that had happened, what difference would it have made to send the request at 4:59pm instead of 5:30pm. Needless to say, the point of the hearing was never to find out what had happened; but to give a veneer of legality and rightfulness to the judicial chicanery and rip-off.

     Blaner, however, never cared much about veneers or how blatant the rip-off would be; she just wanted to get her job done and have the SHFLC exonerated.  . Since I had been kept busy with motions, requests and various other distracting maneuvers, I was not able to start working on my pre-hearing statement until the return from my surgery in Boston. I therefore only had half day and, as hard as I could worked on it, it was obviously going to be impossible to meet the deadline. Needless to say, Blaner did not blink twice before filing a motion for sanctions. Even though my delay only subtracted one business day from the almost two weeks left for the hearing, Blaner argued that she would not have sufficient time to prepare for it. She needed to review my pre-hearing statement in order to properly think out her strategy for the hearing. By delaying the release of my statement, I had negated her any reasonable opportunity to work up an effective defense for her client. Blaner therefore contended that my complaint needed to be crippled to shambles: if the SHFLC had not been allowed to defend itself from my complaint, then neither should my complaint be allowed to cause any harm to SHFLC. Blaner's argument, whereby I had not allowed her enough time to prepare for the hearing, sounded in my ears like a really grotesque sarcasm. She had got me completely bogged down with motions and various other frivolus petty disputes for the last couple of months: when had she ever allowed me any time to prepare for the hearing? I had just had surgery, I still needed to go back to Boston for a couple of post-op appointments, and now I had to draw up a response to Blaner's motion, or my entire complaint could be demolished. As a matter of fact, if she had such little time to prepare the hearing, why did she spend it instead drawing up motions?  

  

Blaner may have not cared about veneers of legality and rightfulness, and to what extent the charade may get exposed; but hearing officer Caroline Holien most certainly did care. After all, that was exactly her job: give a verneer of legality and rightfulness to the procedure, so that everybody could rest assured that justice had prevailed. Holien was a professional and, not only did she know her job, but there was no reason for anybody to doubt that she had most definitely become good at it. Hence, why do a half ass job, when you can do it right. Holien had every reason to believe, that she could bring down my complaint in style, and there was no need to blatantly rip it apart, as Blaner was suggesting.   

   

I doubt Holien thought it would become that difficult to keep an appearance of correctness. She certainly could not know that I had actually been able to put together a really strong case. As naive and hopeful as I have always been, I was feeling so confident, that I never gave much attention to the retaliation charge. The evidence in that sense was so strong, that there would not be any way  that they would be able to contradict Newby's determination. I was going instead for the discrimination charge. It had been a blast to find out about Deputy Clerk of Court Latishia Atkins, and I was convinced that witness should be all what I needed to prevail on the discrimination charge as well. I was, however, aware that it would not be a walk in the park. I was mostly worried that Latishia would not want to admit, that Vincent had explained that he was not authorized to assist me writing down my answers on a legal form. For that sake, she had not even needed to lie; but could just say that she could not remember. I would not have to conjecture much on Latishia's testimony, though. For some reason the courthouse really hated the idea of the deputies clerk of court testifying at the hearing. However, now that they had received the subpoenas, there was not much they could do against it; except, perhaps, offering me some written testimony. Indeed, the courthouse's attorneys offered one affidavit for each of the three deputies; hoping that would dissuade me from calling them as witnesses. The affidavits, however, barely added anything to the courthouse's response to my complaint, from where I had got Latishia's name. As a matter of fact, the only novelty was a little note in Latishia's affidavit: They were taking care to correct her very statement on that crucial visit to SHFLC on November 6th. The allegation now was that, when she said that she had gone with me to the SHFLC, she actually did not mean that she had come with me inside the SHFLC; but only led me to the door, opened it for me, and then turned around to go back to the Clerk of Court Office.      

"I, Latishia Atkins, being first duly sworn upon oath deposes and states as  follows:  1. I am an employee with the Missoula County Cleric of Court's Office.  2.  The only interactions I recall involving Mr. Bautista are set forth in Exhibit  A.  3.  We regularly refer pro se litigants to the self-help law center. I recall one  instance in which I walked Mr. Bautista to the self-help law center. I did not  enter the self-help law center with him, but was merely taking him to the  location.  4. I do not recall any interactions with the self-help law center regarding Mr. Bautista"

Exhibit  A: "Deputy Clerk Latishia Atkins went with Mr. Bautista to the SHLC and helped him fill out a motion to extend deadlines in his dissolution case..." 

As disappointed as I was at first, I soon realized that it was actually not that bad at all. If the county attorneys had hoped that the affidavits would satisfy my expectancies and dissuade me from requesting the deputies' appearance at the hearing; they really did not think the idea through, because it only encouraged me to do so. In fact, now I was on notice of what Latishia would testify, and it gave me the opportunity to think out a plan to make the most out of it. If the courthouse's attorneys did not want Latishia to say that she came with me inside the SHFLC, that was fine; at that point it was only foolish to hope that she would ever admit that Vincent had denied assistance. The key question then was: how come was immediately afterwards Latishia assisting me instead with my motion? The main problem for me was that nowhere in Latishia's written statements did it say that the visit to the SHFLC and her subsequent assistance had taken place on that crucial day in early November. A careful reading of Latishia's statements revealed that they had actually been crafted by the courthouse's attorneys. Indeed, those words could not have come directly from Latishia, because they were actually inaccurate. The attorneys had looked up my dissolution case's record, and found that, in late January 2019 I had filed a motion for an extension of deadlines. Hence, they wrote that Latishia had assisted me with said motion. But, in reality, Latishia had helped me with a different motion, which I had filed on November 9th 2018 requesting to Judge Townsend an earlier date for the order of protection hearing. If my allegation was that in early November Latishia had walked me into the SHFLC and, upon Vincent's denial, she had aided me in lieu; it only went against my case that she would testify that she had assisted me with a motion in late January. Clearly, I needed to establish a connection between November 6th and the visit to the SHFLC related by Latishia's account. Obviously the key to the question was the motion I filed on November 9th: said motion had Latishia's handwriting; thus, I just needed Latishia to recognize her handwriting. Otherwise, if I failed to achieve this, all of her testimony was worth nothing and my case would be left without the strongest of its supporting evidence.    

          

Given the opposition I was confronting, I understood I should be very careful rising any suspicion of what I was planning. I therefore quietly requested to the Clerk of Court a copy of the November 9th motion, and slid it among my exhibits, hoping that nobody would ever wonder what was the matter with that motion. Without a doubt, here is where I had benefited the most from the assistance of a lawyer. Legal procedures have this complex mesh of rules regulating how testimonies should be provided, how evidence should be presented, which evidence gets admitted in the record and which does not. These rules constitute the main mechanism whereby pro se litigants are swept to fall through the cracks: since only attorneys are proficient in these regulations, there will always be some rule justifying the rejection of the pro-se litigant's most crucial evidence; whereas some other rule will always justify the admission of the otherwise-inadmissible opposing party's attorney's evidence. After my experience with Judge Townsend and Judge Marks, I was very concerned I would again fall victim of the same kind of trick.. 

In fact, I was not off for an auspicious beginning. The courthouse had requested that the deputy clerks testify remotely on the first day of the hearing. I was fine with that; but I got more uneasy when I realized, that the deputies boss and a county attorney would be supervising their depositions. In court, lay people is expected to remain quiet and along for the ride, while the court and the attorneys to the case are in control and drive the procedure however they see fit. We have this naive belief that, if we meedly nod to everything the court says (i.e. if we remain respectful) we may be able to win its simpathy and increase our chances of a favorable ruling. I had the opportunity to learn, that such a strategy was only foolish. The courts are really good at playing 'good cop': they will assure the pro-se litigant that there is no reason to fear, the court is here to ensure the citizen's rights are protected. The court will so win your confidence over, you will go on meekly nodding to everything the court says, and, when you least expect it, you will get stabbed in the back. Who is next in line?

Consequently, I dared to ask, why were the deputies' supervisor and the county attorney allowed to supervise the depositions, and to what extent was that reasonable. Hearing officer Holien made sure to let her displeasure with my question to transpire, as she firmly stated the deputies' right to have their attorney present. Yet, if Holien ever thought that she would be able to intimidate me, she was in for a surprise, because I remembered Judge Townsend and Judge Marks, and I was determined to remain as irreverent and defiant as necessary throughout the procedure. Indeed, I dared to remark in response that the deputies had been mere witnesses, and there was no logical reason to think, that they might say anything that could affect their interests in any way. On the other hand, there were good reasons to fear, that the presence and supervision of the deputies' superiors, may coerce their testimonies and dissuade them from freely expressing everything they had witnessed. Much to my shock and disbelief, hearing officer Holien then swiftly and conclusively resolved the whole matter simply asking the deputies' supervisor and the county attorney if the deputies had been coerced or could fear any consequence from their depositions. It seems like I will never stop getting impressed by the degree to which the ruling elite and its innumerable obsequious servants are totally convinced that we the Children are most absolutely stupid and will always believe any tale they may come up with. When we are little, we are warned that the Bogeyman would come and take us with him to Hell, if we do not listen to the adults and follow their directions. When we grow up, we are threaten that the Tyrant would come and take our freedom and beautiful Democracy away, if we do not listen to the intellectuals in the Media and go vote. Holien put the fox to guard the hen house; but only after asking the fox if it intended to have the hens for dinner. We are not stupid, but we have just been brainwashed since we were little. The deputies' superiors assured us all that their subordinates did not have any reason to fear any adverse consequence, everybody gave a huge round of applause, and the hearing went on. What else could I have done? The show must go on! Does anybody wonder why do I say that the legal system is an absolute charade? Does anybody believe it? Does anybody believe in the Bogeyman? 

 

After all, my plan had been well-thought-out, and, hopefully, nobody would be able to get wind of it, until I had got it all through. I started Latishia's direct examination with some preliminary questions and slowly introduced the topic of that crucial first visit to the SHFLC in early November. I first tried to reason with her that the visit occured at the beginning of the 2 - 3 months period I was in and out of the courthouse. The SHFLC and the Clerk of Court Office are side-by-side. Hence, if she took care of walking me such a short distance; it must have been because she thought I was not yet familiarized with the place. Latishia agreed she believed it was one of the first times I did come into their office. Next, I wanted to clarify what she had stated in her affidavit. However, Holien did not allowed me to make reference to the affidavits, since she was not sure she wanted to admit them into the record. She urged me to move on with my questions. At that point I could not hold it anymore, and decided to just go for it: I asked if Latishia could take a look at exhibit 46, and see if that was the form that she helped me fill-out. . Holien then asked Latishia if she had exhibit 46 in front of her, and, upon Latishia's negation, Holien informed me that Latishia could not take a look at it, because she did not have it in front of her; Holien wanted me to move on with my questions... Oh well, I knew it would not be a walk in the park. The idea of making the document available to Latishia by sending it to her did not seem to me to require a rocket scientist; but, since Holien did not appear to be willing to figure it out by herself, I suggested it in lieu. Yet, Latishia clarified she did not have her computer with her and therefore could not check her email. My God... this was getting tougher than having a tooth extracted. There was only one last bolt to shoot that I could think of: I suggested the exhibit would be emailed to either Latishia's supervisor or the county attorney. This one went through! Latishia finally had the document in front of her and I could ask her if she recognized her handwriting on it. Latishia did not hesitate to admit that was the motion she had assisted me with. I was exultant inside: "Youhooo!!"

     

The last important detail was to establish that her assistance with that motion took place immediately after the visit to the SHFLC. I wanted to expose the lie that she had not entered the SHFLC with me, but I did not think I should put much emphasis on that end: Latishia was about the best of my witnesses and it would only go against my case to destroy her credibility. It seemed to me that my case would be most credible if I could establish that she had sat down with me on some bench right outside the SHFLC to help me with that motion . Indeed, as Vincent had explained he was not authorized to provide that kind of assistance, Latishia had led me out of the SHFLC and to the bench outside, so that she could help me instead. Latishia did remember that she had sat down with me right outside the SHFLC to work on that motion. At that point, as much as the answer had already been given in her affidavit, I needed to ask Latishia whether she had entered the SHFLC with me or not. At that point, however, it did not matter much what way her reply would go. If she answered that she had just "opened the door, let me go in, and then walked back to her office"; then some really convoluted sequence of events would be required to explain, how come immediately afterwards she had been helping me just outside the SHFLC. Absolutely: Firstly, as much as I intended to immediately start filling out the form and I needed somebody's assistance to accomplish such task, throughout my visit to the SHFLC I just could not think to ask Vincent. Moreover, even though he had received instructions during his training to offer assistance to any person like myself, who exhibited an obvious disability impeding him from reading or writing anything on a paper form, Vincent could not think of the idea either. So, I leave the SHFLC with the blank forms and, as I close the door behind me, all of a sudden the lightbulb comes on and I remember I require somebody's aid filling out my paperwork. Now, for some really odd reason, I do not think of simply turning around and go back to the SHFLC to ask always-friendly Vincent for help. Rather, I chose to go instead to the always-crowded Clerk of Court Office. There, before I could connect back with Latishia, I would have to stand in line. Coincidentally, when my turn comes, I am sent again to Latishia's desk. Finally, what is my luck that she says that she can spare the next 15 - 30 minutes helping me with my forms; though, for some odd reason, she prefers to do so at the benches area outside the SHFLC, rather than right there at her desk.

As it could be expected, Latishia negated that she had entered the SHFLC with me. In response I had prepared a couple of more questions with which I intended to lay the groundwork foundation of my final argument, highlighting the inconsistency of this last part of Latishia's testimony. Namely, I asked her what followed after she went back to her office; how was it that immediately afterwards she was assisting me at some uncomfortable bench outside her office. Here I was running the risk that she would somehow come out saying, that, prior to taking me to the SHFLC, we had made arrangements for her helping me with the motion forms (once I got them from the SHFLC); because, prodigiously enough, she would have been able to predict that Vincent would not want to provide that kind of assistance. Of course, if such had been the case, another question of its own would have been, why had she not wanted to just wait 30 seconds for me to grab the forms, before walking back to the Clerk of Court Office. Indeed, there was never any reason for me to fear Latishia would somehow come up with any response of that sort, because we never made any arrangement of that sort. Rather, Latishia simply responded that I went back into the Clerk of Court Office. At this stage, Latishia was going to have some trouble explaining how was I able to reconnect with her. My little trap was to ask her if I looked for her: Since I am blind and I would have therefore never been able to see her, if she assented, I would get the inconsistency I was after. As a matter of fact, Latishia did assent; yet, she was quick enough that, as I tried to seal her response, she rectified and argued instead that she had looked for me:

Mr. Bautista: So, then what happened? You walked back to the office but then how was it that you were assisting me at the benches? 

  

Latishia: You came back into our office. 

  

Mr. Bautista: And I looked for you? 

  

Latishia: Yes. --- 

  

[crosstalk] 

  

Latishia: ---...Well, you didn't look for me. I offered to help you. 

 

Mr. Bautista: So, I saw you-- 

  

[crosstalk] 

  

Latishia: No. I saw you.  

  

Mr. Bautista: You saw me? 

  

Latishia: Correct. 

  

At this point I thought I should not go any further. I may have wanted to ask her, how was that the mere sight of me led her to guess that I was in need of help with my forms, or why did she not assist me at her desk, but we went instead to the bench outside. Yet, it is doubtful it would have helped my case to insist attacking Latishia's credibility. At the end of the day, none of it would matter. In fact, the question whether Latishia had entered the SHFLC with me added very little to the argument. Rather, it was just a matter of substantiating my credibility beyond any reasonable doubt. Indeed, the real question to be discerned was whether Vincent had denied during my visit to the SHFLC assistance filling in my answers on the legal forms. In other words, whether Latishia had entered the SHFLC or not spoke nothing to what Vincent's response had been; but only to whether she had witnessed the interaction. The point that I would eventually make in my post-hearing statement was that it had not made any sense for me to lie about Vincent's denial and then call Latishia as witness to support my allegation. Indeed, as early as Spring 2019 (during HRB's investigation more than a year earlier), I had lef in writing a very detailed account of how a clerk of court had witnessed Vincent's denial to my request for assistance. Why would I had lied about that, if the witness was immediately going to prove me wrong? It is true that I did not provide Newby with any name for said clerk; so, perhaps, I was just playing smart. However, when the courthouse's county attorneys stated in their response to my complaint, that it had been Deputy Clerk Latishia Atkins who had gone with me to the SHFLC, I did not hesitate to request a subpoena, if that was the only way to get her testimony. So, if we are to determine that I had been lying and playing smart all along; we would have to conclude, that, not only I am truly intrepid, but, incredibly enough, as early as Spring 2019, I had also prodigiously been able to predict, that Latishia would never want to completely debunk my account, by simply explaining how come was I able to reconnect with her, in order to get her assistance. As a matter of fact, I must have really been touched by God as I wrote my HRB rebuttal in Spring 2019, because I had likewise prodigiously been able to predict that Vincent would admit having been uncertain about the literacy-agreement form and, consequently, having been concerned that providing reasonable disability accommodations may represent an unauthorized-legal-advice liability.   

At this point, it should not come to anybody's surprise, that this will be exactly the conclusion and determination hearing officer Holien will reach. I had been lying all along and only possessed a miraculous psychic gift. Holien will not only consider more credible Latishia's account denying she entered the SHFLC with me; but also took it as proof that, during said visit to the SHFLC, Vincent did not decline assistance to me filling in my answers on the legal forms. In other words, Holien made her determination against the testimonies of the two recognized witnesses of the November 6th visit to the SHFLC. Indeed, given that Latishia testified she did not come inside the SHFLC, that leaves me and Vincent as the only two people who witnessed the interaction, and could therefore tell whether I made any request for reasonable accommodations and whether Vincent declined any such request. It should not be to anybody's surprise that Holien outright dismissed my testimony; but, it is a bit more shocking the analysis she made of Vincent's. Fact of the matter is Vincent testified that he could not recollect having met me prior to December 10th and therefore did not remember my November 6th visit; however, he did explain that it was his regular practice to inform any blind person coming to the SHFLC for forms, that assistance physically filling out the client's answers on his legal forms is available at the SHFLC, should he need it. In fact, Derek Shepperd, Services director of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and Vincent's instructor during his training, likewise testified that he expects and instructs SHFLC's staff to inform people with obvious disabilities of the kind of reasonable accommodations available to them at the SHFLC. More specifically, Shepperd further explained: if a blind person with a blind cane comes to the SHFLC asking for legal forms, he expects SHFLC staff to inform the blind client, that at the SHFLC he can get assistance physically filling-in his answers on the legal forms. Still, undoubtedly, nobody was able to come up with a more graphical explanation than OCA's Program Administrator Nolan Harris:

"If somebody were visibly unable to grasp a pen to fill out the forms or they were having any  sortd of physical disability or obviously unable to read, I think our staff are responsive and human beings that they would see that and then respond accordingly."

  

Hemce, from SHFLC's witnesses' testimonies, it directly follows that I had not even needed to remembered to ask Vincent for assistance. Even if I had suffered a mental blackout and somehow forgotten during my visit to the SHFLC that I needed to fill out the blank motion form and, for that purpose, I was going to require somebody's help; - according to the SHFLC's witnesses own testimonies - Vincent would had himself offered such help. Now, oddily enough, Blaner herself was the most emphatic of them all to make this point. From her Proposed Findings-of-Facts and Conclusions-of-Law:      

: "All the evidence presented in this matter indicates that Benlloch was a conscientious worker who made every effort to assist customers to the best of his ability.  It is not credible that Benlloch would have handed a customer a form and refused them further assistance." 

and 

"It is not credible to believe that in this instance, Benlloch would have abandoned his usual practice and simply handed the forms to a customer without engaging that customer in a discussion that would have led to Benlloch offering a Literacy Agreement."

Yes, there is simply no way I had myself ever been able to make this point more conclusively. I remember I was stunned when I read these statements and just could not believe that Blaner herself was contributing to such a decisive extent to my case. For the life of me, I will never be able to conceive what can go through the mind of a Montana Supreme Court attorney to come up with a statement that propitious to the other side's case. Evidently, not much thought was given to those lines; thus, the only explanation I can imagine is that lawyers really do not put much thought nor effort in their arguments, because they know that the outcome actually does not depend on them. If it had already been determined that the hearing officer would rule her way regardless, why would Blaner have wanted to stress herself out over the specific arguments? It does not seem completely unreasonable to think, that SHFLC's witnesses concerted and explicit enthusiasm exalting Vincent's work ethics, conscientiousness and unfaltering eagerness to always assist anybody who may be in need of help, had got the better of Blaner and brought her to miss how counterproductive her statements were to her case. After all, SHFLC's witnesses' assertion, according to which Vincent would always offer assistance to any person exhibiting an obvious disability, should have felt innocuous as long as they were not aware, that I was alleging to have asked for forms on November 6th, and had to leave the SHFLC still looking for somebody who could assist me filling them out. Indeed, since Vincent kept no recollection of my November 6th visit, neither he, Shepperd nor Harris were aware of my allegation and the severe implications of their assertion. Blaner, on her part, wrote her post-hearing statement months after the hearing, was perfectly aware of all my allegations, and should have realized how detrimental those statements were to SHFLC's case.

  

As much as I have always been very doubtful of the hearing officer's impartiality, I do not think I can be blamed for having been hopeful for the final outcome. By the time I had finished my post-hearing statements and had read Blaner's, I rested assured, that there was not a single crack in my case, and I just could not see how Holien could possibly argue there had not been any discrimination. Yet, on a second thought, perhaps I was a bit of a fool for failing to understand what the justice system is all about. Indeed, it turns out this kind of conflict has always been the justice system's regular procedure. Albert Camus' magistral novel L'Etranger provides a very illustrative despriction of how it works. Against the bad man's case the court will always have the good man's case. In L'Etranger, Camus tells the story of Meursault, some odd man who is put on trial for the murder of an unnamed Arab on a beach in Algiers. However, right from the very beginning of the trial it becomes evident that Meursault is not going to be judged by the murder, but by his failure to exhibit any emotion over his mother's death: Yes, as witnesses are one-by-one called to the stand, it becomes evident that he did not even shed a tear during his mother's funeral, he refused to see her after she died, and even started a new relationship with some girl on the very next day. As a matter of fact, Meursault does not even seem to believe in God! Evidently, Meursault is a bad man and should therefore be condemned to death, regardless of what exactly happened on the beach. It turns out, the justice system is not about resolving the disputes which arise among citizens; but about punishing those bad people who refuse to abide by the System's ideology; in Camus' own words: "play the game". Indeed, the court will always have a good man whose testimony will make the court's case. Since he is a good man, everything he testifies will be true; whereas nothing that the bad man says can be trusted. There is a reason why the Montana Supreme Court attorney portrayed me as this angry person, who was constantly insisting on getting free legal advice - even though she knew perfectly well nothing of that pertained to the matter in question -. Evidently, I was a bad man and nothing that I say should be trusted, regardless of what the evidence indicates. In counterposition the hearing officer had Vincent: everybody agreed that he is a really fine and nice man; hence all what he testified is true, regardless of what the evidence indicates. If only that Vincent's testimony did not quite provide all the statements the hearing officer needed, in order to seal the case. However, if you are willing to accept any lie your witness testifies; what difference does it make if you just lie about what your witness testifies?

     Exactly, since Vincent did not testify all what hearing officer Holien needed to exonerate the SHFLC, she just fabricated the pertinent testimony for Vincent. If only that Holien got a bit carried away and blatantly give herself away; as she first admitted Vincent's actual testimony and subsequently contradicted herself with the testimony she had fabricated for Vincent. Indeed, she first admitted that Vincent had testified he had no recollection of my November 9th visit to the SHFLC, and subsequently misrepresented Vincent's testimony, by stating that he had denied declining during my November 9th visit to the SHFLC my request for reasonable accommodations. Clearly, if Vincent could not remember anything of my November 9th visit, he could have never remembered whether he declined or not my request during said visit.  

Now, sarcastically enough, Holien's misrepresentation of Vincent's testimony should not have felt to her sufficient injury, that she also needed to indulge herself and gloat over her own crookedness, and so give herself away once more: Having misrepresented that Vincent had denied declining my request for reasonable accommodations, Holien could not find any better justification why she would blindly accept such allegation than to sarcastically argue that she could not think of any reason why Vincent would have needed to lie or had suffered a selective memory problem. In other words, by the grace of God and the hearing officer, everything Vincent said was true. However, if Vincent had refrained from lying denying that he had declined my request for reasonable accommodations; Holien will lie for him in lieu, by putting those words in his mouth. On the other hand, given that Latishia's testimony had been accepted as unquestionably truthful, there was no doubt anymore that I had indeed visited the SHFLC on November 6th. Consequently, if Vincent had testified that he could not remember said visit; it inevitably follows that, either Vincent lied or he suffered a selective memory problem.

Now, if by any chance you may think that it can hardly get worse, you should know that this is actually just the beginning. As if Holien had considered she had not given herself enough by gloating over her own crookedness, now Holien is going to reach truly histerical levels. All until now (including the time where I wrote the previous paragraphs) since I first read her decision, I have been under the belief that she had stated that Vincent had little to no reason to lie; but, when I recently carefully went through the document once more, I came to realize that this was not what she had said. Yes, her decision does not make any reference to any need to lie, but it actually reads: "[Vincent] Benlloch has little to no reason to fabricate testimony or to otherwise suffer from a selective memory". Yet, what does Holien exactly mean by Vincent having or not having any motivation to lie? Is it not to provide, produce or fabricate testimony what witnesses are supposed to do? Is it not to fabricate testimony what crooked hearing officers, judges and attorneys do, in order to fraudulently make their crooked cases? The Spanish language has an excellent, really illustrative, expression for this kind of Freudian slips. In Spanish, the expression "a betrayal by one's own subconscious" refers to those instances where the speaker gives herself away by accidentally uttering some statement which perfectly reflects what she thinks, but she had actually never ever wanted to disclose. Definitely, I could have never come up with any better example than Holien's to explain this kind of Freudian slips. It is not just that Holien's subconscious gives her away, but it betrays her altogether. Yes, Holien had obviously wanted to say that Vincent had little to no reason to lie; however, as she kept thinking on what testimony she would need to fabricate for Vincent, in order to best make her crooked case, she got 'betrayed by her own subconscious' and accidentally wrote that Vincent had little to no reason to fabricate testimony. If only Holien had asserted that Vincent had little to no reason to have her fabricate testimony for him; she had not only made sense but had also even been truthful and honest.  

At the end of the hearing, in early August 2020, I may have reasoned, that, if my case of discrimination on November 9th was not accepted, I had still an even better case for my allegation of discrimination on December 10th. Once Latishia had removed herself from the scene, by testifying that she had not entered the SHFLC with me, I had lost my witness for my allegation of discrimination on November 6th. I was not going to have that problem for my December 10th allegation, though. Indeed, as the hearing reached its end on August 6th 2020, I could rest confident that I had been able to prove all four requirements to establish unlawful discrimination: 

1) I was entitled by my proven disability to reasonable disability accommodations. 

2) It had been established that, on December 10th I requested reasonable disability accommodations to the SHFLC.

3) The SHFLC had available a modification to its regular services which accommodated my disability.

4) The SHFLC declined to provide the reasonable disability accommodation. 

The caveat I faced was that, while the SHFLC had declined on December 10th my request for reasonable accommodation, on December 11th - once Vincent had been reminded about the literacy agreement - they finally provided assistance filling in my answers on my dissolution response form. This circumstance had been exploited by the HRB investigator to save the SHFLC's face from the discrimination charge. Indeed, in her final report, Newby argued that Vincent had only failed to provide the reasonable accommodations I had requested, because he simply could not find the literacy-agreement form. But, as soon as he was able to locate it on December 11th, he was sure to assist me. It turns out, however, that was only HRB's desperate maneuver to get SHFLC out of the mud, and only HRB had come up with such an excuse; because Vincent never testified anything of that sort. Vincent, on his part, in his undeniable indefatigable efforts to avoid lying, after going around the question for what seemed an eternity, only managed to argue that - as much as he understood that I was blind - he did not realize that I required someone's assistance in order to read or write anything on a printed form. Given that this explanation was from any reasonable viewpoint most absolutely incredible, I think it was understandable that I felt hopeful at the end of the hearing. 

Moreover, I had been able to have Vincent admit that he did not know well whether he was authorized to provide reasonable disability accommodations, in the form of assistance filling in the handicapped client's answers"

Vincent Benlloch: "To try to see if there would be additional or extra accommodations that either at my office or the Clerks of Courts Office could provide. Like I said I was pretty inexperienced, and wanted to see just kind of what would the total sum of accommodations would be for that."

 Neither was Vincent sure whether the literacy agreement had already become available by December 10th, since he was under the belief that it had been released around those days:

  

Bautista: Were you aware of the literacy agreement on December 10th?

Benlloch: "I am trying to remember, because I don't remember when Nolan introduced those. I knew it was som... if I remember correctly it was something I knew about and knew that it was possible ...[unintelligible]... the forms would be worked on and then be disseminated. I don't remember when any of that happened.

Bautista: "So, you are not sure if you knew about the existence of that liability form on December 10th?"

Benlloch: "Just trying to remember just because I know that before have been  worked on ...previously it was disseminated, so I can't remember. I knew there would be. Yeah... I can't ...yeah, I can't remember. I just know there would be... That was, that was a procedural or policy thing that we have been discussed. I just don't know how close to December 10th that was."

Knowing as he did that he had had me sign the literacy agreement on December 10th, it is really suspicious that Vincent was not able to reply with a firm 'Yes'  to the simple question of, whether he was aware of the literacy agreement on the previous afternoon of December 10th. Clearly, Vincent is admitting that he did not know of the availability of the literacy agreement until sometime near December 11; it is just that he did not want to take any blame for that. Rather, Vincent argued the problem had been that the form itself had not been available, because it had only been released sometime around those dates. However, fact of the matter was that the literacy-agreement form had been available even before Vincent was hired. In fact, the SHFLC had boasted and elaborated on their literacy agreement and how it had been introduced and explaind to Vincent during his initial training. If that all had not been enough, later in the hearing Vincent would eventually also give that he reached out to his supervisors inquirying about the existence of any literacy form, which would allow him to provide reasonable disability accommodations:

Mr. Benlloch: "I reached out to try to figure out with the literacy agreement. I remember having some kind of conversation about the literacy agreement"

Then, all the pieces finally come together when Vincent explained he believed he held said conversation sometime after working with me in the afternoon of December 10th 2018 or the following morning. 

 

 To make a long story short, as cryptic and confusing as Vincent testimony was, at the end of the day, there was not going around the fact, that, from the moment he stated that he thought the literacy agreement had not been available until sometime near December 11th, he was likewise recognizing that all until then he had been under the belief that he was not authorized to provide reasonable disability accommodations, in the form of assistance filling in my answers on my legal forms. The relevance of this observation was that it reinforced my allegations of discrimination on November 9th and November 20th: Clearly, if Vincent had not been aware of the literacy form until sometime near December 11th, he could have never been able to provide reasonable accommodations on November 9th or November 20th. Namely, the HRB investigator had dismissed my charge of discrimination on November 20th, arguing that the SHFLC had not rejected on that date any request for reasonable accommodations, but I had only found SHFLC's door locked during regular business hours. However, now it became clear that it did not matter that I was not able to come in to the SHFLC at that time, because Vincent was under the belief that he was not authorized to provide reasonable disability accommodations and had therefore decline any request for such anyway. Moreover, if Vincent had not forgotten about the literacy form and had not told me on November 6th (during my visit alongside Latishia to the SHFLC) that he was not authorized to provide reasonable disability accommodations; I had been able to make arrangements for November 20th, so that I would not find SHFLC's door closed and I could receive disability accommodations prior to the order of protection hearing with Judge Townsend. Clearly, since there was no protocol to make up for human errors, it all derived from the mishap that Vincent had forgotten about the literacy-agreement form, which had been introduced to him during his initial training. Disturbingly, every single time that I attempted to point out the urgent need to elaborate such a protocol, I was admonished by the hearing officer for the inappropriateness of my remark.    

 

As hopeful as I may have felt by the time the hearing came to its end, I did not have to read long into hearing officer Holien's final decision to realize that any such hopes had only been foolish. If Vincent's case was all what Holien had considered, in order to dismiss my charge of discrimination on November 6th, then, obviously, each and all the other charges would inevitably find the same fate. If I had thought that (after Latishia's testimony) my case for discrimination on December 10th was stronger than for November 6th; now I knew that, as a matter of fact, my odds to prevail were even lower for December 10th. Indeed, when it came to November 6th, at least Vincent had not even denied declining reasonable accommodations to me; but had only alleged he could not remember anything. In contrast, as cryptic and confusing as Vincent's testimony had certainly been, at the end of the day it was reasonable to conclude that he rejected the charges. Hence, even though all his testimony actually supported my allegations, if he still ended up denying the charges; I could be sure that hearing officer Holien would reject the charges, regardless of all what the evidence indicated.     

The challenge faced by Holien was that Vincent's explanation not only had been most absolutely incredible, but, from any logical standpoint, just did not make any sense. Yes, in his undeniable indefatigable efforts to avoid lying, Vincent had gone as far as alleging, that, as much as he was aware that I was blind and required a blind cane to move around, it had not become clear to him that I was not able to read anything on a paper form.

Bautista: Did you understand that, me being blind, I was not able to read anything on the printed, paper forms?

Benlloch: [long pause] ... from what I remember with our first interactions, when you were working with the Clerks of Courts, you had worked on paper forms, as well as somebody dictating. So, by providing you the motion paperwork at the end of our last meeting, I wanted to make sure you had access to at least one version of the legal document. And, I guess, from this email, I had sent out previous ones before. So, perhaps, it was unclear to me to what level you would need to work solely on your PDF, on your technology versus on paper.

Bautista: I am sorry, I do not think I was able to follow the answer. Again, were you aware that, given my blindness, I was not going to be able to read anything on the printed paper form?

Benlloch: From what I remember, we had worked on both. We worked across kind of multiple media, kind on this...

Bautista: But that is not what I am asking... I am asking... me, by myself, without somebody else's assistance, if me by myself I would be able to read or see anything on a printed, paper form.

Benlloch: I think in that ... at that time, I don't know if I knew the extent of that or that if that would have been possible or not. I don't think at the time I knew that completely.

Vincent did not want to just lie; however, neither did he wanted to give away the people, who had trusted and hired him for that job. Hence, his strategy was to go around the questions and deliver evasive answers. However, as I kept cornering him with my questions, eventually he could not see any other way out, than to come up with an answer as absurd as arguing, that he did not realize that a blind person would be unable to read anything from a printed form. As much as anybody would know that it was a obnoxious lie; how is anybody ever going to prove or disprove what he did or did not realize?

   

Vincent made this awkward argument at the beginning of his testimony, and it caught me completely off guard. I thought I should only expect that he would deny having declined my request for reasonable accommodations; but I could have never imagined that he would go as far as saying he did not realize that I would be unable to read anything from a printed form. If I had thought that it had been worse than a tooth extraction to get my November 9th motion sent to Latishia (so that she could recognize her handwriting); now I was in for open-heart surgery with Vincent. Indeed, they were even going to dispute that - after having worked with me for hours on my dissolution response - Karlene had sent me to the SHFLC, so that Vincent would finish assisting me writing down my answers on the form. It makes me wonder if, perhaps, I had been more successful, if I had started my questioning to Vincent bluntly asking him, if it was not true that, upon my arrival to the SHFLC in the afternoon of December 10th, I had told him that I needed assistance filling in my answers on my dissolution response form. I often hear that, perhaps, I should take the blame for failing to ask all the right questions. However, if the justice system requires the low-income pro-se litigant to ask the perfect questions and perform like the best lawyer, in order to prevail in court; that only confirms the whole point that the justice system is nothing but an instrument of power for the wealthy to dominate and oppress the lower classes. As a matter of fact, any objective analysis of real-world legal cases shows that the reality is even more forbidding: no matter how well the pro-se litigant does and how good his case is, the justice system is so design that he will still lose against a licensed attorney.

Indeed, it was only foolish of me to hope that hearing officer Holien would eventually instruct Vincent to address the questions directly and truthfully. Rather the opposite, she would blame me for the ridiculous extension of time Vincent's deposition was taking. Holien really expected me to play along with the charade, meekly accepting leaving my questions unanswered and simply moving on. However, I knew I should not accept to just be there for the ride, and it would only be foolish to try to win the hearing officer's simpathy. I just do not understand what is the point of being allowed to ask questions, if they then expect you to concede to the witness refusal to answer them. I was therefore ready to rephrase my inquiries as many times as necessary, until I would receive an answer. 

Vincent had come to allege that he had not realized I would be unable to read anything on a printed form, because he did not want to admit, that his supervisor had forbidden him to provide me with reasonable disability accommodations, in retaliation for my Human-Rights complaint. I do not think it can get more absurd, but it was definitely not the most awkward and bizarre of the exchanges we held that afternoon. Rather, Vincent would come to allege he had not realized that I had gone to the SHFLC looking for assistance filling in my answers on my dissolution response form. It started with them disputing that Karlene had sent me for exactly that purpose. Since I knew I should never ever give them such a way out, it took us as many as 14 minutes to clarify how exactly it was that Vincent alleged to had come to realize that I needed help 'physically' filling in my answers on the legal form.

    

Bautista: Karlene sent me on December 10th to the SHC, so that I could get assistance filling-in my answers on my Dissolution Response form. Yet, you did not make me sign the literacy agreement until the next day. Do you know why?

Benlloch: It was my understanding the literacy agreement was used for specific purposes. So, if you were only looking for general help or general information about your dissolution case that I would be able to provide without the  literacy agreement. That is all what I remember.

Bautista: But we all agree I needed to sign the literacy agreement in order to receive the kind of accommodations Karlene had sent me for on that email...

Respondent's counsel: Objection, there is nothing in Karlene's email that suggests she sent Mr. Bautista to the SHC to get accommodations.

  

Bautista: Do we agree that Karlene had sent me to receive assistance filling out my answers on my Dissolution Response form?

Benlloch: "My understanding that Karlene had sent you over to get assistance on your paperwork. That could mean a lot of different things. Like we have some people that come and just need explanations of the documents or we have other people that need ...ah, di... you know, different, different, different things. So, I think my assumption at the time would be that you needed help with your paperwork, which is why Karlene... That's one of the reasons why people refer or refer over to the Self-Help Law Center, to get assistance with their paperwork; that ends up meaning different things with different clients."

Bautista: But Karlene explains in her email, I had somebody assisting me filling out my Response form for several hours...?"

Hearing Officer: The email is already in the record. I suggest you move on.

Bautista: Can Mr. Benlloch explain why he did not have me sign the literacy agreement until the following day?

Hearing Officer: Mr. Bautista it is, at least the third time you ask that question. Mr. Benlloch already answered he does not recall himself when the form became available. Is that an accurate statement of your testimony Mr. Benlloch?

Benlloch: To an extend, I think also...

Hearing Officer: Then answer the question

Benlloch: "I don't remember exactly,but ...am, it's possible that, in working with him initially that day that it was determined that he would need to sign the literacy agreement to provide additional levels of service than what I had initially assumed he would need, ...am, or assume that he was asking for or figure out that he would need at that, at that time, am... depending, ...like, like it says in the email, it was... it seems to me like a more general referral for assistance. We refer people to different places to... to get assistance, so that... I just thought he needed help working on his dissolution paperwork, which is what we do."  

Bautista: Well, can anybody explain me what was the answer, because I did not get it.

Hearing Officer: What, you did not hear it?

Bautista: No, I did not understand it. Could you please tell me what you understood.

Hearing Officer: "He said that when you came to him in the afternoon of December 10 2018, he understood you had been sent over for general assistance. He later determined that you needed a greater level of service than he had first anticipated and that is what led him to give you the literacy agreement on December 11 2018. Is that an accurate summary of your testimony Mr. Benlloch?"     

Benloch: Yes

Hearing Officer: Mr. Bautista did you understand my summry?

Bautista: Yes, a little bit better.

Bautista: So, what you are saying Vincent is that on December 10th it was not clear to you I needed assistance filling out my answers on my dissolution form?

Benlloch: All what was clear to me on that day is that you had an impending deadline and you needed some level of assistance with your dissolution paperwork.

Bautista: And that assistance included assistance filling out answers on the form?

Respondent's counsel: Objection, this has been asked and answered many times.

Bautista: It is a 'yes' or 'no' answer.

Hearing Officer: I will allow him to answer the question. But we are moving along Mr. Bautista.

Benlloch: Sorry...

Hearing Officer: Repeat the question, answer Mr. Benlloch and we are moving on.

Bautista: Did the assistance that I needed include assistance filling out my answers on my Dissolution Response form? Yes or No?

Benlloch: "You mean physically... I'm so sorry, you mean physically writing on the form? Because, when som... like when somebody comes to the center, they can say I need assistance filling out my paperwork, and that can also just mean a description of each individual section, like... that's, that's all what I am trying to get at. ...am and that.. because that would change what my answer is."   

Bautista: Was it your understanding that I needed assistance having somebody physically write down my answers on my Dissolution Response form.

Benlloch: The very first time that we met or like we had any interaction: No. But it seems like that developed into a 'Yes', after spending more time with you. And trying to figure out ..kind of, what level of assistance you would need."

Bautista: When, still on December 10 or when?

Benlloch: It would be sometime between those two days. I do not have an exact moment between those two days; but it would be determined between those two days.

Bautista: And what caused you to reach that realization?

Benlloch: "I think after interacting with you, after you interacted with the Clerk of Court Office, and based on your deadline that it might be more expedient for your case, if I either... if you could dictate to me what you needed to put into the forms. So, I think after interacting, understanding better after our interactions the level of accom... of... of service that you would need, based on both, your... your... physical disability and the fact that you would have a very pressing deadline. I... I imagine that is what would... that..., those all would help me determine that, between those two days."    

Bautista: So, is it correct, did I understand your answer, it was when you realized that I was blind and when you saw me getting assisted by the Clerks of Courts employee, that is when you realized that I needed assistance physically writing down my answers on the legal form? Is that correct?

Respondent's counsel: Objection, that misstates Mr. Benloch's testimony.

Bautista: I am asking if that was correct or not!

Hearing Officer: Mr. Bautista, could you please rephrase your question?

Bautista: I am asking if I understood correctly if it was after he realized that I was blind and he saw me getting assisted by this Clerks of Courts employee, that was the time where he realized that I needed assistance physically writing down my answers on the legal forms?

Benlloch: "I think it would be those, plus the... I think it would be all of that, plus the... plus the deadline. I think that just all kind of works together."

Needless to say, if the bad man relentlessly insists with his forbidding interrogation, as the good man refuses to address any question, it will not be long before it will become clear to everybody how wrong the bad man is. Indeed, Vincent had been so kind to come all the way from Missoula to Helena, just for the sake of the hearing, he had agreed to spend so much of his time to patiently provide testimony for my complaint, and, here I was, relentlessly and severely tormenting him with my repeated-and-repetitive mean questions.

Holien knew her role was to allow me to ask as much as I felt necessary; however, she was hoping that eventually I would just give up. There is no way she could have ever imagined I would be so determined to obtain an answer to my questions. As the time passed and neither I, Vincent nor Blaner exhibit any sign to ever going to give in, the atmosphere grew tense. I think, however, it would be fair to say I was not the only person Holien was getting frustrated with. Blaner, for example, kept interrupting me with pointless objections. I needed to be extremely careful with how I phrased all my inquiries, or she would immediately ridiculously allege I was trying to make testimony. I cannot help to admit it was particularly delightful for me the moment where Vincent drew Holien to the brink of a breaking point, when he asked me to clarify, if what I meant with "assistance filling out my form" was "assistance physically filling out my form". Still, it was only an instinctive reaction and she quickly recomposed her figure. She knew her role: Only one person in the room should be targeted by her frustration, and, needless to say, that person was definitely me. It was certainly disrespectful of me not to nod to everything the hearing officer said, and when eventually I expressed my disagreement with how the hearing was being conducted, she made sure to explain she expected me to keep some "decorum". Whenever I tried to describe how SHFLC's failure to provide me with reasonable disability accommodations - particularly in preparation for the November 20th order of protection hearing - had impacted my life - in a way to ground my request for relief -, Holien was quick to stop and correct me, arguing that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) could not relitigate district court cases. Yet, on the other hand, Blaner would then be sure to argue, that I was not entitled to any relief, since I had not spelled out what consequences I had suffered because of SHFLC's alleged discrimination and retaliation.  

Despite all the hostility I was confronting, I remained steadfast to my objective. I believed I should not allow myself getting concerned or being influenced by what they could think of me. I kept under the naive belief that the key issue of the hearing was to meet the burden of proof. Vincent's over-6-hours-long deposition was extremely stressful, probably one of the most stressful experiences in my life, but I was happy thinking I was doing progress. I had a good insight of what case Blaner would try to make, and, after all, I had been able to extract a lot of meaningful testimony from Vincent to debunk it. For instance, it had been really upsetting to listen to Vincent alleging he did not realize I had asked for reasonable disability accommodations. However, on the other hand, now Blaner had no case claiming, that Vincent had not assist me just because he had been busy with someone else, but he had instead gone with me to the Clerk of Court to get some clerk to provide me with reasonable accommodations in his place. Since I had a perfect recollection of all what had happened and, not only did I knew Vincent, but had also had a personal connection with him, from all the conversations we had held during those weeks in Missoula; I could better guess what is that Vincent would say and what is that he would not say.

      

After almost six hours of deposition, there was only one thing left, that I wanted Vincent to clarify. Knowing that I could no longer rely on Latishia's testimony to support my allegation, that Vincent had declined on November 6th my request for reasonable accommodations; I believed it was going to be a crucial matter of contention whether I actually did make such request or I simply forgot. Yet, it had always seemed to me that it is only a matter of common sense, that SHFLC staff would inform any disabled person about the possibility to obtain reasonable accommodations from them. I therefore thought I should ask Vincent, if he would had indeed informed a disabled client about such possibility, or he would had needed her to come up with the idea. Once more, Vincent refused to answer the question, and went on instead for a long-winded discourse on how he would have told the disabled client about all the different places where she could get help. However, since it is the SHFLC the office required by law to provide reasonable disability accommodations, I believed Vincent still needed to clarify, if he would had informed a disabled client that, as a matter of fact, she could also receive such help from the SHFLC itself. Once more, Vincent refused to answer the question, and went on instead once again with his previous explanation. Since we were approaching six hours of deposition, I believed at that point it was reasonable to interrupt him and save us all the waste of time of listening again to the same discourse. Hearing officer Holien's reaction was, however, to admonish me for interrupting the witness. As I tried to explain that I was just looking for a 'Yes' or 'No' anser, Holien started yelling at me, because she could not and would not tolerate that I interrupt a witness. When she finished her reprimand, I insisted I was only hoping to receive a 'Yes' or a 'No'. I was so allowed to ask the question once more, and once more Vincent went on repeating his previous explanation. When he was done, upon Holien's request, he finally said "yes", he would had informed a disabled client about the possibility to obtain reasonable disability accommodations from the SHFLC.         

   

This last grotesque episode took several minutes of our time; yet, throughout the good-man's deposition I had been constantly been adviced to speed up and move on with my questions, and all the blame for the ridiculously long examination had always exclusively been thrown at me. Even more disturbing, Holien showed the most obnoxious double standards to judge and react to the interruption of a witness. Needless to say, Blaner would not find any problem interrupting me when the time came for me to provide testimony and answer her questions. But, even more shameless was that when we were still in the first third of Vincent's deposition (and there was so no such reason to be stressed about time), Blaner had stopped him as many as three times while he was answering my questions. It goes without saying, that in none of these occasions did hearing officer Holien have a single word of disapproval for Blaner. Rather the opposite, Holien did not only deem appropriate the interruption, but even supported Blaner. Just considering the first of these interventions alone, Holien's hypocrisy was most absolutely shameful. Indeed, as Vincent was replying to one of my questions, Blaner stopped him dead in his tracks, alleging he was extending his answer beyond the scope of the question and justified her interruption "in the spirit of time". Does anybody wonder why it is that smoke starts coming out of my ears every time I think that, four hours later in Vincent's deposition, Holien would not only fail to likewise deem "the spirit of time" justified my objection to Vincent's evasive, neverending response, but found it outright intolerable? As a matter of fact, Blaner interruption was strictly worse than mine: she had stopped Vincent when he was finally answering one of my questions. I was interested listening to his response; but got deprived from hearing the full explanation because of Blaner's interception. It was definitely a very effective trick to control and manipulate the good man's testimony: whenever her key witness testified anything against her case, she only needed to lift her hand to have him stopp. Interestingly, some months after the hearing, when I was preparing my post-hearing statements, I came to notice a striking coincidence among all three of Blaner's initial interruptions: in all three occasions Vincent was relating what had happened upon my arrival to the SHFLC, on the afternoon of December 10th. Blaner had conceived an alternative account, according to which Vincent could not assist me on that afternoon, because he was busy assisting other clients. Consequently, whenever Vincent started testifying anything that ruined her case, she had him stop. Since I would obviously remain interested in the response, once the confusion had cleared, I would repeat my question. But, needless to say, now Vincent would produce a far more fuzzy answer. Then, when the turn for Blaner's questioning came, she would ask Vincent the same question again, this time with the correct answer clearly marked. This was the regular procedure whereby the Montana Supreme Court attorney directed the good man's testimony. 

Now, the difficulty for Blaner was that there was too much to cover up, and it was simply impossible to stop Vincent each and every time he would say something against her case. She therefore had to select the most catastrophic of Vincent's blunders, and take care of rewriting them during her questioning. At that time, she would go through the list, "setting the record straight" one by one, asking Vincent to confirm that he had previously testified exactly what she had wished he had testified. Needless to say, Vincent duly confirmed each and every answer the Montana Supreme Court attorney required to have rewritten. For instance, during my questioning, after Blaner's cautioning interruption, Vincent had sworn, that, for the life of him, he could not remember wether he was busy with another client upon my arrival to the SHFLC on the afternoon of December 10th. However, shortly afterwards, now in response to Blaner, Vincent is all of a sudden certain he was busy with some other client when I arrived that afternoon.  

(2:10:17) Bautista: "When I first arrived Vincent was busy with another client?"

Benlloch: "I believe I was... I can't remember if I was working with somebody... I... I... I can't... I honestly can't remember, I just remember... what I do remember is meeting Mr. Bautista and then, at some point [unintelligible] to the Clerks of Courts Office [unintelligible] the fact I knew his deadline was coming up and then it was probably... I just don't remember if I was working with somebody right before ...at the same time ...during, I don't remember that that, that much at this time    "

(3:28:05) Respondent's counsel: "If Mr. Bautista arrived sometime around 3 o'clock, I believe it was... would you agree it was your testimony when Mr. Bautista was questioning you, that on that day you were assisting other customers as well?"

Benlloch: "That was my testimony, yes".

There were numerous examples of this kind: At the beginning of Vincent's deposition, he repeatedly admitted, that - from our initial conversation where I had informed him about my HRB complaint - he had understood the SHFLC was one of the parties addressed by the complaint. However, later in the deposition, in response to Blaner's question, he alleged he never understood the Self-Help Center was even targeted by the complaint.

(00:10:06)

Benlloch: "In our initial conversation I remember you telling me that the Self-Help Law Center had been implicated in a complaint that you had filed as one of several parties. I do remember that"

(5:46:44) Respondent's counsel: "I want to be clear, you testified earlier, that you understood from your January 14th conversation after hours with Mr. Bautista that the Self-Help Center had been implicated in a complain. That you didn't know at that time that the Self-Help Center was the target, and you understood the targets were the District Court and the Clerk of Court"

Benlloch: "Yes"

(5:47:23) Respondent's counsel: "Were you surprised that [the Self-Help Center] were a Respondent, since you thought they weren't a target?"

Also at the beginning of Vincent's examination, he repeatedly admits having held some conversations with me after having received the HRB-complaint notification. However, later in the deposition, in response to Blaner's question, he firmly denied ever having a conversation with me after receiving the HRB-complaint notification.

(00:13:19) Benlloch: "I remember other interactions where either me or my supervisor informed you we havd received a second complaint."  

(0:14:26) Benlloch: "And then we also had other interactions, after we had received the Human Rights Bureau notification"

(0:41:14) Hearing Officer: "How many contacts with Mr. Bautista after you were aware of the paper complaint filed with the Human Rights Commission?"

Benlloch: "That is what I meant by 1 to 3".

(0:37:19) Hearing Officer: "At some point Mr. Bautista informed you of his intends to file a Human Rights complaint?"

Mr. Benlloch: "Yes"

(4:35:33) Respondent's counsel: "During your direct with Mr. Bautista, and you talked about... what I have in my notes, is that you said that 'we had other conversations' and this was after the Self-Help Center received the complaint. And I just want to be clear on the record that when you say 'we', quote and quote 'we had conversations' the 'we' that you are referring to are yourself, Mr. Willard, Mr. Harris and Mr. Shepperd correct?"

Benlloch: "Yes"

Respondent's counsel: "After you got the complaint you never had a conversation with Mr. Bautista, is that correct?"

Benlloch: "when you say like... got the formal complaint?"

Respondent's counsel: "Yes"

Benlloch: "Yes"    

Respondent's counsel: "Thank you"

During my questioning, Vincent alleged he could not remember if I was the first person, who he had sign the literacy agreement. However, later in his deposition, in response to Blaner's question, he alleged it was his belief I had been the first person, who he had sign the literacy agreement.

(2:02:08) Bautista: "Prior to me, prior to me, do you remember any other person that required that kind of literacy agreement to be signed?"

Benlloch: "I don't remember."

(4:32:55) Respondent's counsel: "Is it true that Mr. Bautista... I understand from your earlier testimony that Mr. Bautista was the first person that you did the literacy agreement with?"

Benlloch: "I believe so"

If a witness testifies one thing and the opposite, unavoidably, either he lied on his first response or he lied when he later answered the opposite. If those lies were said under oath, that is perjury. There is no way around it. It is a shame the Montana Supreme Court attorney systematically induced her witnesses to blatantly lie under oath. It is a shame the Montana Supreme Court attorney systematically lied and had her witnesses commit perjury right under the hearing officer's nose, and nothing happens. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me! Fool her once, shame on them; fool her all the time, shame on her! 

What is the point of going through the show of administering the oath, if it is free to lie under oath? If it is free to lie under oath, I want to know, because I am next. After the order of protection hearing with Judge Townsend, I went totally outraged to talk with a sheriff deputy. I wanted to explain I had overwhelming evidence showing that Alia and her partner, Cecilio Escatell, had systematically lied at Judge Townsend's hearing. In fact, just the Missoula Police Report would prove Escatell's perjury. I was hoping to have Escatell prosecuted for perjury. However, the sheriff deputy told me that would have to go through the judge. But that sounded really odd, because I would not have any way to directly speak to the judge; that is not how it works. So I bluntly asked the deputy, how would I be able to have somebody investigated for perjury. She said she did not know, but it was not something where she could do anything. She was obviously lying. Still, since I am really very stubborn, after having been dismissed by the sheriff deputy, I went with my blind cane to ask around the courthouse; but everybody came up with the same response: nobody knew anything. Needless to say, everybody lied. It turns out, there is nothing such as perjury; unless you are the bad man, obviously. It turns out, everybody is allowed to lie, as much as the court's case requires. Now, if you are the bad man and dare to lie; buckle up, because perjury is a very serious crime and they are going to lock you up. Indeed, perjury is the kind of crime that our masters use to punish those bad children who do not obey.

 As naive as I may have been, I was prepared to find the government against me; but I did not expect that the whole System would go against me. It was not really any surprise to realize that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) was in cahoots with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), but I could have never imagined to witness, that advocates for nongovernmental, non-profit organizations would put themselves at the service of the conspiracy. Two more of my witnesses were Chris Clasby, the Peer Coordinator of the Summit Independent Living Center, and Christa Gabriel, my case worker at Disability Rights Montana. I had not really been interested in Clasby's testimony; rather, I had been looking for Bonnie, the person who had really helped me at Summit. However, for some unknown reason, Clasby had told me that, if I wanted to call Bonie as witness, he would need to be called as well. Gabriel's testimony was not much more relevant than Clasby's, but I was under the belief that the more information I made available the clearer a picture it will make of what had happened. At the hearing it was then as shocking as it was disturbing, frightening and, may I say, revolting to find two nongovernmental advocacy organizations for the disable to lie under oath, in a shameful move to cover up Montana's Judicial Branch's discrimination and retaliation.

From the very beginning, Gabriel felt uncomfortable with the idea of providing testimony for my complaint. Just like the deputies clerk of court, she was required by her superiors to demand a subpoena in order to testify. Then, shortly after receiving the subpoena, she contacted me to explain, that she would only be able to reply 'yes' or 'not' based on the information contained in her notes. Clearly, at Disability Rights Montana they did not like it one bit, that she provided testimony for my complaint for discrimination and retaliation against the Judicial Branch. If I ever kept any doubt about this, they all got resolved at the beginning of Gabriel's deposition, when she answered the phone and informed Holien, that she was "sitting with her supervising attorney Desiree Zenker". As in the case of the deputies clerk of court, I just did not understand what kind of harmful information they feared so much Gabriel could leak out. This time, however, knowing full well how futile any protest would be, I just resign myself to going along with it. Still, given that Zenker was always out of sight and how much Gabriel contradicted herself, I think it is fairly likely that Zenker kept making indications and correcting Gabriel throughout the deposition.  

    

Gabriel's contradiction started from the very beginning of her examination. In my opening question, I asked her if she could confirm, either from her notes or her recollections, that I had first contacted her in late November 2018. Her reply was a firm 'Yes'. Next, I inquired if it was something that she could remember, or she just knew from her notes. Then Zenker intervened, and Gabriel corrected her previous answer stating:

Ms. Gabriel: "As for my notes, it was December 5th, the first contact that I had with you."

Since I knew what we had talked about on that date, I asked her to confirm if during said call she informed me of some conversation she had held with somebody at the Clerk of Court Office. Gabriel again assented. So, at that point, I tried to reason with her that, if on December 5th she was informing me of some conversation she had had on my behalf, then we should had made some contact prior to December 5th. Now Gabriel changes her account once more: Now she argues that during that initial contact on December 5th, she does not inform me of any conversation with Clerk of Court. Rather, she speaks with Clerk of Court on December 6th, and reports on it to me sometime later. When I ask her on what exact date she calls me back, she replies that, from her recollections it should had been "either the 6th or the 7th, after she spoke to Clerk of Court". In other words, it turns out, Gabriel's notes for December 5th are not on the call where she informs me of her conversation with Clerk of Court, but on our initial contact. Furthermore, as a matter of fact, her notes do not contain any entry on our second contact, where she informs me about the conversation with Clerk of Court. Clearly, the sheer irrelevance of what are the exact dates where Gabriel speaks with me, and, therefore, the sheer futility of her lies, speak everything to the sheer dishonesty of the whole charade. At the time of Gabriel's deposition, given the testimonies of Latishia, Vincent and a few other far more relevant witnesses, and the key facts that had already been exposed, Gabriel's lies are just so pathetic that, at the end of the day, are even counterproductive.

       My main objective from Gabriel's deposition was to have Gabriel explain how she had told me, that it was Clerk of Court's general practice to refer handicapped people to the SHFLC for assistance filling-in the client's answers on legal forms. I had initially contacted Disability Rights Montana after the problems I had encountered on November 20th trying to get such assistance to fill out the stupid 'Notice of Filing Form'. Among other issues, I was hoping to find out where it was that I could receive that kind of help. During our second call, Gabriel informed me on the conversation she had held with a supervisor at the Clerk of Court Office: Although, for that kind of assistance, it is Clerk of Court's general practice to refer clients to the SHFLC, if I called in advance to set up an appointment, they would be ready to help me with that. Gabriel did admit said account of the conversation. However, I was so deep in my own thoughts, that I got confused with the words 'practice' and 'policy'; where Gabriel had said "general practice", I heard "general policy". While "general practice" was good enough for me, my confusion led us to an awkward entanglement, as I kept asking her to confirm it was Clerk of Court's "general policy", and she did not want to concede it was anything more than a "practice". As I finally emerged from my confusion, I asked her to confirm, whether her notes referred to it as "general practice". Here supervising attorney Zenker intervened again, alleging to attorney confidentiality and work-product bullshit to argue, that Gabriel could not disclose the contents of the notes of her conversation with me, but could only testify from her recollections. Yet, Gabriel has never been my attorney nor had her notes ever been the work product of any attorney. It seems like I will never hate enough the hypocrisy of all these privacy protection laws, which our politicians so obsequiously write to further consolidate our masters' privileges, and the children receive as gifts on Christmas Day advertised as the latest expansion of our rights and freedoms. Yet, fact of the matter is whoever wants to sell our data will always be free to do so and no average citizen will ever have the resources to do anything about it. But, on the other hand, if we ever try to get to the end of something or uncover any of our masters' countless scams, there is always some privacy protection law to secure their impunity. In any event, it turns out it does really pay off to hire an attorney, because we all gave a round of applause to supervising attorney Zenker, left the question unanswered and moved on with the deposition.

The last point I wanted to make was that, during the first call with Gabriel, I had told her about my inability to obtain help from the SHFLC on November 20th. Gabriel remembered me talking about said difficulties, but could not recall me specifically mentioning the SHFLC as the office I had the problems with. Obviously, if Gabriel could not remember, there was not much that I could do, other than trying to reason with her. Hence, I argued that, if Clerk of Court had been willing to assist me, even though they generally refer to the SHFLC for those kind of issues; there must had been some understanding that I had had some problems with the SHFLC. Otherwise, why did they not just refer me to the SHFLC as well? Gabriel alleged she did not understand my question; but, no matter how I would pose it, she was never going to give me that point. While I acknowledge her right to disagree with me; what is not OK is that, in order to get away from it, she lied by saying, that, in addition to what she had related before, during that second call she also suggested I seek assistance from the SHFLC.

 

I have never been able to determine, between Gabriel's and Clasby's testimonies, which of the two I found more disturbing and shameful. Yet, considering that, on one hand, Gabriel was, after all, testifying under the watchful eye of her supervising attorney, and, on the other hand, how inexcusable, pointless and pathetic the aims of Clasby's machinations were, I would probably say that Clasby's ways were the more infuriating and revolting of the two.    

It turned out Blaner's case against the retaliation charge would argue, that I never sought any assistance from the SHFLC in mid-January 2019. According to her account, during the last week of December 2018, I had already obtained help with my motion for an extension of deadlines from Bonnie at the Summit Independent Living Center. Coincidentally, Clasby testified at the hearing that he had met with me sometime in November 2018 and set Bonnie up to first help me with some housing applications still sometime in November, and with my motion on a second occasion in late December. If that would not be enough, since Bonnie was going to debunk the entire theory, Clasby would take care of confusing and derailing Bonnie's testimony. However, not only was Clasby's testimony a grotesque lie, but the whole effort was as pointless as pathetic. Not only was Blaner's account ridiculous, but it was just never going to fly: In November 2018 I was most absolutely consumed with the order of protection that Alia had just requested against me, and, consequently, at that time, I could have never ever been concerned with filling housing applications out. Yet, from his notes, Clasby testified to be positive we met sometime in November, although, oddily enough, his notes just did not provide any indication on the exact date. Fact of the matter is that, after playing phone-tag and exchanging numerous voicemails for a few weeks, we only met on December 20th. However, evidently, the worst part was Clasby's attempt to manipulate Bonnie's testimony. Bonnie is an adorable woman who volunteered to help me, first in early January 2019, with some housing applications and, a couple of weeks later in January, with the motion for an extension of deadlines, which I would file on January 29th. Bonnie lives her life restrained to her wheelchair, but is always eager to help anybody in need. Disturbingly enough, Bonnie was the only witness who said the truth. Bonnie was as well the only witness who Blaner bombarded with questions. Blaner was very interested to ask what was the range of dates where Bonnie had been assisting me. Oddily enough, Bonnie replied she thought it spanned from November 2018 to January 2019. Still, none of the witnesses had any kind of clear idea of the timeframe of their interactions with me. Thus, I did not think Bonnie's confusion with the exact dates was relevant. It seemed to me it would suffice if I had her admit that she was not very certain of the exact timeframe. However, it then all became clear when she explained that it had been Clasby, who had call her to indicate that she had started helping me in November. Consequently, I immediately pointed out to hearing officer Holien, that Bonnie's previous answer (on the dates of her assistance to me) had been hearsay and, therefore, should be eliminated from the record. Hearsay is when a witness testifies about something she has heard from somebody else, and is generally considered inadmissible by the courts. Holien did not have anything better to say than, in her opinion, the credibility of Bonnie's entire testimony was now doubtful. It turns out, Holien had a problem with Bonnie ignoring that hearsay is inadmissible; but Holien did not mind at all that Clasby had attempted to manipulate Bonnie's testimony. Fact of the matter is that Clasby is tetraplegic and he is therefore very familiar with the struggles confronted by disabled people. It is then really sad that he had no sensitivity nor compassion for the problems I suffered trying to get assistance from the SHFLC; but, instead, all what he could think of was how he could help the Montana Judicial Branch rigging my complaint and have them so exonerated from their discriminatory and retaliatory actions.  

From all the conclusions I extract from the whole ordeal, certainly one of the most disturbing is all the people who were willing to support the complot, even though their jobs or livelihoods never depended on whatever testimonies they provided. Definitely, it is quite possible that my interpretation is actually not correct, but their jobs and livelihoods could really have been affected if they had testified against the System. Yet, if that was the case, then the thought of it turns from disturbing into truly scary.

Yes, if only Clasby's had been the only or the worst move to rig my Human-Rights complaint. Fact of the matter was my complaint was never ever going to prevail and the Montana Judicial Branch was going to do anything necessary to ensure that would be the case. Now, there is no denial that, when it came to the retaliation charge, they were really going to need a master stroke in order to pull it off. Indeed, when it came to the retaliation charge, they had got themselves in some real mess. Since it was undisputed that Willard had subjected me to an adverse action, all what I had to show was a casual connection between my Human-Rights complaint and the adverse action . Yet, the Judicial Branch's Response to the HRB investigation had already provided all the evidence to establish said connection. Still, said Letter of Response had only been part of the HRB investigation, and we were now at a different stage. Clearly, there was no reason to lose one's head over it: the System, of course, grants itself as many bites of the apple as necessary, in order to make up for these kinds of blunders and let itself off the hook. Indeed, who said that the Judicial Branch's Letter of Response had to be admitted on this second bite, or could just be spat out? Perhaps you thought that the System does not have all the threads well accounted for and neatly tied up together? Definitely, it does not take the brightest bulb in the room to realize, that the Letter of Response was never going to make it into the hearing's record. They needed to pull it off by hook or by crook, and pull it off they did.

Now, just when they thought it could not get any worse, if they had not already got themselves in a real mess, they dug themselves even deeper. I wonder what is that hearing officer Holien was thinking during OCA's Director Derek Shepperd's deposition, that, as a matter of fact, she did admit into the record his Letter of Response for my complaint's HRB investigation. If they had not dug themselves deep enough in the mud; dig themselves all the way in, they did. Clearly, as the story shows over and over again, the System's servants do not make it to the top because they are more gifted, talented or competent; but simply because they are more obsequious. Well, desperate times call for desperate measures, and if Blaner would have to commit fraud to remove the Letter of Response from the record, commit fraud she would. As she saw in disbelief how Holien was admitting the Letter of Response into the record, she quickly thought of a scheme to have it reversed: She alleged the exhibit I had provided did not include the whole letter, but there were a few pages missing. The goal was to have the exhibit taken out of the record and placed back 'under advisory'. Once there, she would have time to make it black-in-white to the hearing officer that the letter simply could not be in the record.

  

Mr. Bautista: But again, I will try to have the, I would have to offer this exhibit admitted into the record.

Hearing Officer: Okay, Ms. Blainer? 

Ms. Blainer: We have no objection for the purpose of limited purpose of impeachment rebuttal under Rule 105. 

Hearing Officer: Exhibit 52 is hereby admitted. I'm going to retrieve my laptop from Mr. Shepard. I do have, I guess, one question. You have exhibit 53, which is a supplemental response. You want that addressed, Ms. Blainer?

...

Hearing Officer: "I am going to admit exhibit 53, as the supplemental response to what was addressed in exhibit 52. Again the parties are free to address what weight I should give that document in their post-hearing briefing..."

Blaner: "I hate to add any confusion to this, but I believe, in reviewing the file that exhibit 52 itself may not be complete; that's the cover letter from the actual response and not the response itself. But I am going to perhaps suggest that... well, I guess, perhaps I should review it right now. if you just give me another minute ...  

...

Hearing Officer: "So Ms. Blaner, what did you find out?"

(0:54:43)

Blaner: "Yes, I've reviewed the file and my understanding is that exhibit 52 of itselsf is incomplete. That's only the first page and that the response actually is a 3 pages document with... or I'm sorry 4 pages document with some attached exhibits, which I would move should included for completeness. I am prepared to pull those documents and email them to you and Mr. Bautista for your reference."

Bautista: "But the actual letter is complete, but what Ms. Blaner is saying is that she thinks there are some attachments missing. Is that correct?"

Blaner: "no the letter is only the first page of the document itself, which includes the rest of the response. I understand why the letter appears to be complete, because Mr. Shepperd's signature is at the bottom. But there is no date on that. The date is actually on the next page. Is essentially a cover letter to the response itself."

It was all an obnoxious lie, and everybody present knew it perfectly well. Shepperd, the author of the letter had just confirmed that was the letter he had written in response to my HRB complaint. For quite a few weeks, Blaner had had the exhibit available for review, and, all of a sudden, now at the hearing, she needs two minutes to mistakenly concludes the letter is not complete, but the exhibit is only the cover letter to a larger, 4-pages document? How long does it take to check if a document is one or four pages long? In fact, one of the most wicked aspects of Blaner's machination was that it exploited the fact that I was blind: namely, the basis of her argument was that I had not noticed, but there was more to Derek's letter, which I had not been able to see. Since I am blind, it would be reasonable for anybody to believe and buy the argument, that, perhaps, I had just missed the rest of the document. As a matter of fact, I wonder if, perhaps, hearing officer Holien was actually part of the scheme, and she was only playing along as the good cop. It certainly would not surprise me if it had all been a ruse, discussed in advance between the Montana Supreme Court attorney and the Hearing Officer, aime at putting off the final decision on the admission of the Judicial Branch's Letter of Response into the record. It does not escape anybody's mind that it would be far more convenient to throw away the letter behind the scenes, once the hearing was over. Anybody could had expected that I would had not reacted lightly at the sight of the letter being rejected at the hearing. Instead, they would play a pantomime, so that the exhibit is placed back 'under advisory', until Blaner could clarify whether the letter was complete or not. By that time the hearing would be long over and the hearing officer would be free to make any determination that suited her best, without concern of the outrage it would cause. I did express my outrage in my post-hearing brief and, more in detail, two weeks later by email; but, at that time, sitting at home on their comfortable armchairs, reading of the child's tantrum, they could only take pleasure and pride from the fact, that they had pulled it off.

   

Indeed, it had always been about bringing down my complaint for discrimination and retaliation, and they were going to pull it off one way or another, by hook or by crook. I never had the slightest hint of doubt that my exhibit may not have been the complete Judicial Branch's Letter of Response. I may be blind, but I am not stupid: precisely because I am blind, I am very conscientious with everything I do, and I could have never blundered like that with something so important. I always knew perfectly well that Blaner's allegations were the most obnoxious lie and she was trying to commit fraud. However, I thought I did not want to make a number at the hearing. I reckoned that, if hearing officer Holien would play along with such a fraud, it would be to no avail to stop it; since they would regardless rig the legal procedure any other way. On the other hand, I could take some relief thinking, that Blaner's blatant fraud would give me further ammunition the day that I could get a fair trial. The flaw with my little consolation was that, for good reasons, I have always had serious doubts I would ever be able to get a fair trial: namely, an appeal before the Montana Human Rights Commission? those were the same people I have been dealing with all along, and there was no reason to believe they would be any less corrupt than what they had been until now. Perhaps District Crooks? Remember Judge Townsend or Judge Marks? Then forget it. The Montana Supreme Court? Those are the superiors of the people who were just rigging my complaint, so what are we talking about? The U.S. Supreme Court? They only hear a tiny fraction of the petitions they receive. They are generally only concerned with controversial matters of national relevance, and who is little me to be worth of their consideration? Then, finally, we have the Media, of course: my lovely friends of the Media!, those vigilantes of truthfulness and virtue, those paragons and champions of justice, those virtuous, staunch, incorruptible defenders of the average citizens against the oppression of the tyrant government. But we all know that the Media does not care for this kind of minutiae. Oddily enough, the Media considers the President's lies on his private sex life has a far greater impact on the average citizenship, than the justice system's systematized corruption and crookedness. After all, as the saying goes, it does not make any news if the courts double cross and shred an average citizen to pieces; but only if they ever conduct themselves fairly, justly and honestly.     

 

After all, the Letter of Response's admission, according to which I had informed SHFLC's staff of my complaint for discrimination, did not add much more to the evidence I already had: Shepperd, the author of the letter, - albeit he was now recanting - acknowledged during his deposition having made said admission. Furthermore, as much as Blaner had tried to rewrite it, there was not going around the fact that Vincent had testified: "I remember other interactions where either me or my supervisor informed you we havd received a second complaint", and "...we also had other interactions, after we had received the Human Rights Bureau notification". While it is arguable to what extent those statements were actually accurate, remember that there is no reason to think "why Vincent would have needed to lie or had suffered a selective memory problem"... Finally, if the previous had not been enough, in direct response to Holien, Vincent had once and forever truthfully unequivocally and conclusively clarified the whole matter:

Hearing Officer: "At some point Mr. Bautista informed you of his intends to file a Human Rights complaint?"

Mr. Benlloch: "Yes"

 

Hence, fact of the matter was that, with or without the letter, they had absolutely no case. Shepperd's argument was now that he only hastily wrote the letter in early March 2019 - just 10 - 15 days after first learning about my complaint -, because he felt he needed to reply  as promptly as possible. Given the haste of his response, he carelessly admitted I had informed the SHFLC's staff about my complaint, without first asking his staff for their account, but simply accepting my own account's veracity. This explanation is in itself already odd enough; however, if it had actually been the case, one would expect that he would have corrected his mistake and clarify to the HRB investigator such a crucial issue, as soon as he had found out from his staff. Needless to say, he did not do so, but waited until June, when Willard blew up the case Shepperd had made in his March response. In March Shepperd argued there had been no retaliation, because there had never been any adverse action. But, now in June, Willard was admitting to the HRB investigator that, due to my complaint against them, they would have to limit interactions with me. Shepperd therefore corrected his argument, but he still alleged that in mid-January I told SHFLC staff, that I was filing some complaint in regards to events that took place around my Order of Protection Hearing  (on November 20th 2018):

"x• January 15, 2019 – On or about this date, Mr. Bautista tells Mr. Benlloch and Mr. Willard separately that he has filed a complaint based on his order of protection hearing and the Missoula Center has been implicated in some manner, even though Mr. Benlloch has done an excellent job in assisting Mr. Bautista."

 Shepperd's point here is that, if my complaint was related to events surrounding my order of protection hearing, the SHFLC's staff could have never suspected that the SHFLC was targeted by my complaint. However, not only was the point mistaken, but they did not realize that the correction will in turn contradict the SHFLC third account of Willard's reaction to the news of my complaint. Namely, if Shepperd had first denied any adverse action and Willard had next admitted he had instructed Vincent some fuzzy limitation of interactions with me; at the hearing Willard alleged he had just commanded Vincent to stop providing any assistance to me filling-in my answers on legal forms; but they would still help me with anything else. Crucially, he justified this adverse action based on some concerns he allegedly had, that Vincent may have made some mistake providing precisely this kind of assistance, and this circumstance may have caused my complaint. Yet, if I did tell them that my complaint was related to events surrounding the November 20th order of protection hearing, then my complaint could never have been about the assistance Vincent had provided filling out forms. Much the opposite, it was obviously due to the lack of assistance, because it was well known and established that the SHFLC had only started helping me on December 11th with my dissolution-response form. SHFLC's third account was indeed really far-fetched, since Willard was never able to give any hint of what had led him to believe my complaint originated from some mistake Vincent had made filling out my legal forms, or why is that he never made any attempt to learn what was the reason for my complaint. When I went to the SHFLC in mid-January 2019 - few days after telling Vincent about my complaint - Willard came to speak to me. If Willard had genuinely been concerned that an error in the provision of reasonable disability accommodations had led to my charge, it was certainly as inexplicable as inexcusable, that he did not use that opportunity to ask me and confirm his fears; but, instead, just informed me of his determination. The relevance of the SHFLC's third account's implausibility was that - once a casual connection had been found between my complaint and the adverse action, and, therefore, a prima facie case had been establish - the burden of proof shifted to the SHFLC.     

As a matter of fact, some of their arguments were really Kafkaesque, if not outright nonsensical: Blaner tried to argue that one main reason for Willard's determination to discontinue rendering reasonable disability accommodations to me, was his concern, that it may otherwise damage the relationship between District Court and the SHFLC. According to this awkward reasoning, assuming my complaint had originated from some mistake Vincent could had made filling in my answers on my dissolution response form, if any other such errors had followed, I might have ended up complaining to some District Court judge. Needless to say, the argument in itself gets my blood boiling, since I know for a fact that it is not like, let us say, Judge Townsend or Judge Marks would ever miss a second of sleep thinking about my struggles receiving assistance from the SHFLC; though we all know as well, to what obnoxious degree attorneys love to so very obsequiously demonstrate their adoration for our honorable judges, as a way of indoctrinating us to embrace them us our deities of Justice. Nevertheless, regardless of my personal feelings, The logic of the argument was fantastic!: If Willard had feared I would complain to a judge for a mistake he speculated might had occured in the assistance filling out forms, what had led Willard to think I would need to wait for a second mistake before manifesting my grievance to a judge? Even worse, did not Mr. Willard ever entertain the thought that, when he determined to discontinue assistance filling out forms, he was definitely giving me a real, powerful reason to go protest to a judge about the SHC denial to provide reasonable accommodations? If I had ever dreamed to have them blatantly demonstrate their most absolute disregard for the prejudice that the inability to obtain reasonable disability accommodations causes to a handicapped person; they could have never found any better argument to give themselves away.

    

All things said, it is not surprising that the Judicial Branch's arguments never made any good sense, since they had to work with a really indefensible case. Fact of the matter is that the news of my complaint really upset Willard and his reaction was purely retaliatory. When he approached me upon my arrival to the SHFLC on my last visit in mid-January, he was really furious, and did not blink twice to inform me that I was not welcome there anymore, and they would no longer provide any service to me until the complaint had been resolved. Vincent's testimony offered once again the best evidence to refute the Judicial Branch's third account of Willard's reaction. Willard's deposition came one day after Vincent's. Hence, given what Vincent had testified the day before, it really caught me by surprise to hear Willard allege that he only discontinued physical assistance filling out forms. I therefore really had to ask him, if he thought Vincent had understood his orders. Considering how Willard had praised Vincent as the best of his subordinates, it was only natural that Willard asserted his certainty, that Vincent had understood everything perfectly well. Needless to say, Willard's assertion was in complete discrepancy with Vincent's testimony, since the explanation he had given of his understanding of Willard's instructions was anything but crystal clear:

Benlloch: "It was perhaps difficult for me to assess what I could do to provide services", "wile also not like maybe opening up the center to more consequences" and "I remember that just feeling difficult in my head, perhaps difficult in my head about... what was the.. what to do" 

Clearly, Vincent's confusing words reflect once more the conflict bothering his mind throughout his deposition: He did not want to lie, but neither did he want to give away the people who had trusted him with that job. Prior to the hearing, I had been hopeful, that he would want to take the right side of History; but, from his testimony, I came to conclude that he kept some little resentment against me, which prevented him from doing so: Pretty early in his deposition he pointed out to me, that it had turned out my complaint was not what I had told him on that afternoon in early January 2019, where I went to the SHFLC to talk to him and explain my reasons and motives. During that conversation I had expressed severe criticism against multiple entities in the judicial system. Obviously I had been harshest against Judge Townsend, but I was also unhappy with Clerk of Court's lack of assistance on November 20th. As a matter of fact, I had probably been most understanding towards SHFLC's negligence; yet, it turned out, my complaint was solely against the SHFLC. I think Vincent felt for that reason some kind of betrayal. I wish I could have clarified to him, that the SHFLC was the only target of my complaint, because I simply had not been allowed to include any other party. My complaint had been drafted by the Human-Rights-Bureau (HRB) intake interviewer and, as much as I insisted, she refused to include the Clerk of Court Office. Eventually, I would have to draft and file a separate complaint against Clerk of Court, but Vincent would have obviously never known about it. Ironically enough, if most of my outrage was due to Judge Townsend's partiality, the System just did not give me any option to file any grievances against her. In the U.S. there is a canon of judicial conduct and it is possible to file a complaint against a judge, who violates any of the canon's rules. However, as it is usually the case in today's fake society, these rules of judicial conduct are really only hypocritically concerned with frivolous themes , like, for example, if a judge ever gives away any political preference, or he dares to use judicial letterhead for persanal matters. Judges can otherwise rest assured that the canon will otherwise never get anyone in trouble, for deliberately treating a litigant unfairly. Clearly, our fake-democratic systems require us to embrace Our Honors as judicial deities, who are not susceptible to making mistakes or exhibiting any partiality. 

I often wonder how the hearing would have gone, if Vincent had been aware why the SHFLC was the only target of my Human-Rights complaint. I wonder if he had enjoyed the same freedom in his deposition, and he had been less evasive or more truthful. Remarkably, at the end of his 6-hours deposition, I believed I could perceive he felt a little conflicted, that, perhaps, he had supported the wrong side and wished he had been a bit more straightforward in some of his replies. As it was, if there is one thing I cannot say is that his testimony had been fixed or arranged in some manner. There was no need for that either. Vincent was indeed a really nice man and he could not have fulfilled his role any better. As happy as I may have felt with some of the admissions I was able to extract from him, in the grand scheme of things, it only played into the Judicial Branch's hands. Indeed, Vincent would not lie and was consequently ready to admit that Willard had ordered him to discontinue all services to me. In fact, he did not need me to corner him; but he casually conceded this point in response to Blaner's own query: 

 

Blaner: What did Mr. Willard advised you to do?

Benlloch: "He explained to me, he explained, basically, in his previous legal career, if you have a complained filed or something like that, to not have any subsequent interactions  with the party that complained until the complaint had been resolved and that he was going to apply that logic to this situation"

Undoubtedly, anybody willing to put any attention to all what Vincent had to say, would find an almost perfect match between his testimony and all what I had written more than a year earlier for the HRB investigation. Back then I had asserted that Willard had barred me from the SHFLC. Blaner had hoped that Vincent would contradict it at the hearing; but when she asked him if he understood I had been trespassed from the SHFLC, he replied he did not know how to answer to that question. It was just one more instance where Vincent, confronted with the dilemma between lying and giving his bosses away, will evade the question however possible. When I further asked him, if he would say I was at that time not welcome at the SHC anymore, he once again avoided answering the question and was only able to say that he would not phrase it that way, just because that seemed charged to him.  

  Obviously, I could go on forever, but why bother? At this point everything is clear and we all know what happened, do we not? Of course, Vincent said a lot of stuff, but, at the end of the day, he testified there had not been any discrimination nor retaliation, did he not? Then, there are no more questions, Your Honor.

  

Exactly, just in case hearing officer Holien may have had any doubt, had missed anything or forgotten her role for a moment, in Blaner's Proposed Finding of Fact 106, she made it black-and-white what should be the Hearing Office decision. To ensure that nothing would get lost, the Montana Supreme Court attorney put in the hearing officer's mouth the exact words required to bring the charade to its grand finale:::.  

"106 Bautista’s testimony regarding the events of his first visit to SHFLC on January 15, 2019, is also not credible.  First, his testimony regarding what occurred during that visit is not credible.  This Hearing Officer observed the demeanor of Benlloch, Willard, and Bautista during the hearing in this matter.  This observation included Bautista’s extensive questioning of Benlloch and Willard under oath.  While Benlloch became flustered at times, his testimony was at all times sincere and he remained exceedingly polite and respectful of Bautista.  Willard also remained calm, deliberate, and measured in his responses.  This Hearing Officer does not believe that Benlloch misrepresented his interactions with Bautista on the morning of January 15, nor that he misrepresented Willard’s demeanor.  This Hearing Officer further does not find credible Bautista’s testimony that Willard reacted angrily and informed Bautista that SHFLC would “stop all services.”  This Hearing Officer finds that the events of Bautista’s first visit to SHFLC occurred as Benlloch and Willard described: Benlloch, uncertain as to the specific parameters of the “limits” Willard intended to impose, advised Bautista to speak to Willard, and Willard informed Bautista that SHFLC would not provide him with a desk and Benlloch would not fill out Bautista’s forms until Willard could figure out the specific basis of Bautista’s complaint against SHFLC."

The Montana Supreme Court attorney's dictation so reduced to a single paragraph what had been 4 days of hearing (for a total of 30 hours of depositions) and thousands of pages in statements, briefs and exhibits. At this point it is then worth considering why did we go through all the trouble of the hearing, why did we spent so much energies, resources and time, if we could have just asked the good man. As much as I kept tormenting him with my incessant, mean questioning, Vincent remained at all times exceedingly calm, polite and respectful of me and everybody else . Indeed, the good man was such a nice and fine person, we could be certain that he would have never lied and we could have resolved the whole matter in one minute. Of course, I could always point out that Vincent did admit that I "informed him of my intends to file a Human-Rights complaint", and that Willard's experience advised to avoid any subsequent interaction with me; but now I am getting again argumentative, and that is only indicative of my bad demeanor. In fact, I suspect at this point you should as well feel rather frustrated against me, for having wasted so much of your time going through this endless and really tedious discussion of all the details of my fair hearing. If everything boiled down to what the good man had to say, why did I not just give you in a nutshell what was Vincent's position and save you all the torment? Well, I hope at least it provided some insight of how the justice system works in our ffake-democratic system: If you ever commit any crime; know that as long as you remain calm, polite and respectful, you will be credible and should be acquited. In order for this recipe to work, you may require to hire a high-profile attorney, though. As the saying goes, it is probably not a perfect system, but it is at least better than nothing! I shall say, however, the outcome of the whole drama was utterly disturbing for me; since, for the life of me, I just cannot imagine what more is that I needed to have proved, in order to prevail. It seems to me that, other than having Vincent and Willard unequivocally confess that they discriminated and retaliated against me, there was nothing else I could have been required to show or could have achieved. Let us face it, there was no way I could have ever escaped defeat; unless, perhaps, I had hired a high-profile lawyer, but I seriously doubt a high-profile lawyer would have ever accepted a case against the System.    

Blaner's Proposed Finding of Fact 106 indeed captured the entire essence of the legal horror show they had just produced. It was certainly a sheer grotesque sarcasm to find Blaner using her usual dishonest and contradictory discourse to preach some moral lectures on the value of truthfulness, as she conferred certificates of credibility to her witnesses, and hinted a tad of criticism against me. At the same time that she exalted Vincent's and Willard's honesty and sincerety, she was giving away the mutual contradiction in their respective testimonies: while Vincent had testified that Willard had only ordered some fuzzy limitation of interactions, Willard made it crystal clear that the restriction applied specifically and exclusively to the assistance physically filling out forms. Definitely, only the Montana Supreme Court attorney could square the circle of certifying the perfect truthfulness of both mutually-contradicting accounts. The Montana Supreme Court attorney was, after all, a fountain of truth, and everything which flowed from her lips would be true by definition, regardless of whether it was in sheer contradiction with whatever she asserted right on the previous paragraph. Indeed, just in her Proposed Finding of Fact 98, Blaner had maintained her old account, according to which Vincent had not had a word with me during my first visit to the SHFLC on or about January 15th. But now, in her Proposed Finding of Fact 106, she flippantly changes the narrative to assert, that Vincent had advised me to talk to Willard. Here is the witch shooting a video lecturing on good parenting and children's rights, while Hansel and Gretel appear in the background being roasted inside her oven.

Yes, I could not believe the Montana Supreme Court Attorney's Proposed Findings-of-Fact were so weak and without merit. She just did not have any chance to prevail: her lies and contradictions were so blatant that anybody could see them. There was no way that she would be able to fool the hearing officer. Blaner was even putting words in the hearing officer's mouth. That was rude! Anybody would feel insulted if you are being told a blatant lie and are nest quoted buying it wholesale.

I would say that I was missing the whole point, if it were not because I actually got a hint of what was going on. It just could not be that the Montana Supreme Court attorney was taking the hearing officer for a fool. There needed to be something more to it. Clearly, Blaner would have never taking the liberty of quoting the hearing officer wholesale buying Respondent's counsel self-contradicting statements and defending that kind of crooked arguments; unless she had known it was totally OK to do so. Indeed, a chill ran down my spine as I started coming to terms with the incredibly-scary conclusion that Hearing officer Holien was part of the scheme.     

 

Definitely, the Montana Supreme Court attorney was providing the blueprint of the decision and the hearing officer was going to assume it wholesale. On one hand, the Montana Supreme Court attorney had been working on and elaborating a delusional exonorating narrative , which would form the roadmap of the final's decision's findings of fact. On the other hand, hearing officer Holien's part would be to come up with whatever reasonings she could pretend she had followed in order to settle on the narrative laid down by Respondent's counsel. As it is evident from Blaner's Proposed Finding of Fact 106, Holien's fake arguments would be based on the standard legal principle, that the good men's testimonies had been most absolutely credible, and, consequently, everything the court could remember that they had said was unquestionably true. Conversely, everything the bad man had testified was obviously not credible, unless it suited or could still be somehow manipulated to support the narrative. Needless to say, it is usually not a good idea to apply any law to the letter; but it is always wise to exercise some common sense. For example, if the good man got a bit carried away and testified that he had not realized that a blind person would not be able to read or see anything on a paper form; well... we can just do without that piece of testimony. Otherwise, it will become too obvious that, as nice and fine as the good man was, he was after all not really all that most absolutely truthful. On the other hand, there should never be any concern to promptly and convieniently fabricate any testimony necessary to support those elements of the narrative, which were scripted out of the blue and, therefore no witness could attest to. For instance, if Vincent could not recollect my very-first November 6th visit to the SHFLC, and therefore refrained from outright denying he had declined assistance to me on that date; it would just have been mean to pick on his selective memory. If Vincent had ignored Blaner's directions, and dug in his heels that the literacy agreement had not been introduced to him at his orientation training; there was really no need to make any mention of it. If I had explained my first visit to the SHFLC on the day of the order of protection hearing was irrelevant to my case and I had therefore neglected relating it in my first narration of the sequences of events; then the words 'irrelevant' and 'inexistent' have sufficiently close meanings, that hearing officer Holien is justified to quote me admitting said visit never existed. Blaner had conclusively shown that SHFLC's hours of operation were 8:30am - 12:00pm and 1pm - 4:30pm. She was getting ready to make the case, that the main reason why Vincent had not been able to assist me in the afternoon of December 10th, was that I had arrived late from my appointment with Karlene at the Law Clinic, and there had not been sufficient time before the SHFLC would close for the day. In order to highlight Vincent's "top-notch" work ethics, she then tried at the hearing to have him reproduce SHFLC's hours; but he actually could not remember and had to look it up from SHFLC's website. More of a concern was that Willard - who, at the time of the hearing, had been the boss of the Missoula center for quite a few years - had as well been rather unclear on SHFLC's official closing time. As a matter of fact, it had also been my understanding that the SHFLC regularly closed at 4pm. But, who is the bad man to argue with the SHFLC website what are SHFLC's hours of operation? Instead, in my Post-hearing statements I just mocked the fact that SHFLC's staff were not following SHFLC's official hours, but were everyday leaving for home a minimum of half hour early. Considering that it suited Blaner's case better, if SHFLC's official closing time had been 4pm, it should not come to anybody's surprise, that (hilariously enough) this was the only controversy where I was found to be more credible.

To make a long story short, the decision was not derived from the bottom up, but  produced top down. Based on what way the determination has to go, some narrative is scripted. The crucial part is to resolve how are we going to wash out all those dark spots, which are simply incompatible with the desired target determination. Once this has been settled and we finally have a narrative firmly in place, we can start fitting bits of evidence, authentic or made-up, all along our new retelling, in order to give it a veneer of veracity and credibility. Indeed, hearing officer Holien's administrative final decision is so detailed and blatant, that it could very well be taught in law schools to serve as a model, with which to illustrate how to rig a legal procedure, in order to have the highest-ranking attorney's case prevail. The good-man model is so powerful that it can be applied to just about any case. Furthermore, as Holien's decision shows, since all what is required is someone who makes for a good man and his testimony can always be cut and pasted as much as necessary, it certainly does not even take the brightest bulb in the room to produce a fitting narrative. No matter how we look at it, Blaner's narrative simply does not hold any water, but leaks just like a sieve. We can only argue if Holien's fake reasonings are perhaps any less pathetic. 

For the retaliation charge, Blaner's phantasmagoric retelling contended that I will never again seek assistance from the SHFLC after December 19th 2018, the day where Vincent emails me a MS Word version of the Motion Generic form. If you dare to believe anything I have to say, I (with Vincent's assistance) was going to use said digital form to prepare my motion for an extension of deadlines of my dissolution case. According to Blaner, however, it will be Bonnie at Summit, who will help me with that during the Christmas season and will continue doing so all until late January, when I finally file the motion. Both parties agreed that I visit again the SHFLC sometime in the second week of January (Blaner will date this visit on January 14th for ease of nomenclature). In Blaner's rendition, I come to the SHFLC "after hours" but Vincent is so nice that he lets me in and spends a considerable amount of time attending me. Always according to Blaner, the purpose of my visit is to Ask Vincent for help with Montana Legal Services' Ask Karla website, as well as inquire if he knew of any fathers' rights associations. Blaner further argues that during my visit I go on bitching about my order of protection hearing two months earlier, and tormenting Vincent with an unintelligible amalgamation of various grievances. Among all this confusion, I tell Vincent about the complaint I was in the process of filing; but all what poor Vincent can make out is that I  have filed a complaint against Judge Townsend, her court reporter and Clerk of Court, and the SHC has become implicated somehow. In Blaner's own perverse and stinging words (from her Proposed Finding of Fact 139):

"139 Benlloch testified that Bautista frequently brought up his frustration with the court system and his belief that the District Court had treated him unfairly in the order-of-protection matter.  Bautista demonstrated this fixation in this case, perseverating upon the circumstances with his now ex-wife in spite of frequent reminders during the hearing that this contested case hearing could not relitigate the order-of-protection or dissolution matters.  While it is understandable that Bautista, like many self-represented litigants, does not have a clear understanding of what issues are justiciable, his inability to focus on the relevant issues here illuminates Benlloch’s confusion as to the specific nature of Bautista’s allegations after their January 14, 2019 conversation.  While Bautista’s amalgamation of his various grievances is understandable, Benlloch cannot be faulted for failing to discern a basis for Bautista’s complaint which was never made clear to him, nor could Benlloch have provided context to Willard and Harris that Benlloch did not have."

Here, fundamental to Blaner's case is that - contrary to what Shepperd admitted in his Response to the HRB investigator, and Vincent's actual testimony - Vincent, as alleged by Blaner, could not make out that I was telling him, that I had filed a Human-Rights complaint against the SHFLC. There was, however, no argument that after I leave that afternoon Vincent calls Willard to relate the information I have just provided about my complaint. For reasons nobody has ever been able to even sketch, Willard just assumes that my grievance against the SHFLC is due to some mistake Vincent may have made while assisting me filling in my answers on my dissolution papers. Neither does Blaner's account explain what is the reason for my next visit to the SHFLC on or about January 15th. Regardless, before I could say or do anything, Willard approaches me to inform me of his decision to "limit interactions with me". Both, Blaner and Holien will exhibit a noticeable inclination to remain vague on the specifics of the limitations Willard was going to impose. Only when it came to justify the non-retaliatory motive of said limitations, will they clarify that they meant to discontinue providing reasonable disability accommodations, in the form of assistance physically filling out forms (though they will consistently reject using the term 'reasonable disability accommodations'). Even more ambiguous and incoherent will they be to explain the time span Willard intended to maintain the limitations for: they will interchangeably argue that Willard was going to curtail interactions "until the complaint had been resolved" or "until Willard could ascertain the nature of my complaint", as if both clauses would mean the same, when they clearly do not. Still, Blaner agrees with me that, right after Willard informs me of his decision, I leave the SHFLC with no further discussion. Although, a while later, I come back for the very last time to the SHFLC to get a blank paper copy of the Motion Generic forms. Awkwardly enough, without absolutely any testimony to support it, Blaner argues that Vincent was expecting my return, since, supposedly, at some unspecified time we had agreed that I would stop by to pick up those forms. Even more shocking will be Holien's assertion, according to which Vincent would assist me completing those forms, despite the undisputed fact that after that last visit, we will never see each other again.

The Montana Supreme Court attorney rendered her delusional narrative on her Proposed Findings of Facts document and handed it next to the hearing office for final revision and polishing. Among Holien's most significant and revealing corrections, she obviously needed to erase all traces of Blaner's blunder expressing her incredulity over any conjecture that Vincent may have fell short of his usual work ethics and may have neglected to engage in a discussion with a blind client, which should had led to a kind offer of reasonable disability accommodations. There were definitely better ways to go about and around this kind of issues. On the other hand, Holien conviniently took me up on my remark over SHFLC's official closing time. On the whole, however, despite these minor cosmetic enhancements and touch-ups, the similarity between Blaner's Proposed Findings of Facts and Holien's final version is undeniable. There is no hiding the fact that Holien elaborated her findings of facts exclusively from Blaner's proposed findings of facts and the critique I make of them. My own proposed findings of facts certainly never received any consideration. With the narrative finally firmly in place, all what was left for Holien was to come up with the reasonings, that supposedly she had followed to yield such narrative. One can tell, given the spawn Blaner had generated, how difficult it became to find supporting arguments, other than the standard appeal to the good man's credibility. The reasonings produced by Holien are so ridiculous and nonsensical that it is easy to see they were totally made up in a vacuum. It is certainly difficult to devise any better example to illustrate in a nutshell how to use the good-man's case model to rig a legal procedure than Holien's translation of Blaner's proposed findings of facts 106 and 139:

 

"Bautista’s testimony throughout the hearing was generally exaggerated and he often strayed from the matter at hand.  Bautista is clearly still upset with the order of protection and dissolution proceedings.  Despite being advised several times to focus on the issues raised in his Charge of Discrimination, he continued to focus on the breakdown of his relationship with his estranged wife and the various betrayals he had suffered.  By his own account, he was depressed, anxious, and heartbroken during the period in question.  Given his demeanor at hearing, it is doubtful he was as direct in his dealings with Benlloch as he claimed at hearing. 

Bautista made much of Benlloch’s demeanor and manner of testimony at hearing.  The Hearing Officer agrees Benlloch often appeared confused and nervous at hearing.  Benlloch, however, was able to answer questions when they were asked clearly and directly and faltered only when questions became muddled and circuitous.  Benlloch, overall, appeared to be committed to performing his job duties as an AmeriCorps Service Member to the best of his ability and to provide the best service possible to SHFLC customers.  

Willard’s testimony was clear, direct and described a likely series of events. Willard is not timid, and he did not appear unwilling to question Benlloch and others when he felt it necessary.  If Benlloch had reported to him that a discrimination complaint had been filed, it seems more likely than not Willard would have communicated that when meeting with Harris on January 17, 2019.  As an attorney and admittedly mindful of the potential liability that could arise from Bautista’s complaint, Willard would have understood the importance of apprising Harris of the particulars of Bautista’s complaint in order to allow SHFLC sufficient time to prepare an answer to Bautista’s complaint when called upon to do so.  

Bautista’s testimony that he informed Benlloch that he filed a discrimination complaint with HRB during their conversation on January 14, 2019, is less credible than the testimony of Benlloch, Willard, and Harris, all of whom denied knowing that Bautista had filed a Charge of Discrimination with HRB prior to the email received by Willard on February 25, 2019.  Ex. 117."  

To make a long story short, by the grace of God and the Hearing Officer, the bad man just cannot be saying the truth, and, given his demeanor at the hearing, we have no other alternative than to reasonably conclude that he only has himself to blame for his misfortune and suffering; whereas the good men are so nice and fine that everything they said must have been true and it just cannot be that they may have ever made any mistake, Amen. Here is yet another witch shooting a video lecturing on good parenting and children's rights, while Hansel and Gretel appear in the background being roasted inside her oven. Indeed, Holien Definitely has absolutely no shame: she trashes me for my inability to focus on the matter at hand, at the same time that she completely strays away from the matter at hand and starts elaborating on my emotional state and everybody's psychological profile, character and demeanor.

Adding insult to injury, Holien most shamelessly misrepresents that I kept straying from the issues relevant to the matter at hand and, over and over again, went on crying out loud over "the breakdown of [my] relationship with [my] estranged wife and the various betrayals [I[ had suffered". For crying out loud!, I spent over six hours trying to get an intelligible answer from Vincent, and sure was I knot interested nor hoping to be able to go with him over my marital breakdown or the crookedness of the justice system. There is no denial, however, that - as if it had been part of a preconceived plan - Holien was constantly looking for the flimsiest excuse she could remotely use to machiavellianly argue that the Office of Administrative Hearings did not have jurisdiction over orders of protection, and she could not have Judge Townsend's order relitigated. Particularly, whenever I made any mention of the fact that SHFLC's failure to provide me with reasonable disability accommodations had prevented me from being able to file my evidence for Judge Townsend's order of protection hearing, and how the misconceived and unsounded decision that came out of it had affected my life; Holien was quick to disingenuously point out that she was unable to havd Judge Townsend's order relitigated. However, as much as Holien may think that Children are stupid and she may like to portrayed them and to be seen in such a way, not only are the Children perfectly capable of grasping the difference between an order of protection and a Human-Rights complaint, but, at the time of OAH's hearing, Judge Townsend's order of protection had long expired. Consequently, as difficult as it may be for Holien to figure out, there was nothing to be relitigated in the first place.

   

If it had not been enough for Holien to rip me off and cut me to pieces, adding further injury to the insult, she also gloats over, and does not fall short of vileness to exploit, my sheer grief to ground her cold-blooded sinister plot. Clearly, if you ever fall victim of a crime; in court you should hold up any emotion and expression of grief, or else you will be considered not credible, since, more likely than not you are driven by a misguided thirst for vengeance. Admittedly, on the other hand, your poker face and stoic demeanor at the hearing will then lead the court to determine that you are not entitled to any relief, since you obviously did not suffer any grievance. Yes, you just cannot get it right if you represent yourself in cour, you just need to come to terms with the shortcomings of being a pro-se litigant. Needless to say, the conundrum is quickly resolved, if you hire an attorney. In that case, your legal counsel, knowledgeable of the proper magic words, will advise the court not to call it thirst for vengeance, but retributive justice. That will do, as long as you have the money for an attorney, mind you. If you do not, an attorney may still offer you to take your case, in exchange for a considerable portion of the rewarded relief (say, 20% - 50%). At Harvard, Yale and other elite law schools, law students are taught psychic powers and, once they graduate, they could tell if the witnesses are going to lie, if and who of them the court is going to find credible and, most importantly, that the judge is going to rule in your favor (as long as you hire an attorney, mind you). It may seem unjust that attorneys get a considerable portion of your relief, if they evidently never suffered any grievance, but that is what you pay for magic words and psychic powers.

Yes, the problem is not that my Human-Rights complaint was rigged; but that the justice system is crooked.

Yes, the issue is not if a witness gets emotional and keeps straying from the matter at hand. Rather, the real issue is that the court most absolutely disregards all the evidence offered during the entirety of the hearing, and instead grounds and argues her decision solely from far-fetched, subjective and frivolous psychological analyses of the witnesses characters and demeanors. In the same way that the problem had not been that Blaner had brazingly quoted the hearing officer foolishly buying into the attorney's deceitful and corrupt discourse - but the fact that Blaner had done so, because she knew it was totally cool with Holien -; now, the real reasons for my horror and consternation were not, that the hearing officer was brazingly rigging the legal procedure, but the fact that she knew it was totally OK to do so, nobody would ever see anything wrong about it and there would never be any consequence. In short, the drama and outrage is not that my complaint was rigged, but that the justice system is crooked.

Indeed, hearing officer Holien's malfeasance was so blatant, that it does not take a legal expert to figure out; for that sake, we could just have had a psychologist to adjudicate the matter. How could anybody find credible a witness, who asserts he did not realize that his blind client would not be able to read anything from a printed form? What was the point for Holien to rig my Human-Rights complaint by means of such a legal spawn, if any appellate court was obviously going to turn it down? Perhaps you feel interested in using this story as basis for a series or a film showing the crookedness of the justice system? Considering the Press' passion, delicacy and exquisiteness for corruption cases, I could only imagine the scandal it was naturally going to result once the matter would come to the attention of those champions of the people's rights and democratic virtue and excellence. Now, if hearing officer Holien issued her decision in January 2021, you may wonder how come you have never heard anything about this? What is wrong about all what you have come to believe and hold most holy about our so-called Democracy? Let us be honest, for how long would a journalist be able to keep her job, if she ever suggests to air any story showing how rotten our fake-democratic system is? If you were wealthy enough to be able to produce a movie, what would happened to your PUBLIC IMAGE, fortune and social standing if your film were on any such story?? Or perhaps you believe the System always works well, nicely and smoothly, but Holien, Blaner, Judge Townsend, Judge Marks, Judge Robert M. Holter, the Montana Human Rights Commission, the Montana Judicial Standards Commission and the Montana Supreme Court are just otherwise-unseen exceptions to the virginal rule?

Let there be no doubt about it, in all this logical enigma, the one clause that is most certainly not false is Holien's malfeasance. It really takes a balloon to be fooled by Holien's pathetic arguments. Holien's administrative decision is actually an endless succession of insults and injuries. If it were not because I know for a fact that hearing officer Holien's arguments were fake, I would just go crazy trying to understand what was so incredible about my testimony. Definitely, probably most insulting and injurious was Holien's recurring theme, according to which it just could not be credible that I had ever been able to explain in any intelligible manner, what was the purpose of my visit to the SHFLC. If I had not received reasonable disability accommodations on December 10th, it had been because I had obviously been totally incapable of spelling out to vincent, that I was coming from Karlene's law clinic, because I needed someone to assist me filling in my answers on my dissolution response form. If Willard's reaction to the filing of my complaint could not be considered retaliatory, it is because he could have never known the nature of my grievances, since I had obviously failed miserably in my attempt to communicate this information to Vincent during my long visit to the SHFLC on or about January 14th.    

Specifically, as early as Spring 2019, at the very beginning of my Human-Rights complaint, long before I could have known that the "substance" of my grievance was of any relevance to determine the retaliatory nature of Willard's reaction, I had provided a detailed written account to the HRB investigator on that visit. A few weeks prior to said visit, on December 20th, I had had my intake interview with the Human Rights Bureau (HRB). Consequently, I was in early January under the belief that it would not be long before the HRB contacted the SHFLC regarding my complaint. After a few interactions with Vincent in December, I had established a good relationship with him. Vincent was definitely a nice fellow. I therefore thought I would want him to learn from me that I was filing a complaint against them and what were my reasons to do so. I definitely did not want him to all of a sudden find out from HRB and feel backstabbed by me. I wanted him to know that I did appreciate all his help and kindness in December; but it really had been a huge issue for me the fact that I was not allowed to file my evidence for the November 20th order of protection hearing, because nobody would assist me filling out the stupid 'Notice of Filing' form. I understood it had just been a human error, and anybody could have forgottent there is a literacy form to go around unauthorized-legal-advice liabilities. However, precisely the dramatic consequences I had suffered spoke for the importance of reasonable disability accommodations, and the need of some sort of protocol that would prevent or at least compensate for such human errors. That was the reason why I had filed a Human-Rights complaint for discrimination. I was familiar with the Montana Human Rights Commission and knew I had that option available, because I had already filed a Human-Rights complaint in 2015, and, even earlier, Had also tried to filed another complaint against psycho Ranger Steve Dodd at Glacier NP. I felt bad, though: there has never been any doubt to me, that Vincent was the last person to be held accountable for my grievance. Someone at the top should have understood how important reasonable disability accommodations are for handicapped people, and should have got to work on a protocol, so that this kind of problems would not happen. Clearly those at the top could not care less for the struggles experienced by disabled people, because there was no assistance anywhere in the courthouse. It is a real shame that from all places the judicial system is the one where nothing has been done to address the needs and handicaps of the disabled. There is no worse discrimination than those obstacles confronted in court. How good are your rights if you cannot even stand up for them? It just cannot be that I was not able to obtain reasonable disability accommodations, just because a staff member at the Self-Help Center had forgotten about some literacy form and did otherwise ignore how to go about my problem. It just cannot be that I was not allowed to file my evidence for the order of protection hearing, just because I had not been able to obtain reasonable disability accommodations. No doubt about it, worst of all had been Judge Townsend: she did not even need me to have filed my evidence, in order to take it under consideration; but she just did not want  to hear a word about it: If a woman requests an order of protection against a man, the court grants it by hook or crook. They would argue that, strictly speaking, she did not discriminate against me based on my disability; she was just happy to discriminate against me based on my male gender. It is not just discriminatory, but also outrageous that the System does not allow men to file a complaint for gender-based discrimination, but only women can. As it was, what the System allowed me was to complain  for the denial of reasonable disability accommodations. Clearly it is far more difficult and complicated to combat discrimination against men; but that is not an acceptable excuse for me not to start at least working for disabled people's right to have equal access to the courts.

This was the unintelligible "amalgamation of [my] various grievances" that Blaner talks about in her Proposed Findings of Facts and Holien elaborates furhter upon in her decision. If it were not because I know that her arguments are fake and totally made up, I would not be able to stop wondering, what was so incredible about this account of my visit to the SHFLC on or about January 14th. I had written this description as early as April 2019, more than a year prior to the hearing, long before I could have imagined that the nature of my complaint would have any relevance or long-stretching implication. One month earlier, Shepperd had already admitted in his Response to the HRB investigator that I had informed SHFLC's staff about my "complaint for discrimination". I just had not had any reason to lie or make up the story somehow. Holien would over and over again use the disingenuous argument that SHFLC's staff were credible, because she could not think of any reason why they would need to lie or they would not want to help. Needless to say, she would never apply that same logic to me. If I had said that I had gone to the SHFLC on that day, because I wanted Vincent to learn from me that I had filed a Human-Rights complaint against them - so that he could understand what were the reasons for it -; what was so incredible about me being able to spell out said reasons? It is certainly plausible and understandable that Vincent may have not kept specific details about that conversation (like, for instance, the name of the agency I had filed the complaint with); but he must definitely have understood that my complaint was due to the denial of reasonable disability accommodations. Adding further insult to injury, Holien's actual argument is not that she does not believe that I genuinely attempted to explain the grounds for my complaint; but that it is incredible that I could have ever been capable of spelling out such information in any intelligible manner. It goes without saying that Vincent could never be faulted for being unable to understand my explanation; but only I am to be blamed. In other words, Holien thinks I am stupid or suffer some intellectual deficit. Annoyingly, one recurring trend in Holien's decision is to discredit anything I could had said or done, when not discredit me personally altogether. Her decision is peppered and tainted with little snipes at me, which looked independently appear harmless and innocent, but view as a whole clearly give away and evidence her bias and crooked objective. If Blaner had alleged that my visit had been "after hours", Holien would be sure to point out that I had arrived after the SHFLC had closed for the day, but Vincent had been so nice to still let me in. However, neither Blaner nor Holien would ever clarify if perhaps I had actually arrived before the 4:00pm usual closing time or SHFLC's 4:30pm official closing time, but SHFLC's staff had closed early once again, and that was the reason why Vincent had still let me in. From Holien's deceitful discourse, we learn that the actual motive of my visit had not been to tell Vincent about my complaint, but to bitch about the order of protection. It turns out, two months after said hearing, all of a sudden I feel an irrepressible urge to vent on Vincent my fustration with Judge Townsend. Always according to Holien, I am also anxious to ask Vincent for any organization that may assist me. Still, kind of in passing, I tell Vincent that I have file something, a "complaint, or some variation of that term [as my intellectual deficit obviously leads me to struggle trying to find the word], due to [my] frustrations with the court system". In other words, I am definitely a total imbecile because I do not even know what is my complaint about. A few weeks earlier, - per my charge of discrimination - I had accurately and effectively communicated to the HRB intake interviewer, that my grievance was due to SHFLC's failure to provide me with reasonable disability accommodations. Yet, here I am now telling Vincent that my someting, my complaint (or whatever variation of the term my intellectual deficit allows me to come up with) is due to my frustrations with the court system. This will not be the last of Holien's in this regard, though; since further down Holien will still allege that I had complained about Vincent's assistance filling in my answers on my dissolution response form.

Nevertheless, Holien's indecency climax on this episode is undoubtedly her incredibly shameless assertion, according to which Vincent had denied I informed him about my Human-Rights complaint. As a matter of fact, it had been in response to Holien's own questioning, that Vincent had admitted that I had informed him of my intends to file a Human-Rights complaint:

Hearing Officer: "At some point Mr. Bautista informed you of his intends to file a Human Rights complaint?"

Mr. Benlloch: "Yes"

   

Office of Administrative Hearings Decision: "Benlloch denied Bautista ever told him that he had filed a human rights complaint against SHFLC."  

As shocking as it may seem, Holien's confusion or failure to register Vincent's response is actually easily understandable. It turns out, just like Vincent, Holien also struggled whenever confronted with questions, answers and statements alike, that could only be deemed circuitous, muddled and, all in all, just convoluted.. The precedent was evident: It had certainly only been understandable that Vincent got so totally "confused and nervous" when I asked him a question as circuitous and muddled, as why did he not assist me writing down my answers on my dissolution response form, if Karlene had precisely sent me to him for that kind of help. Definitely, nobody could fault Vincent for faltering and hesitating, as he struggled for as many as 14 minutes arduously trying to decipher my labyrinthine and hieroglyphic question, before he was finally able to crack it and answer directly, that he did not realize that I blind person like myself would need someone to help him writing down his answers on any printed form. If that had been the case for Vincent, how would then anybody make much of Holien's confusion and nervousness, if Vincent could not find any more inteligible way to answer her question than his circuitous and muddled "Yes"?

If there is a precedent to help us explaining Holien's failure to register Vincent's confession; regretably we can only attest that the Hearing Office's administrative decision was not able to resolve the hearing's most supernatural X-file: what mental process did Willard follow in order to reason that my complaint had been due to a mistake Vincent had made while assisting me filling in my answers on my forms? It goes without saying that - despite the fact that OCA's Response to the HRB investigation admitted that I had put SHFLC's staff on notice on my complaint for discrimination, and Willard's powerful reasons to lie - whichever had been Willard's mental process, Holien definitely found most credible everything Willard had to say, since his testimony was clear and direct throughout the hearing. According to Holien, all what is known, all what Vincent was able to make out from my explanation and, consequently, transmit to Willard, was that I had filed a complaint against Judge Townsend, her court reporter, Clerk of Court and the SHFLC. Next thing we hear from Willard is that, abracadabra, he had resolved that my complaint should be due to some mistake Vincent made while completing my legal forms on my behalf. As straightforward as the reasoning is for Holien, she does not provide any explanation of what were Judge Townsend's and her court reporter's role in Vincent's mistake completing my forms.  

The real challenge here for Holien is that, once a casual connection had been found between the filing of my complaint and Willard's adverse action and, consequently, a prima facie of retaliation had been established, the burden had shifted to the SHFLC. In other words, it was not my burden to prove that Willard's alleged concerns were fake; but the SHFLC had to convincingly substantiate their allegation that Willard had genuinely feared my grievance concerned Vincent's assistance filling out my forms and there was no retaliatory animus in Willard's adverse action. Consequently, the SHFLC was likewise going to need to provide a credible explanation for their ever-changing accounts. Indeed, first OCA's Services Director Derek Shepperd had admitted in his response to the HRB investigator that SHFLC's staff had been aware of my complaint for discrimination, but they had never taken any adverse action against me. Three months later, still during the HRB investigation, the SHFLC alleged instead that Willard completely ignored what was my complaint about, and had only advised Vincent to limit interactions with me. We had had to wait one whole year before Willard came at the hearing with his third account, according to which he had been concerned there had been a problem with Vincent's assistance filling out my forms. Admittedly, Holien had a good case to make arguing SHFLC's earlier contradicting accounts were due to the HRB investigator's "circuitous and muddled" inquiries, which had naturally led to their "nervousness and confusion". However, before we could embrace Willard's third account, Holien was still going to need to pull some rabbit out of her hat, in order to explain why Willard never asked either me or Vincent about the actual reason for my complaint, but instead recklessly determined to limit services to me, under the wrong assumption that my grievance was due to some problem in the assistance Vincent had provided. If all that would not be enough, Holien would also have to square the circle of how to reconcile Vincent's and Willard's mutually contradicting testimonies, without breaking the docma of Vincent's and Willard's infallibility, as it divinely derives from their pure, virtuous, saintly and virginal character.

  

At this stage, if there is anything (other than the existence of day and night) that we can hold most absolutely true in this world; it is that there is no mountain high enough for a fake-democratic court, nor rabbit big enough for Holien to pull out of her hat. Holien is definitely going to blow Blaner out of the water: if Blaner had fitted two mutually contradicting paragraph one next to the other within the same document, Holien is going to take the somersault one step further and contradict herself within the same paragraph. Indeed, Holien throws the reader into a catatonic state, as she discusses the "likely series of events" described by Willard at the hearing. The key consideration made by Holien is that Willard is not timid , and he therefore did not appear to be the kind of person who would be "unwilling to question Benlloch and others when he felt it necessary". I have read Holien's decision many times and are so understandably still convalescent of the sequela left by Holien's catatonically mind-blowing argument; but my efforts are slowly finally paying off and I think I am starting to be able to decipher Holien's hieroglyph. Since Willard was calm, clear and direct, it would be just paranoid to suspect he may have lied and we should therefor rest assured, it is true Vincent did not spelled out to him the "substance" of my grievance. However, Holien seems to be raising the intriguing hypothesis that, perhaps, for some unknown circumstance, Vincent may have not seen a reason to mention every single detail of the conversation with me. Admittedly, with any other protagonists, Vincent's supervisor may have felt apprehensive or fidgety about questioning Vincent; however, luckily, Holien got this enigma all figured out and resolved for us: Thanks to her knack for psychological analysis, she could tell that Willard is not timid and was so going to find out. Now, as it turns out, not only is Willard not timid, but (as an attorney in law) he also has psychic powers. Hence, if Vincent had had any insight that my complaint was due to any alleged discrimination, Willard would most definitely have been able to sense it. Indeed, why would Willard have felt any necessity to question Vincent, when he could just use his psychic powers? After all, what is all the fuss if Willard did not feel any necessity, if Willard did not inquire Vincent?, what could have possibly gone wrong?

Finally, if Vincent did not have any insight that my grievance was related to a denial of reasonable disability accommodations, it was only logical to presuppose that my grievance was due to a mistake Vincent had made while completing my legal forms on my behalf. Clearly, If mine had been a complaint for discrimination, I would certainly have been able to spell out such information and Vincent have been sure to retain a crisp mental picture of it. However, conversely, if my grievance had been due to some mistake Vincent made writing down my answers on my forms; more likely than not, I would have only been able to provide an unintelligible amalgamation of my various grievances to Vincent, or, given how little instruction he had received on unauthorized legal advice, he would not have been able to retain a clear concept of the issue. In any event, according to Holien, Willard met and discussed my complaint with Vincent prior to communicating his adverse action to me upon my arrival back to the SHFLC on or about January 15th. We do not know what is really that they talked about during that meeting, but we do know what is that they did not talk about, since Willard admitted at the hearing and Holien confirmed his truthfulness, that he never asked Vincent if he had any insight what was my complaint about (In fact, Vincent recognized at the hearing that I never expressed any dissatisfaction with the help he had provided with my forms; hence, even if Vincent had not been able to keep a clear notion on the nature of my complaint, he could have never given any hint in that sense). More likely than not, this meeting was the occasion where Willard took the opportunity to penetratingly stare Vincent in the eyes, and use his psychic powers to find out what was Vincent's understanding of my grievance. Whatever Willard was able to see, complemented with the information on my complaint's targets relayed by Vincent, led Willard naturally to conclude that the most likely interpretation was that my grievance was due to some mistake Vincent had made writing down my answers on my dissolution response form. It certainly stood to reason to think that Judge Townsend and her court reporter might have advised Vincent on how to transcribe my responses and I had not been happy about how it had turned out. I am not sure, in Willard's mind, what role did Clerk of Court play in my complaint; but we must definitely trust that he got it all to fit nicely.

Holien so established that, given that Willard is not timid, he had not hesitated to question Vincent; but he simply did not feel it necessary, because he just knew that my grievance was due to some mistake Vincent had made while filling my forms out on my behalf. However, while Holien's psychodelic argument sheds some light on Willard's mental process to determine the nature of my grievance, hearing officer Holien still has to meet the burden of proving that Willard did not act motivated by any retaliatory animus, but he genuinely believed Vincent had incorrectly filled in some of my answers on my forms. Holien's strongest argument to believe Willard's third account is that "If Benlloch had reported to him that a discrimination complaint had been filed, it seems more likely than not Willard would have communicated that when meeting with Harris on January 17, 2019. As an attorney and admittedly mindful of the potential liability that could arise from Bautista’s complaint, Willard would have understood the importance of apprising Harris of the particulars of Bautista’s complaint in order to allow SHFLC sufficient time to prepare an answer to Bautista’s complaint when called upon to do so." In other words, as much as I had doubted and made a huge case about it, Holien makes it clear that Willard (mindful of the potential liability that could arise from my complaint) did felt the necessity to find out what was the nature of my grievance)

in order to allow SHFLC sufficient time to prepare an answer to my complaint when called upon to do so. Yet, Harris unequivocally testified that Willard did not advise him during that meeting that mine was a complaint for discrimination. Holien does not say it explicitly, but it goes without saying that SHFLC Program Administrator Harris is a really nice man and his testimony  was also clear and direct. Consequently, given his character, we can definitely rest assured that, had Willard ever told him my grievance had anything to do with any discrimination, despite the potential liability that could arise from my complaint, Harris would most absolutely never have had any reservation, concern nor misgiving to give away his SHFLC comrade and completely debunked SHFLC's third account. As a matter of fact, more likely than not, Willard transmitted instead his insight that my grievance was due to some issue in the assistance Vincent had provided to me with my forms. Here Holien gets a bit intoxicated herself with her deceitful psychodelic argument, given her delirium tremens has me expressing some dissatisfaction with Vincent's help. Well, that never happened, obviously. Neither did anybody ever testified anything of that sort, of course. I may be stupid, but not to the point of ignoring what is my complaint about, and saying that my grievance is about Vincent's assistance, when it is for a completely different reason: namely, the denial of reasonable disability accommodations. Needless to say, given how nice and truthful Vincent, Willard and Harris were, neither could they have ever made a delusional testimony of that sort. As stupid as the children are, we all know the technique: First, Holien explains it was Willard's belief - as unfounded as it was - that my grievance was due to Vincent's assistance with my forms. Next, Holien alleges that "Harris learned Bautista had indicated he was dissatisfied with how SHFLC had assisted him in filling out forms". Then, Holien hammers the point still further - just accidentally, you know -, as she relates that "Harris agreed with Willard that SHFLC could limit filling out forms for a customer who had expressed dissatisfaction with how SHFLC had assisted him in filling out forms". Finally, before the day is over, we all hold most truly that I did complaint about the assistance Vincent had provided filling in my answers on my forms. Still, more likely than not, what Holien means is that during that meeting with Harris Willard reported the results of his exploration. I had made a huge case about Willard's lack of caution neglecting to ask me about the nature of my grievance, before recklessly taking his adverse action. As mindful as he certainly was of the potential liability that could arise from Bautista’s complaint, Willard should have understood the importance of apprising Harris of the particulars of Bautista’s complaint in order to allow SHFLC sufficient time to prepare an answer to Bautista’s complaint when called upon to do so. It was therefore not understandable that he did not even feel the necessity to inquire me, when he approached me upon my arrival back to the SHFLC on or about January 15th. Of course, I was missing all along the whole point: Willard did not ask me, because he preferred to instead use his psychic powers on me. Mindful that if he had asked me I would have only been able to produce an unintelligible amalgamation of my various grievances, he reasonably determined it was better to just read my mind. More likely than not, it is to this reading that Holien makes reference with her allegation that I had expressed dissatisfaction with how SHFLC had assisted me in filling out forms. A different issue - a very unreasonable and misguided one, indeed - is to make such a huge case of Willard's psychic power's unfortunate glitch, misinterpreting that the actual reason for my complaint had been the denial of reasonable disability accommodations, and not any mistake Vincent made assisting me filling out my forms. 

 As much as Holien cleverly omits any explicit mention to it, there is a subtle collateral implication to the argument to find credible SHFLC's allegation, that they were never aware mine was a complaint for discrimination. Back during the HRB investigation, as Newby was exhibiting dreadful signs of leaning towards a finding of retaliation, the SHFLC had desperately argued that they could have never retaliated against the filing of my complaint for discrimination, if they had never known mine was a complaint for discrimination. The basis of the argument is that the law only considers unlawful retaliation if the adverse action is taken in response to the initiation of a protected activity, such as the filing of a Human-Rights complaint. In other words, there is no unlawful retaliation if the adverse action retaliates against any other non-protected activity. As much as my Human-Rights complaint constituted a protected activity,  the kafkaesque argument contended that there could not have been unlawful retaliation if they had been unaware of the protected nature of my activity, but all what they knew was that I had filed "some" complaint against them. The whole point of this contention was to deny a casual connection between the filing of my Human-Rights complaint and Willard's adverse action of curtailing or suspending assistance to me. If they could sell the argument, it meant no prima facie case of retaliation could be established and the burden of proof would not shift to the SHFLC. This was obviously not just important, but imperative, because if it was already doubtful the narrative arguments were ever going to be able to get off the ground, there was definitely no way they could ever meet any burden of proof. 

It should then not come to anybody's surprise that Holien wholeheartedly embraced the idea, that no casual connection could be found between the filing of my complaint and Willard's adverse action, if he had ignored mine was a complaint for discrimination. Evidently, Holien was desperate for any subterfuge she could use to get the job done. However, understandably enough, Holien was sure to omit going through the specifics of the reasoning. Clearly, given how corrupt the arguments were, it had only been counterproductive to elaborate on them. That was certainly not the strategy, but they were instead going to sprinkle the final decision with little deceitful but innocent-looking brushstrokes all over. In fact, They did not spare any detail, but rigged everything they could get their hands on. Like a thin rain, theirs was a systematic, pervasive and deliberate effort to fix every bit of evidence and ply every imaginable argument, in order to embellish their crooked narrative as best as they could. They so extended their deceptive verneer of correctness all throughout the decision. It seems to me, however, the effort eventually became equally counterproductive, if not even more. Since every single bit of the decision was tainted with deceit, the bias was as subtle as undeniable: it just could not be that they were all little accidental errors. In all honesty, however, I need to admit I am not sure I had known how to do any better with a case as hopeless as they had.

Fact of the matter was Holien had nothing to base her case upon, she would just have to build it out of thin air. Even if she could sell that Willard had ignored mine was a complaint for discrimination, but had genuinely believed it was related to Vincent's assistance filling out my forms; Willard's adverse action still required a non-retaliatory explanation. Much to her regret, however, SHFLC's account of what had been Willard's adverse action had shifted as many times as their account of their understanding of my complaint's substance. 

As Vincent admitted at the hearing, fact of the matter was that Willard's reasoning had been to follow what he had learned in his previous legal career: namely confronted with any complaint it was best "to not have any subsequent interactions  with the party that complained until the complaint had been resolved." Yet, SHFLC's official explanations have obviously been significantly different: Firstly, at the beginning of the HRB investigation, the SHFLC had denied any adverse action against me. Those were the days where the SHFLC was recognizing I had informed them that I was filing a complaint for discrimination. However, a few months later, Willard, self-assured by the experience he had accumulated during his previous legal career and consequently confident that he had done the right thing, openly admitted to the HRB investigator, that he had cut services to me until my complaint had been resolved. That is when all alarms went off and the SHFLC had to quickly correct Willard's words and clarify he had only meant some vague limitation of interactions, but that it had actually never had any real effect, since I had never requested any further assistance anyway. Per Blaner's pre-hearing documents, this appeared to have remained SHFLC's position until the beginning of the hearing. But, when Willard's turn to testify came, it became evident they had been working on a refined account of his adverse action: namely, Willard had been concerned Vincent had made some errar transcribing my answers on my forms, and had therefore instructed Vincent to stop providing that specific form of assistance, until Willard could ascertain what had been the issue and put in place any measure to prevent it from happening again.

If it had really been that way, then Willard's adverse action had not been retaliatory. The problem was that, fake as the explanation was, other than nothing there was absolutely nothing to support such explanation. First and foremost, Willard had never done anything to ascertain what had been the issue. Not only had he not asked either Vincent nor me, but then he had gone to sit on his rear for more than a month to wait for the HRB inquire to arrive. So mmuch for Willard's mindfulness of the potential liability that could arise from Bautista’s complaint. Clearly, if Willard had ever had any interest in identifying the issue and correcting whatever Vincent was doing wrong; he was going to have to learn it from the horse's mouth, and HRB was certainly never going to be the right source for that kind of feedback. Undeniably, as Vincent and Willard had given away in their testimonies, whatever Willard's adverse action had been, he had intended to maintain it until my complaint had been resolved. Evidently, Holien was never going to be able to ply any elaborated argument to meet any burden of proof. Rather, all what she could do is to produce a whole bunch of brushstrokes. 

Holien's main challenge in this particular case was how to reconcile the contradictions between SHFLC's second and third accounts: namely, had Willard just vaguely limited interactions or had he specifically discontinued Vincent's assistance filling out my forms? Had Willard planned to sustain his adverse action until the complaint had been resolved, or only until he could ascertain the substance of my complaint?

In order to achieve her goal, Holien cleverly crafted the language of her decision to subtly blur the distinction between both accounts. She would so made interchangeable references to both explanations, in order to produce the illusion that they were basically the same. Holien will sometimes explain that Willard had meant to maintain his adverse action until  the complaint had been resolved, and some other times only until he could ascertain the substance of my complaint. Similarly, sometimes she alleged Willard had determined to limit services and some other times he had specifically curtailed assistance filling out my forms. Yet, above all others, Holien's favorite formula seems to have been to assert that Willard had decided to limit interactions until he could ascertain the nature of my complaint. Furthermore, Holien would not just pick randomly what reference to use at some given time. Rather, she was clever than that: She would mostly talk about Willard having determined to limit assistance to me until my complaint had been resolved; but when it came to argue that Willard's adverse action had not been retaliatory, she was certain to specify  Willard had only wanted to suspend "SHFLC's special assistance filling out my forms until he could ascertain the substance of my complaint: "Willard’s intention was not to retaliate against Bautista, but, rather, take the time to ascertain the precise nature of his complaint and to correct whatever issues Bautista may have experienced when working with SHFLC staff." Interestingly, Holien would at all times delicately ply her language to ensure that she never ever makes any mention that Willard had discontinued providing reasonable disability accommodations to me: SHFLC's staff had been so kind and attentive to help me with 'additional services', 'assistance beyond the scope of SHFLC's regular services', 'special assistance', etc., but never the type of 'reasonable disability accommodations' required by law.   

Holien could find ways to defend SHFLC's account from my attacks and argue that Willard's words were not totally incredible; but, when it came to explaining why the account was really credible, she just had nothing. She was so desperate for any argument that she would not even want to spare Blaner's crooked phantasmagoria, according to which Willard's adverse action had been partially motivated by his fears that some issues may arise with District Court, if they learned that Vincent's assistance had not been satisfactory. As I had already pointed out in my Response to Blaner, the argument not only did not fly, but was just kaput; since the cure was certainly worse than the disease: if they denied me reasonable disability accommodations, I was definitely going to have a powerful reason to complain and make a huge issue about it. Holien could therefore not elaborate on it, but she could still apply one more brushstroke and note: "Willard was concerned that Benlloch had made a mistake when completing one of Bautista’s forms and wanted to determine what precisely had occurred. Willard was fearful SHFLC may be liable for any error made by its staff, which could lead to issues with OCA, the District Court, and the Clerk of Court’s office." 

 Understandably enough, playing with her language and alleging fears towards some abstract issues, must have felt rather unsubstantial and unsatisfying to Holien, that she is going for the backflip. Yes, Holien is about to knock us most absolutely stupefied with her ultimate acrobatic feat. Again, I think it was really counterproductive, because it just does not accomplish anything but to conclusively give away her crooked motive. Literally, you need to be a total balloon, in order to be fooled by Holien's ultimate argument. The mere mention of it can only feel infuriatingly insulting. If Holien has not yet been able to convince you, that Willard did not act motivated by any retaliatory animus, all your doubts will get immediately disipated once you learn that Vincent was not disciplined for supplying me with some blank paper forms, on my second visit to the SHFLC on or about January 15th (the day Willard notified me of his adverse action).   

  

"Willard testified he initially believed Benlloch had made an error when completing a court form with Bautista. Willard testified his instinct was to limit interactions with Bautista while he attempted to determine the exact nature of Bautista’s complaint.  Again, Willard’s testimony was clear and direct.  It seems unlikely Willard was motivated by any retaliatory animus when he decided to “curtail” services to Bautista, given Benlloch was never disciplined for providing forms to Bautista later that same day."

On or about January 15th, 2019, I went back to the SHFLC hoping to get Vincent's assistance with the motion for extension of deadlines I had been planning on filing for my dissolution case. A few weeks earlier, on December 19th, I had asked him about it and we had agreed that I would type my answers and the body of the affidavit on my laptop, and he would help me pasting my snippets of text on a MS Word version of the motion generic form. During the Christmas season I had been working on my draft, and I was finally ready to get everything pasted on the digital form. However, as I entered into the SHFLC on or about January 15th, I was surprised by Vincent's approach to tell me that he could not talk to me, but Willard would. Indeed, Willard followed next to angrily express his disbelief that I had filed a complaint against them, after all what they had done to help me. He then informed me of his decision to discontinue all services to me until my complaint had been resolved, as well as let me know that I was not welcome at the SHFLC anymore. I so turned around and left the center rather depressed. 

My first thought went to how and where was I going to get assistance completing my motion for extension of deadlines. My first idea was to go to the Clerk of Court's Office and ask if they had any suggestion. At Clerk of Court I spoke with Ruth. I explained to her what had just happened at the SHFLC: Willard had told me they would not provide any services to me anymore, and now I was looking for some other place where I could get reasonable disability accommodations. After consulting with her supervisor, Ruth gave me the contact information of Western Montana Legal Services Association. But, other than that, she could not suggest anything else. Somewhat later it came to my mind that I did not have any paper copy of the motion forms, but only a digital version. I reckoned it might be harder to get help with the digital form than with a paper copy, and therefore concluded it would be a good idea to get a motion-forms bundle from the SHFLC. I realized Willard had just made it clear I was not welcom at the SHFLC, but I thought it would be too much if they would even deny me some paper forms. Vincent, in fact, protested when he saw me. He did not understand why was I coming back, after I had been told bluntly that I should not. He felt I was putting him in a very difficult position. I clarified, though; I was just coming for some forms. Vincent recognized there was no sensible reason to deny me some forms, and therefore agreed to go get me a copy. As soon as he handed it to me, I left the SHFLC for good.

It appears Vincent was not disciplined for his response. Holien therefore contends that if Vincent did not get flogged for handing me those blank paper forms, it is conclusive evidence that my account is false, Willard never barred me from the SHFLC and, most importantly, his adverse action did not have a retaliatory motive. Until now, as much as you knew that Willard is not timid and his testimony had been clear and direct, you have inexplicably remained unconvinced and stubbornly refused to wholeheartedly embrace the unquestionable truthfulness of Willard's account. But now that Holien has explained Willard did not disciplined Vincent for supplying me with some forms when I visited the SHFLC for a second time on or about January 15th, you have finally seen the light and all your doubts have cleared. Evidently, if by any chance Willard had lied and falsely alleged that he had only discontinued Vincent's assistance filling out my forms (because he was genuinely concerned Vincent was not doing it correctly); undoubtedly, Willard is stupid enough that he had immediately given himself away revealing that he had to disciplined Vincent for disobeying his instructions to stop all services to me. Yes, it turns out, for Holien it is a given that Willard is a total fool. Or, perhaps, more likely than not, for Holien it is a given that you are a total fool and will be stupid enough to give any value to such a ridiculous argument. Evidently, there is no way around it, for the servants of power it is a given that the children are total fools and will always be stupid enough to wholeheartedly embrace any fairy tale they may fancy to come up with. Yet, as stupid as Holien thinks the children are, she may want to consider if she is really any smarter, because her reasonings are certainly as lacking as pitiful.  

As a matter of fact, Holien's argument is totally meaningless: it just does not add anything, because it is even most absolutely irrelevant whether Vincent was disciplined or not. As an attorney and admittedly mindful of the potential liability that could arise from Bautista’s complaint, - regardless of what exactly his adverse action had been - Willard should have been able to understand it had only been stupid of Vincent to follow the instructions to the letter, take matters to the limit and deny me some insignificant blank paper forms. Holien, my dear, if Vincent had done what was smartest, why on Earth would Willard have wanted to discipline him?

I really cannot make much sense of why Holien finds it so remarkable that Vincent was not reprimanded for providing those forms; particularly if she next asserts: "Benlloch had anticipated Bautista would return based upon an earlier agreement that he would obtain paper copies of the forms being completed by Bautista." This is one other little X-file which resulted from the hearing: namely, who on Earth (other than Blaner, that is) ever testified that Vincent and I ever came to any such agreement? Because certainly neither Vincent nor me ever said anything of that sort, since it just never happened. It seems like Blaner had got it into her head to make such an allegation, and I suppose it is not like you can just say 'No' to the Supreme Court attorney. Thus, Holien incorporated it onto her decision. But I do not even see what good does it do to their narrative. Most of the mystery is when exactly did Vincent and I came up with such agreement; because it goes without saying that neither Blaner nor Holien ever clarified this point. Since it was undisputed that we did not have any contact during the Christmas season, said agreement must date back to December 19th, the latest. But then the obvious question that follows next is, if Vincent had agreed to provide those forms, why did he not do so on or about January 14th, during our long private conversation "after hours" inside the SHFLC? Even more intriguing, why did he not give me those forms during my first visit to the SHFLC on or about January 15th? His failure to provide me with those papers actually fits nicely with my account, since I alleged that during that first visit Vincent had told me he was not allowed to talk with me, and Willard had next informed me the SHFLC would stop all services to me. It, however, does not make much sense with their account: If Willard had only determined to suspend assistance filling out forms, and Vincent had been expecting me to come pick up the motion forms bundle; why did he not do it then?  

That motion bundle actually has a whole story on its own. As a matter of fact, it was the SHFLC who brought it up during the HRB investigation. They really thought they had got into something. They contended if I had returned to the SHFLC for a second visit, it could not have been that Willard had told me I was not welcome at the SHFLC anymore. The argument admittedly made some sort of sense; but it definitely was far from flawless. In fact, when it came (for example) to the question of my request of reasonable disability accommodations for the November 20th order of protection hearing, they would use the same argument to claim exactly the opposite. How reliable is an argument, if you can apply it both ways? During my first visit on or about January 15th, Willard had made it clear I was not welcome there anymore, but it was just wrong that they would deny me some forms; it certainly was not going to hurt to try. In fact, it was good I did, because, eventually they would also argue Willard's adverse action had no real effect and I was not entitled to any relief, since they had never denied any request for assistance. Fact of the matter was SHFLC's contention had brought me to think about the whole issue, and it was not long before I began finding contradictions in all what they were saying. They had actually opened a whole can of worms. I was going to have to ask Vincent about those forms at the hearing. Back then they were still alleging Willard had only advised a vague limitation of interactions; but those blank paper motion forms proved that, at a minimum, Willard had discontinued reasonable disability accommodations to me: Clearly, if I am blind, there was no way I would be able to complete them by myself, and Vincent was very well aware of that, since, one month earlier, on December 11th, he had had me sign the literacy agreement, where I had stated that, due to my disability, I needed somebody's assistance filling out my legal forms. In other words, if, on or about January 15th, he gave me a blank paper copy of the motion forms to take with me, he must have understood that somebody - other than him - would have to assist me with them. Obviously, for my reasoning to be effective, we all need to share a clear understanding that I am blind and cannot read or see anything on a paper form. Yes, you got it right, we have come to the glorious climax of Vincent's virginal credibility. Indeed, for the good man's credibility it was not enough to say that - despite my blind cane - he did not realize right on our first day I was blind. Rather, on the day of our very last meeting, more than a month after he had had me sign the literacy agreement, he was still unaware that I could not read or see anything on a printed form. 

Yes, I admit, I made much of Vincent's truthfulness and relentless reluctance to address questions; but Holien clarified it was not reasonable to make much of Benlloch’s demeanor and manner of testimony at hearing, if my questions had been so circuitous and muddled. I had also thought I had found a goldmine with those forms; but it was all to no avail. There were always going to come up with some explanation: true or false, by hook or crook. In fact, here was Blaner to explain that I had long made arrangements at Summit Independent Living Center to have Bonnie help me with my motion for extension of deadlines. I could now finally see what had been all that insistance alleging Bonnie had assisted me with the motion during the Christmas season. Now I could make sense of why Clasby was so assertive at the hearing - as opposed to all the misgivings he expressed to me during our meeting - arguing Summit had most definitely always been happy offering me assistance filling out my forms. Thankfully, I could again bring up the motion papers to debunk Blaner's account. Indeed, Bonnie did remember at the hearing that I had had a paper copy of the motion forms with me. My motion had been a rather challenging task for her, and what had stressed her out the most had been to find some notes on the paper version, which were missing on the digital version we were working on. Now, if I had only got that paper copy from Vincent on or about January 15th, it could not have been that Bonnie had been assisting me with those forms 2 - 3 weeks earlier. Well... it could not be for anybody, but for Holien. Who said there is mountain high enough for Holien? Ironically, Bonnie, having been by far the most truthful of all witnesses, was the only one who Holien did not believe wholeheartedly. I suppose she did not sound as calm and direct to Holien, but had been innocent and unsuspecting enough to trust that Clasby's tip had been honest and correct. Coincidentally, Clasby's hearsay was the only part of Bonnie's testimony that Holien considered credible. Indeed, come hell or high water, Holien, always relentlessly undeterred by any rational and objective analysis of the evidence, accepted Blaner's account: Bonnie had started assisting me during the Christmas season and God knows why did I wait for mid- January to get a motion bundle from the SHFLC; after all, Holien had enough explaining why and how the SHFLC had done what they had not done, and why and how the SHFLC had not done what they had done, that she would also have to account for every single one of my actions.

  More shocking was Holien impossible assertion that Vincent also assisted me with my motion for extension of deadlines. I need to admit sometimes I find myself out of words for Holien. Sometimes I just cannot see any way to interpret her actions. Sometimes I am just totally at a loss about what is that she is trying to accomplish. All forces of the Universe speak against any possibility that Vincent may have helped me with my motion: Everybody (including Holien) agreed I never returned to the SHFLC after Vincent gave me the blank forms on my second visit on or about January 15th. Bonnie printed the completed digital form and Vincent admitted there is not any handwriting of his on the filed motion. Moreover, Holien herself had accepted SHFLC's third account - as bogus as it certainly was -, according to which Willard had forbidden Vincent from providing me with reasonable disability accommodations. Hence, if Vincent had indeed assisted me with that motion, not only it would have been against Willard's directions, but it would also speak against the credibility of the account itself. In other words, other than proving her malfaesance, I just cannot find any sensible reason why Holien made such assertion. It seems to me the only possible explanation is that Holien simply had no concern nor shame. She definitely did not have any concern that anybody would ever read my Proposed Findings of Fact document, where I showed what had actually happened and how the evidence supported all of it. She definitely had no concern anybody would ever check my Response to Blaner's Proposed Findings of Fact, where I completely debunked their narrative, as it was totally contradicted by all the evidence. She most absolutely had no concern that anybody would ever even take a glimpse to the transcripts or the rest of the evidence, in order to confirm if the witnesses had actually testified or had not testified what she represented and mostly misrepresented they had testified or not testified. Consequently, if nobody was ever going to check the correctness of her statements, she had no shame to lie as much as necessary, in order to establish their narrative and see the System exonerated. Her job was to produce a beautiful and enjoyable rendition based on a true story, but any similarity with the reality would be just a pure coincidence. It did not have to be accurate or correct, as long as it was not outright incredible. Consequently, if by any chance anybody would ever consider, that Willard's adverse action to discontinue reasonable disability accommodations had not been acceptable; she could argue it really never took effect, since Vincent assisted me with the motion regardless. Obviously, at this point nobody would ever have the time or interest to double-check, whether the evidence really supported in any way, that Vincent had indeed provided said assistance. As we all know, as long as the movie has a happy ending, as long as the good man comes out victorious and the bad man gets defeated, we are all happy to buy into it.

We all wanted a happy ending, and a happy ending Holien will render indeed. We are about to watch the climactic moment where Holien delivers the final blow to the most abominable of the bad man's demons: namely, the retaliation charge. Holien had already knock out the charge of discrimination on November 6th, so all what there would be left are the charges of discrimination on November 20th and December 10th. Once she had finished presenting the wonders of her narrative, she could have elaborated a bit on all the faults and flaws of my Proposed Findings of Fact, and extended my agony a little further trashing one by one all my misguided attemps to discredit the true revealed narrative. Instead, she simply resolved to put me out of my misery, because, after all, I had very little to offer against said revealed truth. 

  

"Bautista offered little by way of credible evidence to discredit the testimony of

SHFLC’s witnesses or otherwise show the reasons proffered for “curtailing” services to Bautista was pretext for retaliation.  Bautista has failed in his burden of persuading the Hearing Officer that SHFLC retaliated against him for protected activity."  

Since Holien had determined Willard's reaction to my complaint had been legitimate and non-retaliatory, she now expected me to demonstrate  any "weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions" in the legitimate reasons proffered by SHFLC. At this point you may feel tired of my tedious and neverending revision of Holien's decision, but are still able to believe that I did not really point out to her any weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions. Perhaps, you think my contentions bear such little value or merit, that they simply were not even worth mentioning, let alone going through. Fact of the matter is, just for my Response to Blaner's Proposed Findings of Fact, I worked the entire day, day after day, for almost a month. It is incredibly frustrating that, after making such an effort, your work is not just disregarded, but not even acknowledged. I wish Holien had ever explained how it was possible that Vincent and Willard had contradicted each other on what had been Willard's adverse action, but she would still consider both of them unequivocally truthful. I wish Holien had ever said anything on how she could give any credibility to Willard's third account (whereby he had discontinued my reasonable disability accommodations, but only until he could find out what was my complaint about), if he not only had never done anything, but had actually passed on any chance to find out what was my complaint about. I wish Holien had ever clarified why she had completely disregarded OCA's letter, where Services Director Derek Shepperd admitted I had informed SHFLC staff about the filing of my complaint for discrimination. Fact of the matter is Holien never even had the decency to provide an explanation for why she determined Shepperd's letter was inadmissible. Blaner had argued the letter constituted hearsay, based on some odd interpretation of what hearsay is supposed to mean. Following her own argument, my rebuttal and all other responses I had likewise written for the HRB investigation would be hearsay as well; but those should be still admitted for the limited purpose of impeachment. Consequently, I had obviously contended that Shepperd's letter should be admitted if only for the limited purpose of impeachment. It should then be easy for anybody to guess that Holien's determination would be as clever as shameless: she deemed inadmissible all responses written by both parties for the HRB investigation; but those authored by me should still be admitted for the limited purpose of impeachment.

 I had literally worked my fingers to the bone to meet my burden of proof; yet it turned out I had failed in my burden of persuading the Hearing Officer. Apparently, I had been expected to penetratingly stare the Hearing Officer in the eyes and prove my hypnotic powers by knocking her into a trance. It goes without saying that, if that was the deal and it all boiled down to witchcraft, I had never stood a chance, since Willard's psychic powers were obviously always going to carry the day for the System.

It just so happened that I had been told there was the Law and the rules were exactly the same for everybody. I could not just say that the SHFLC had retaliated against me and expect the hearing officer to simply take my words at face value. It is not a matter of very vividly illustrating how angry Willard was when he learned about my complaint, and subsequently told me he would stop all services to me until my complaint had been resolved. Rather, the law sets very specific requirements on what constitutes unlawful discrimination and unlawful retaliation. Furthermore, for each requirement there is a fixed criteria to determine if the condition has been met or not. The whole point is, or so the story goes, that no room is left to subjectivity to ensure the rules are the same for everybody and what is deemed unlawful retaliation for one individual is likewise deemed unlawful retaliation for any other individual, and vice versa. Indeed, according to the law, in order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation I had to prove: 1) I had engaged in a protected activity. 2) I had been subjected to a significant adverse action and... 3) There was a casual connection between my engagement in the protected activity and the adverse action. Fact of the matter was that before I could even start staring the hearing officer in the eyes, the prima facie case had already been established. Indeed, I had filed a Human-Rights complaint, it was undisputed that Willard had subjected me to a significant adverse action, and it was likewise undisputed that Willard's adverse action had been in reaction to the news of the filing of my Human-Rights complaint. Consequently, once the prima facie of retaliation had been established, the burden shifted to the System and it was therefore the System's turn to stare the hearing officer in the eyes. It goes without saying it certainly must have been a really scary experience for the hearing officer.

 It then so happens that all those rules, requirements, criteria and legal paraphernelia alike are only meant to throw the children through the cracks, in order to restrict to the professionals any argument on what constitutes a lawful conduct or an unlawful conduct. It goes without saying that, since only attorneys have a proficient command on all these esoteric legal trappings, no child will ever stand a chance to prevail in court. This is so much so that every rule in the law will always have one little clause at the end, where the final decision is left to the court's (subjective) discretion. It goes without saying that this is the time where the highest-ranking attorney will penetratingly stare the court in the eyes and take care of meeting the critical burden of persuasion. To make a long story short, the way the justice system works in our fake-democratic regimes, if you do not have the money to hire the highest-ranking attorney, you are kaput.

It turns out, it is as easy to rig a legal procedure as to script a movie. The film producer provides at the beginning the choice of good guys and bad guys. The scripter then takes it from there with the only obligation that at the end of the movie the good men come out on top and the bad men get badly beaten. Needless to say, all along the good guys will be scoring hits, whereas the bad guys faults will be blown up to a grotesque. If the scripter does not find enough blemishes in the bad guys, they will be conveniently made up; whereas any faults the good guys may have committed should by all means be omitted. Conversely, if the bad guys ever make a valid point, the scripter will first look for any possible way to manipulate and misrepresent the argument, so that it loses all merit and becomes easy to trash. Still, if there is not really any good way to manipulate the bad guys' hits, they will be simply omitted altogether and all what the audience will ever be told is that the bad guys never pointed out any weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions. To make a long story short, as we already knew from the start, the bad guys' case had no merit and, at the end of the movie we will therefore all be happy to see the good guys come out victorious and the bad guys get trashed.

  At the end of the day, there was no going around the fact that they had played me for a fool, and I had been totally taken for a ride: I never stood a chance. By the time it was over, I had worked on the issue day after day for several months, and evidently it had been nothing but an absolute waste of time and energies; since it was clearly set from the start, that the System would come out on top and I would be badly beaten. At the end of the day, justice had been served and insult was added to injury.

Around the time the Montana Human-Rights Commission dismissed my complaint, I came across CBS 60-Minutes show on the People v. Turner sexual assault case. In January 2015, Chanel was a 22-year-old young woman who attended a party at a fraternity house on Stanford University campus. Her sister was back home for a visit and they both wanted to have a good time. At the party, Chanell  danced, drank, danced some more and drank some more until she could not remember anything anymore. As she was totally intoxicated, an 19-year-old Stanford student athlete took advantage of her state, led her out of the fraternity house and assaulted her sexually. Yet, before Turner could rape Chanel, he was caught by two Swedish graduate students, who pinned him down until police arrived. Chanel had abrasions all over her body and was taken to the hospital, where she finally woke up around 4am. The case was put on jury trial the following year and Turner was found guilty of sexual assault and digital penetration. Apparently no evidence was found that he had raped Chanel, but he only had time to penetrate her with his fingers. Albeit the prosecutors had recommended a 6-year prison sentence, Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to just six months in the Santa Clara County jail, followed by three years of probation. In addition, Turner would be registered as a sex offender for the rest of his life. 

Chanel was understandably disappointed by the little incarceration time imposed by the judge. At the 60-Minutes' interview, she explained she had put a lot of time and energy on the case and complained it was really not fair to only obtain six months jail-time for Turner, after she had made such an effort. Immediately after learning about the judge's sentence, Chanel set out to write a victim impact statement, where she very vividly expressed the devastating effects Turner had on her life. I am not sure to what extent she said it explicitly, but it seems to me it must have been most hurtful to read the reactions and comments of the majority of the people to the news of her sexual assault. At the interview, she did explain how shocking and devastating it had been to find herself the target of most people's scorn. She had been the victim of a sexual assault, she had just come out from the hospital, and yet she was being criticized far more severely than her sexual abuser. It was undoubtedly really unfair and cruel, and it must have hurt very deeply. Apparently most people contended she had been basically looking for it, so she now did not have a point complaining. We are all familiar with the reasoning: "We all know what goes on in those wild parties at elite schools' fraternity homes. If a girl goes to any such party and gets stupidly drunk, she should not be surprised if she ends up being sexually abused." While the reasoning is logical, it certainly does not legitimize any man to sexually abuse any woman who acts so imprudently. Furthermore, as Chanel pointed out very correctly, it is really mean to contend she deserved to be assaulted, just because she did not act judiciously.. On the other hand, I find it difficult to imagine that anybody could be vile and despicable enough to actually say anything of that sort. The way I see it, having been sexually assaulted, Chanel already paid an exorbitant price for her inprudence, and any judgement for her conduct should therefore be kept for her and her alone: in other words, no one has the right to add any more injury or insult to her injury. On the other hand, I also believe the society's judgement of Turner's actions should likewise be kept separate from his victim's suffering. I most definitely understand six months of jail-time must feel to Chanel very little compared to all what she went through. I think it is natural for anybody to demand not only justice, but also some reasonable relation between the suffering we may have been subjected to and the crime's penalty. However, I also consider it is important to keep in mind that increasing the sentence would generally not reduce the distress felt by the victim, or we would start transitioning from justice to vengeance. Furthermore, the reasoning seems double-edged to me and should therefore be used with caution, because it could eventually be applied the other way around to attack the sexual-assault victim. The way I see it, the more merit we give to the argument, that the sexual offender should have known how much emotional distress he was going to cause; the more merit gains the argument, that the victim should have been more mindful of the suffering she may become subjected to if she acts inprudently.

However, it seems like I find myself once more in the minority, because Chanel's victim impact statement was most definitely a success. The full statement was initially published by Palo Alto Online and BuzzFeed, and went viral immediately. U.S. Media soon picked up the story and massively expanded its dissemination and impact. Indeed, Chanel's victim impact statement got the interest and received considerable attention from media outlets as powerful as The Washington Post, CBS News, Los Angeles Times, CNN, Time, The Mercury News, Cosmopolitan and the UK's The Guardian (U.S. Media likes to say that the news went all around the globe, but that is essentially false; yet the national impact was as formidable as unquestionable). From there it all came rolling: Soon enough Chanel's "Words From a Sexual Assault Survivor to Her Attacker was read at the United States House of Representatives by a bipartisan group of 18 members of the United States Congress. The snowball kept growing and, just three months after Chanel's victim impact statement, the California State Legislature passed two bills changing California state law on sexual assault; albeit, Confusingly enough, I do not think other states enacted similar changes on sexual assault legislation. Judge Persky could not escape the wave of outrage: Within days after his sentence and Chanel's victim impact statement a campaign seeking his removal was initiated. Professor Michele Dauber, of the Stanford Law School and longtime advocate on campus sexual assault (who is also a family friend of the victim) led the Committee to Recall Judge Persky. Despite the widespread agreement among legal experts that Judge Persky had applied the law correctly and there were no apparent grounds for impeachment or allegations of judicial misconduct, the campaign against him eventually succeeded and Judge Persky became in June 2018 the first judge to be recalled by voters in California in 86 years and the first in the United States since 1977. In reaction to the election results, Professor Dauber stated: "The vote today ... is a vote against impunity for high-status offenders of domestic violence and sexual violence." Despite the widespread belief of the sentence's leniency, as politically incorrect as it is, I think it is also worth noting the likewise severe consequences his crime had on Turner's life: In addition to the obvious lifelong implications of a criminal conviction and sex offender registration, Turner had to withdraw from Stanford University and was banned for life from USA Swimming Team, thus terminating his aspirations to participate in the 2016 Olympics and effectively putting an end to his competitive swimming career. Furthermore, he has been the target all since the incident of frequent hate mail, had had to face protests at his family home and has needed to change the name he goes by. Considering the price he has paid for his sexual assault, anybody can guess how much Turner must regret his actions; but it is more doubtful to what degree he is at this point that much still concerned for the harm he caused to Chanel.  

In light of all the interest and attention drawn by Chanel's case, it goes without saying, I wish I had been just half as successful as her; because, in stark contrast, as hard as I tried nobody ever cared for me. It unavoidably makes me wonder what is that I did wrong or what is that was wrong about me or my story. There seems to be a common agreement that Chanel's writing skills were a fundamental factor in her success. This are not particularly good news, though. If good writing skills are required in order to attract the world's attention, then what happens with the problems of those who lack such writing skills? Just because you do not have good writing skills your problems are not important anymore? It is the same old story time and time again. We only care for the concerns of the upper class, since only they have the writing skills to spell them out, whereas folks of lower classes do not.

Yet, I find it really difficult to believe that all what resulted could be attributed to Chanel. There is little doubt in my mind, that if mass Media had not centered the attention on Chanel, nothing would have happened: Clearly, if mass Media had not intervened, the story would have never made it to the U.S. Congress, no change in the law would have ever been enacted, Judge Persky would have never been recalled and Turner would have not been banned from Stanford University, USA Swimming Team nor would he have needed to change his name. Undoubtedly, it will always be much easier for a woman to explain she had been raped, than what it will ever be for me to spell out that I have been ripped off in court. Most importantly, it is much easier to express outrage for and unhesitatingly condemn the rape of a sweet, lovely girl by an elite school student athlete, than it will ever be to even question the good functioning of the judicial system. Indeed, who is ever going to dare to do anything of that kind? In her statement, Chanel argued that "social class" should not be factored into the sentence: "The fact that [Turner] was a star athlete at a prestigious university should not be seen as an entitlement to leniency, but as an opportunity to send a strong cultural message that sexual assault is against the law regardless of social class." However, I seriously doubt that social class helped Turner in any way. Much to the opposite, I quite believe the fact that Turner was a star athlete at a prestigious university actually played against him in all what eventually happened. Indeed, there is nothing on the face of the planet the System loves better, there is nothing in this world that gets the System drooling more profusely, than such a fantastic photo-op to propagandize itself as the protector of the weak against the abuse and oppression of the strong, and send a powerful cultural message that in our Democracy sexual assault is against the law regardless of social class. Other than that, the System will never go for a tour around the thousands of brothels all over the land, and lift a finger for the hundreds of thousands of women, who day after day are sexually used over and over again as the most worthless objects. Perhaps, if these women had ever been taught some good writing skills, they would have been able to choose a different way of making a living? We better take a seat while Undoubtedly, we wait for mass Media to focus the attention on these women and have any leader start a campaign to stop this most repugnant form of human exploitation. There is no doubt about it, the burning at the stakes of a star student athlete from a prestigious university, who has sexually assaulted a sweet, lovely girl, makes for a fantastic story, while we can conveniently conceal the sexual exploitation of a million women as an unfortunate and inevitable statistic. Those who benefit the most of our inequitable and unjust  System are the same as those who control the Media. As much as they have never been voted to represent us, they keep presenting themselves as the voice of the people: the vigilantes of freedom who protect us from the evil of our truly hypocrite and self-serving politicians. Yet, their only concern is to direct their political robots' attention to serve the big-people's interest, while the real problems of the citizenship keep getting swept under the rug and we get distracted with photo-op's, Democracy propaganda and the daily political soap-opera horror show. With the advent of Television, as our lives started revolving around the news, opinions and commentaries we hear on Radio and TV, and Media slowly took control over our minds, Democracy once and forever went out the window and effectively became a fake-democratic oligarchical system. What politician with half a brain would want to risk getting his head chopped off by fighting against our masters' exploitation , if he can otherwise enjoy a comfortable and prosperous life getting his pockets filled for doing nothing other than leading witch-hunt wars on sexual assault, domestic violence and unresolvable problems alike?

If I criticize the System mass-Media enforces, I wonder why no journalist will ever have any interest in my story. Yet, there is no doubt in my mind my cause is of utmost importance. It just cannot be that the legal system adjudicates legal disputes based on socio-economic status. No society can ever function if the leagal system is designed to serve the strong abusing the weak.

I - like I suspect the immense majority of the people, who write the Media to express any grievance - never received any reply. I was never contacted with any explanation as of why they would not want to bring my story into the open. It goes without saying, nobody ever bother to spell out that the arguments I made to explain my anger, as legitimate as they were, could not even be deemed correct or did not bear sufficient merit. Rather, I simply never heard back from anybody.