1. Delusions of grandeur?
Lawrence Joseph O’Neil is a Fresno Federal District Judge (previously operating as County Superior Court judge) as appointed by President George Bush in 2007. He has come under speculation over the last six years with regards to certain inadequacies with respect to consistency within federal law. Inadequacies within law are not exactly ‘mistakes’ that can be pertained to everyday occurrences. When in a position of authority, if mistakes are made, we can ascertain that they cannot be that easily forgiven. However, when these simple mistakes appear to turn into numerous misguided decisions, then it is fair to ascertain that such ‘mistakes’ are more likely to be understood when referred to in terms of corruption. This is the start of various investigative writings on Judge Lawrence O’Neil of whom we have the right to question in terms of his suitability as a judge, and more so, as his suitability as a federal court judge.
One of the most predominant acts of corruption appears in his misguided actions in regard to an ‘Unreasonable Search & Seizure in Violation of Fourth Amendment’, issued on June 7th June 2006.
On the 7th June, 2006 Judge Lawrence O’Neil was the federal magistrate judge who issued a search warrant with regards to an Atwater defendant (informally referred to as the defendant herein). His decision to issue a search warrant breaks simple legislations; primarily concerning the fact the warrant cited NO federal violations as the cause for exploration of the defendant’s property. This search warrant is therefore indicated as ILLEGAL. His decision to issue the warrant was under the implications of tax evasion per se, yet the search warrant DID NOT indicate any such federal violations. The search warrant DID NOT show any affidavit (a sworn or oath of FACT) with regards to the violation and reason for the search warrant, nor were the defendants told of any federal violations as to the reason for the search warrant. The defendant exercised his right to silence and did not disclose any information pertaining to any violation of any federal law.
Furthermore, the ILLEGAL warrant cited an authority to seize ANY document found; computerised equipment, software, bank details, phone and address books, records and rolodex cards from 1999 to the present (8th June, 2006). However, the warrant becomes inexcusable when the following is observed. The warrant stated that any document related to the defendants could be seized, and furthermore documents of ‘persons or entities unknown’ and ‘names unknown or entities unknown’ could also be seized (1:07-CV-0620 AWI GSA). If we take this in its most simple form, we observe that Judge Lawrence O’Neil in essence gave ILLEGAL permission for federal agents to enter the property of the defendant due to the lack of an affidavit, take ANYTHING they wanted (and I cannot emphasise ANYTHING enough in this instance), belonging to ANYBODY, be their names cited on the warrant or not. The web of corruption stems further when we appreciate the legislation ‘ignored’ by the federal agents. Despite the OBVIOUS illicit nature of the warrant, with ‘persons or entities unknown’ and ‘names unknown or entities unknown’ cited, the agents should have rejected the warrant on the basis of its illegal status, of which at least 10 which were involved in the search. Simple associations could be made that Judge Lawrence O’Neil was perhaps slightly more involved in this particular search warrant than his legal status allowed. I shall allow your own intellectual understanding to take what you need from the previous statement.
The defendant in this case, was subjected to a ‘raid’ as opposed to the more commonly assumed act of a ‘search’. The federal agents ‘forced’ their way into the property owned by the defendant under instruction of an ILLEGAL AND VOID warrant. The defendant was then subjected to a lengthy search of the property, which resulted in numerous items being seized. Despite the level of intrusion and its associated relationship with the Fourth Amendment, this warrant was, and still remained ILLEGAL, as it did not list any unlawful affidavit.
Rightfully so, the defendant filed a motion to retrieve his property on July 3rd, 2006. However, the SAME judge, Lawrence O’Neil, the judge who issued the ILLEGAL search warrant on the defendant’s property, denied the motion; indicating that he saw no reason as to why the search warrant was ‘unlawful’.
At this point, it is VITAL to mention that although as a federal magistrate judge, he had the authority to issue the search warrant, HE DOES NOT have continuing authority in regards to the ruling of their validity or on the return of seized property (Title 28 section 636).
Alas, Judge O’Neil further denied return of the property from the government, as he declared the defendant had failed to satisfy the discretionary levels as required by the jurisdiction. Judge Lawrence O’Neil, therefore stated that the defendant was not entitled to the return of his property as he hadn’t given legitimate reason to the government to satisfy their decision for return.
The motion 1:06-sw-00147 LJO, as dictated and signed by Judge O’Neil also states that the government does not agree that there is any reason that the defendant would suffer harm from the denial of the motion, that the defendant has an ADEQUATE remedy of the law and that he does agree that the government acted in any way that was ‘callous’ in regards to the defendants legal rights.
In this instance, Judge O’Neil is stating that he denies the movement because of an adequate remedy of the law, but does not state an equitable remedy. Surely, the mere fact that the warrant was ILLEGAL is equitable? He ends the motion by stating that there are NO fundamental elements which allow the court to assume equitable jurisdiction. Is Judge O’Neil forgetting the ILLICIT SEARCH WARRANT? There is no doubt that this is an EQUITABLE FACT. Despite this, the primary source of corruption in this instance is that Judge O’Neil, at the time, a federal magistrate, DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to deny a motion to return seized property from an issued search warrant. Furthermore, the defendant did in fact give EQUITABLE FACT as evidence for the motion.
The defendant HAD given a legitimate reason for the return; the search was an ILLEGAL search, acted upon by an ILLEGAL search warrant, given by an UNQUALIFIED judge.
So, the magistrate Judge, Lawrence O’Neil, made an unqualified decision, on the status of an unlawful search warrant and the motion was as such denied and thus ordered (1:06-sw-00147 LJO).
Let’s evaluate this in more simplistic terms.
- Judge O’Neil DID NOT have a federal violation in regards to the issue a search warrant of the defendant’s property and as such the warrant is ILLEGAL.
- The federal agents instructed to carry out the search DID NOT seek clarification on the obvious ILLEGAL elements of the warrant (particularly that the warrant stated no federal violation as a right for entry to the property).
- When the motion was filed by the defendant for the return of property that was rightfully his and had been ILLEGALLY taken from his property on the 8th June 2006, Judge Lawrence O’Neil could not justify that any violations of law with regards to warrant had been made – yet he was NOT QUALIFIED to make that decision.
- Judge Lawrence O’Neil denied the motion based on his own condemnation of the chance of any harm of the defendant.
- Judge Lawrence O’Neil denied the motion on an ‘adequate remedy of law’ – not an equitable one (he appears to have forgotten the illicit status of his search warrant, and that he was not qualified to validate it).
- Judge Lawrence O’Neil denied the motion as he stated the government DID NOT act callously – and as aforementioned, he DID NOT have ANY AUTHORITY to do so.
Why did Judge Lawrence O’Neil, make such blatant gestures of corruption? Quite simply…power, if not a touch of a narcissistic personality. If we relate it to his earlier career as a police officer between 1973 and 1976, then perhaps he feels as part of his ‘elevation through the ranks’, that he has some right over the law, that others do not. Was he unaware of his status, that of a magistrate Judge? If we consider it in terms of definition, he is there to oversee judicial proceedings from an impartial manner, to make decisions based purely upon official law and not that of ‘Judge Lawrence O’Neil Law’. As a Judge, his investigative streak is to be dealt with by the federal officers who are ‘meant’ to perform within legal boundaries, not in any which way they please. Perhaps, if Judge Lawrence O’Neil wanted to be the initiator of such acts, he should have stayed within the police force. Although, with such disregard for the law, perhaps a career which facilitates the law, is just not all that suited to Judge Lawrence Joseph O’Neil.
Unfortunately, however, Judge Lawrence O’Neil still remains an acting Judge within Fresno California. This article highlights just the tip of the iceberg in regards to a series of corrupt, unethical and conflicting acts of Judge Lawrence O’Neil, which are to be described in detail over the coming weeks.