Judge Disqualification

I asked Judge Stone, a judge who is approximately 75 years old and originally elected, "Is it that easy? All someone has to do when sued for defamation using social media, is delete their account?" ...and yes, I would say it is in Brookings, OR. According to our social media platforms, anyone can defame someone on their platforms. So much time and money wasted trying to receive redress. The courts no longer work for the common man, and especially buyers in Brookings.

I believe that I proved Tiffany Berg deleted her

TikTok account after being served and then in March of 2025 created a new one. Then, within her response to my Summary Judgement, which Judge Stone denied, she made up facts that could not be proven, placing me in a she said/he said scenario. The court in Oregon v. Guzek 546 U.S. 517 (2006) set limitations on innocence-related evidence.

The plaintiff did and does request that Judge Stone be disqualified for cause where the reasonable person test must apply. In re Schenck 318 Or. 402 (1994), the Oregon Supreme Court emphasized that judges must recuse themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Any reasonable person in my case would believe Judge Stone’s bias against plaintiff as a pro per is too great for him to continue as the judge:

1. Because he has rewarded defendant Tiffany Berg for deleting her TikTok account when sued – spoilage of the evidence for which the Plaintiff’s defamation case is based – allowing Tiffany to go to trial and invent her own facts, which Tiffany did in her response to plaintiff’s Summary Judgment, leaving Plaintiff with a he said/she said scenario, especially in light of the fact that Judge Stone rejected Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery from Google on the false ruling that Plaintiff had to ask a California court for permission to serve and enforce a subpoena on Google, a California company, which is untrue.

The defendants, the Bergs’ did not argue that Tiffany did not delete her initial TikTok account. Then, in March of 2025, created a new one. Further, the defendants have not provided TikTok and Google videos from Plaintiff’s discovery request. The court in Oregon v. Guzek 546 U.S. 517 (2006) set limitations on innocence-related evidence. In Yates v. United States 574 U.S. 528(2015), the court clarified that under 18 U.S.C. §1519, the destruction or alteration of evidence is a criminal offense. Allowing a Defendant to commit a crime so they can then invent their own facts is a violation of Plaintiff’s 14th amendment constitutional right to a fair trial and is not an ordinary or run of the mill ruling. Constitutional arguments override ORS 14.260, confirmed by The Oregon Court of Appeals in State v. Ovalle.

2. Because Judge Stone has used court procedures always in favor of the defendants, such as how he removed Plaintiff’s leave to amend to hear the defendants, the Bergs’, response to her Summary Judgment first even though Plaintiff filed her Leave to amend first and it was scheduled first, forcing Plaintiff to have to file many more motions. Plaintiff in fact had to withdraw her first Summary Judgment because of Judge Stone’s error based on bias. Every error the judge makes benefits the defendants.

3. Because Judge Stone requested arguments on Plaintiff’s motions during a hearing where the motions were not scheduled and Plaintiff was not noticed, which robbed Plaintiff of her right to introduce video evidence in person. Recently, Judge Stone scheduled a hearing on April 22 to schedule a trial without waiting for Plaintiff to notify the court as to whether she would be available on that day and without a Trial Readiness Conference or Pretrial Hearing or conference.

No pre-trial conference is part of the scam - to allow the attorney Evan to come into court without my not knowing who his witnesses are, with no discovery because he makes up bogus reasons for his clients not to answer and Judge Stone ruled Google doesn't have to respond to my subpoena based on false arguments I describe on my Substack, and begin the circus called a courtroom.

4. Because Judge Stone hasn’t even given Plaintiff her requested two days for a trial.

5. Because Judge Stone’s ability to make complex analysis seems to be absent. In Plaintiff’s fight against binding arbitration, which strips her of her constitutional right to appeal, which she did not understand when signing her real estate contract for a property in Brookings, she spent a considerable amount of time researching her defense. Yet, Judge Stone’s analysis was to state that because the words ‘binding arbitration’ were in bold in the contract, Plaintiff must had known its ramifications. Absurd …and to date, Plaintiff has not followed through with it because it requires mediation and binding arbitration so defendants can get attorney fees in an environment where the rules and rates have changed since she signed the real estate contract in 2023. The rate for mediation and arbitration is now 40% higher than in 2023.

6.  Because Judge Stone violated Plaintiff’s 4th Amendment property right by ruling that a stranger, an alleged “expert” can enter her property without providing evidence that he is an expert and without disclosing equipment he intends to bring onto her property. The plaintiff testified that a low-grade camera does not capture the damage of defendant’s light. Yet, Judge Stone ignored this and puts Plaintiff at risk of chicanery by defendants, similar to how Tiffany deleted her TikTok evidence in 2024; always ruling to make Plaintiff’s experience more difficult.

7.  Because Judge Stone was initially elected and has an interest in the subject matter of this case, the Bergs’ light, where the Planning Commission and City Council of Brookings have refused to even address an outdoor light statute, showing disdain for Plaintiff’s request.

Judge Stone’s acts as described have the appearance of impropriety. He displays a deep-seated favoritism and antagonism that would make fair judgment possible similar to the ruling in Litekey v. United States, 510 US 540, 555 (1994) and United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U. S. 563. Section 455(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code held that "Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further.”

In conclusion, Plaintiff’s request that Judge Stone be disqualified for cause is not based on a normal ruling, but a pattern that allows Tiffany Berg to benefit from a felony of the deleting the evidence, manipulating court procedure, and ruling in favor of the community for which he was initially elected, a community that Plaintiff has proven has shown extreme bias in favor of Tiffany Berg, shown through her previous social media account of 2500 followers and 900 likes for her defamatory comments against Plaintiff, calling her crazy, which Tiffany deleted when sued in the small town of Brookings with a population of just over 6500.

Other

 The court ruled that disqualification for prejudice and partiality is valid even in the absence of the word "personal" in § 455(a) does not preclude the doctrine's application, since the textual basis for the doctrine is the pejorative connotation of the words "bias or prejudice," which indicate a judicial predisposition that is wrongful or inappropriate. Similarly, because the term "partiality" refers only to such favoritism as is, for some reason, wrongful or inappropriate, § 455(a)'s requirement of recusal whenever there exists a genuine question concerning a judge's impartiality does not preclude the doctrine's application.

MULTIPLE MOTIONS

I had to file multiple motions, because of bias per se.

1. TWO requests for Alternative Service after I attempted service over twenty times to Vera Wallace when it was clear that Vera knew of the service attempted and her business email worked. As a result, I spent over $3000 and a trip to Brookings from Southern California – 12 hour drive each way - to serve two people when it would normally cost only $100.

2. TWO Summary Adjudications/Judgments at a loss of $200, and an amendment when Judge Stone rearranged the calendar in favor of the defendants for no reason.

3. An answer to Defendants Counter Motion to my Summary Adjudication / Judgement.

4. One Motion to Recuse and one to Disqualify, both of which have been ignored.

5. Motion to Set Hearing when my Change of Venue motions were ignored for over two weeks.

6. A Supplement to my Summary Adjudication since her Motion to Compel Discovery for my first set of discovery to the Bergs was ignored.

7. TWO Requests to Change Venue, which were both denied. Now, I will try to appeal against because there is NO way she will be treated fairly in Brookings – based on my experience so far and their reputation statewide. The clerk renamed my Addendum to her second Motion to Change Venue, so now it looks like I filed three.

8. ONE Motion for Request a hearing because the judge was not putting my motions on calendar.

9. TWO Motions to Compel Discovery when Judge Stone refused to hear my first one scheduled for March 3, 2025: delaying discovery by over three months, where I will have to file yet another one.

10.  ONE to Set Hearing. I filed a request to set hearing on my Summary Judgment.

11.    A Motion to inspect since Judge Martin ruled against my constitutional right to know what equipment an alleged expert may bring onto my property.

12.    Motion to Extend the trial date. Judge Stone ordered me to have to file this motion when I brought to the judge's attention that the Bergs' attorney had served me with a Motion to Extend the trial.