I appreciate that you allow readers of your
blog to comment. If Shaun Martin had such a blog, I never would have
sued him for libel. Instead or in addition to your link to the
unpublished decision in the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which is
full of errors because the court did not even read my reply but relied
solely on USD’s response brief as if it were true, you should add for
your readers a link to the published opinion, Welch v. CalSTRS, that
the Third District Court of Appeal published even without me asking them
to do so. Then, compare and allow your readers to compare that
published opinion with Martin’s blog about it. He deliberately
misrepresented that published opinion because he is a far-right-wing
zealot who thinks that public school teachers are as bad as their
unions, that people who become disabled are committing fraud, and he is a
bully of women with a history of being a domestic violence offender.
Contrary to his claims and the unpublished opinion, his blog does not
have a link to the published opinion he used as a pretext to defame my
character. I did not ask him to retract his blog article. I asked him
to add the true facts that he had falsely reported. He refused very
arrogantly. I sued him and his university that supports him in order to
put the true facts, as judicially determined, in the court files.
Martin’s blog about my case was not entitled to a “fair report
privilege” because he was not fairly or accurately reporting about the
published opinion that he claimed to be reporting on. His cleverly
worded “opinion” language insinuated that I had actually attacked one or
more children. The school district’s own internal investigation
completely exonerated me, but Martin refused to add that fact. It is
actually quite common for injured employees to be fired by unethical
employers who do not want disabled people in their employ, especially
when their unsafe workplace is to blame for the disability. I was never
formally charged by the school district or anyone else with any
wrongdoing because I was an innocent victim of violence, as the police
report made clear. So, Martin’s position (and yours by extension) is
that anyone accused of hitting or kicking children should be assumed to
be guilty regardless of the lack of any evidence or witnesses to prove
it. You probably do not understand how many teachers in California’s
gang controlled inner cities are attacked by gangs as I was. Not only
was my testimony credible as the trial court ruled, but the fact that I
had been misinformed was supported by a great deal of corroboration.
All teachers in California were being misinformed as the published
opinion states in it first sentence. Martin had a history, a pattern of
behavior, of falsely accusing innocent people of committing crimes. He
teaches criminal law, the least complicated area of law. Why was the
Fourth District Court in San Diego so prejudiced in favor of him that
they just knee-jerk repeated all his pleadings? He sponsors an
internship program for USD law students to work for the justices in that
court, and many of its justices and other employees are former students
and/or former employees of USD. Martin is not getting any money. We
reached a settlement agreememt that provides no money for him or USD. I
encourage others who are libeled in blogs to sue for libel, and ideally
in states without the anti-SLAPP laws that are in defiance of the First
Amendment right to petition courts for redress of grievances. Since
the internet goes to all parts of the world, the harm is done in all
parts, and a lawsuit in any of those parts is valid.

I have been involved in litigation that is not meritless. This litigation is treated as meritless because United States Courts are generally biased against pro se plaintiffs just like Professor Martin.

Any other member of a large class of potential plaintiffs for these two exact claims would easily win a class certification and then a quick Summary Judgment action against the two defendants I face. The per-person relief would be small but this would make wire communications universal and free very quickly as a result.

The government defendant (FCC) already alleged to begin Title II common carrier regulation of wire communications disguised as [sic] “internet”, which I demanded. This almost incompetent allegation was 400+ pages of rules for not-quite regulating the dangerous morass of hazardous nuisances of illegal obscene, indecent, or profane communications broadcast by radio in interstate and world-wide wire communications.

I have 90-days now to pursue certiorari. This time might be better spent coaching another attorney who might want to finally make China and any other country as easy to reach as the nearest iPhone and reach safely without ANY filtration. This would quickly lead to free wi-fi EVERYWHERE but would require significant new FCC action. This would be the most impacting disputation since the 95 Thesis by Rev Martin Luther in 1517. I apparantly can’t bring this claim because of my prior disrespect for United States Court and calling one district Court judge senile in a filing in 2011. This porn-addicted geezer is no longer an active judge. I now control how this judge will be remembered online for all time. This is not a good substitute for justice I was denied.