3. Sneaky! Oh so blatantly sneaky Judge Lawrence O’Neil, or so you thought?
As I investigate more into this case, I keep finding more and more anomalies that make the entire entity of Judge Lawrence O’Neil as a Federal Court Judge a shambles.
I recently noted the ill treatment of the Atwater man with regards to the illegal search warrant (herein the defendant) and as a result of my probing have found further details which make me concerned. It was made clear in my earlier writings, that the defendant filed a motion to have his property retuned as the warrant was invalid (06-sw-00147). At some point after this initial motion was filed, it would appear that the search warrants for the defendant and Mr and Mrs Booth were consolidated (case numbers 1-06-se-00062; 1:06-sw-00063 and 06-MC-43 OWW). On 6 November 2006, the defendant filed a motion for Judge O’Neill to vacate his order with regards to the return of property, as he did not have the authority to do so. We are able to see that on 12 December 2006 Judge O’Neill did in fact grant the motion to vacate his own order. We are therefore able to see that Judge O’Neill accepts the fact that he is not in a position of authority to deny the defendant the return of his property.
However, on 5 March 2007 a new case number appears in the files (CV F 07-0339 LJO). This case appears after Judge O’Neill is granted an appointment at a district court judge. This case consolidates the previous cases 06-00147, 06-sw-00063 and 06-sw-0062. What we now see is the case where a previously un-authorised Judge takes back the case now that he has the authority to rule on the return of property, and, of course, denies the previous motion and therefore does not allow the defendant to have the return of its property. Therefore, our district court judge Lawrence O’Neil does not accept that’s the search warrant was illegal and further denies the return of illegally seized property.
This is a conflict of law. It is clear that there is a personal dislike to the defendant by Judge Lawrence O’Neil, which as an impartial member of the government should not be contemplated. Judge Lawrence O’Neil should not have had any links with cases involving the defendant. It is evident that the defendant was not given a fair trial, but it was fixed and that Judge Lawrence O’Neil had taken a personal dislike to the Atwater man.
This is the type of behaviour by a man who is clearly narcissistic, self-righteous, and bursting with greed. It is clear to me that he should stand down, be a man and except the miscarriages of justice that have fallen from his own hands.