The Dishonorable Michael P. Vicencia Has Committed Several Crimes

For those victims of the world’s largest crime syndicate (WLCS)—a.k.a. the U.S. legal system—what is presented in this post may not be that shocking.  For those who have yet to become victims, you may want to remove all the breakables within a 100-foot radius before you begin reading.  The WLCS has proved time and again that every single court here in Amerika is corrupt as hell.  There’s no getting around that fact.  Judges treat rules and law as mere suggestions—less than recommendations even—when inconvenient to themselves or their minions and refuse to work towards justice.  Instead, they deliberately fight against justice.  The pattern repeats itself.

If I write the letters “D,” “O,” and “G” on a sheet of paper and hold it up for the world to see, any everyday sane person who knows how to read will say that it spells “dog.”  The WLCS, however, insists that it spells “cat.”  In my cases, one or two such failures could be considered a mistake.  100-plus cannot.  Members of the WLCS have intentionally and concertedly tried to stymie, mislead, and block justice.  The relentless violation of rules and law by the WLCS shows without a doubt that its criminal elements know they cannot beat me fair and square and have to resort to crime and corruption in order to take me down.  They have to violate civil and criminal law in order to do so. 

Committing crimes all day long is what the WLCS does best.  It is now standard operating procedure.  Overwhelming evidence proves that members of the WLCS unceasingly falsify court “records” to bolster fraudulent narratives so they can justify predetermined outcomes.  This happens not just to me but to Americans every day in every court in every state.  Our "justice" system is wildly, off-the-rails corrupt, but, unfortunately, most people don't learn this until it is too late.

On April 1, 2025, the California Superior Court division of the WLCS filed into the docket my amended complaint, which I submitted pursuant to CA Code – CCP § 472, “A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed.....”  According to Rule 3.110(b), I had thirty days to serve the new defendant-criminals.  This means I had at least until May 1, 2025, to serve them.

I called the court twice prior to April 15, 2025.  On both occasions, I was told I could call in to the April 28 “hearing” using my phone.  Neither person told me I needed Microsoft Teams.  I thought it was going to be a standard telephonic hearing just like during the bankruptcy I was forced to file because of the fraudulent debt defendant-criminal Joseph Leonard Michaud orchestrated against me.

On April 28, 2025, I spent over half an hour trying to download the Microsoft Teams application while on the other side of the continent where my internet connection was marginal at very best and nearly non-existent at worst.  Had I known I needed this app, I would have downloaded it before I left for Florida on April 15, 2025.  And, of course, the court prevents “test driving” it beforehand by forcing litigants to wait until the day of the hearing.  Well, by then it’s too late.  Finally, nothing on the court’s related website page mentions anything whatsoever about the specifics for remote attendance, specifically any requirement for Microsoft Teams. 

 

Figure 1

After struggling to jump through all the hoops, I waited patiently for over an hour to present my case.  The judge, Dishonorable Michael Paul Vicencia, knew I was on the conference call along with over a dozen other waiting participants, but he ignored me anyway as he did them too.  Suddenly, without warning, everything stopped.  I had no idea what happened.  Did he and others break for lunch?  Was he coming back?  Did my connection fail?  Since I did not know the answers to these and other questions—although I will make them obvious shortly—I used the chat feature to send multiple messages.  None were returned.

Rather than being outraged by the facts and evidence in my case that reveal massive crime and corruption and the violation of no less than sixty statutory laws (twenty-two of them being felonies), criminal-Vicencia decided to be complicit in the misconduct.  Again on April 28, 2025, and in his enthusiasm to protect his criminal friends, he corruptly dismissed my case days before any sanctions could have been imposed per Rule 3.110.  In fact, I had two hearings scheduled for May 6, the earliest date possible, one of which addressed a motion regarding exactly how thousands of defendants/criminals could be served.  I’m almost certain Joseph L. Michaud called him—and committed more felonies alongside him—as he’s done on several occasions with other so-called judges and lawyers without black gowns in prior related matters in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts (at least three or four times there), in Rogue Island, and in BIG Blue (California).  I have mountains of evidence that he’s made such nefarious phone calls and, in doing so, committed numerous felonies multiple times.

The first and last “hearing” was held on April 28, 2025, which should have never been held in the first place.  More than 73 percent of the named defendants had already been served process pursuant to my correspondence with the chief clerk, Mr. David Slayton, and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure - CCP § 415.30 (a) and Rule 2.251.  More than 99.997 percent of the total defendants were added to my amended complaint filed on April 1, 2025.  This means that 99.997-plus percent of them could have been served as late as May 1, 2025.  This is clearly not what happened because Vicencia illegally and corruptly dismissed the entire action before that date.

Looking at the facts and evidence, it is indisputable what happened.  I tried to file the amended complaint on March 28, 2025.  However, the court rejected it and did not receive it until April 1, 2025.  Rule 2.259(a)(1) states that a document sent electronically is “received at the date and time the confirmation of receipt is created.”  The email highlighted below contains such a confirmation of receipt with a date of April 1:

Figure 2

Since it is not physically possible to file into a docket a document that has not yet been received, the amended complaint could not have been filed any sooner than 4-1-25, the date of reception.  Most likely, people who enter information into the court’s version of the docket are unaware that the third-party software also tracks entries with a date and time stamp not only with a standard human readable format, but also with an internal real-time format that always stays chronological.  This explains the displayed March 28 date stamp, but the third-party software shows the amended complaint being filed/entered no earlier than April 1:

 Figure 3

They had a plan.  This plan was hatched well before April 28, 2025.  Apparently, the WLCS tried to wipe out all traces of its crimes by falsifying court records—once again.  This has happened in every court in every state in every related case over the last decade.  The court claims that it accepted the March 28 amended complaint filing on that day.  This is a lie.  

Notice there are three entries for “Confirmation” on 4-1-25 shown in Figure 4 with two coming almost on top of each other and the third being made four minutes later.  That’s because Vicencia tried twice to falsify the entry as 3-28-25 but did not have any luck because the third-party software kept showing the actual date of 4-1-25.  It would have never crossed the software engineers’ minds that the WLCS would want to falsify records by designating an entry date—other than the actual date.  After failing twice, Vicencia went and asked a second person for help.....who was also unsuccessful at defeating the software.  This explains the 4-minute delay.  Unbelievably, obstructing justice by a judicial officer is only a misdemeanor in California, but falsification of court records is nonetheless a felony as is the federal counterpart, which carries a 5-year maximum prison sentence.  See CA Code–PEN §§ 96.5 and 115 and 18 U.S. Code §§ 1001 and/or 1506, respectively.

 

Figure 4

The above image shows no rejection of the amended complaint whatsoever, but the evidence reveals it was indeed obviously rejected: 

Figure 5

The falsely portrayed clean filing of the amended complaint without rejection shown in Figure 4 contrasts greatly with the original complaint filing.  The original filing was rejected several times.  This is reflected in the “record”:  

Figure 6

The final piece of the puzzle completes the picture.  The “record” indicates that on April 1, 2025, the court on its “own motion” decided to move the “hearing” from April 21 to 28:

 

Figure 7

Since the court had just received and accepted that day the amended complaint, which revealed at that time the true names of the criminals whom I was suing—no doubt some of Vicencia’s friends—because it replaced the “Does” with actual names, he had to contrive a way to flush the case.  Since I had called the court twice before April 15 and they knew I could not possibly attend the hearing in person, they decided to push the date, but not so much that I would be back in the area, and just ignore me if I happened to appear remotely, which I did.  This way, their alleged 30-day service window since the date of amended complaint “filing” would be met—if the amended complaint had been recorded on March 28, 2025, which it was not—and they could dismiss the case thinking that a self-represented litigant wouldn’t catch them violating a multitude of rules (which at most only allowed for sanctions) and the U.S. Constitution.  With the date moved, Vicencia could now conveniently dismiss the case as he had planned all along—or at least after I filed the amended complaint and he was aware that I was suing his friends and the entire WLCS, federal division.

Incidentally, there was no apparent hurry to hold a hearing when the complaint was first filed.  Party names were essentially all redacted then.  The hearing was originally scheduled seventeen days after the perceived final due date for service.  However, once the defendant-criminals’ names were known as I provided in the amended complaint, there was an extreme urgency to dispose of the case.  Vicencia either didn’t know or had forgotten that a litigant could register for automated email notifications regarding case activity.  Without my email evidence, their inability to change the chronological ordering of the filing software (Figure 3), and the fact that they didn’t erase the one entry that showed the amended complaint had been rejected (Figure 5), their plan may have been carried out perfectly.  Thankfully for me and the American public, their nefarious plan has been exposed.

By committing all the above crimes—and probably more—Vicencia revealed himself to be a criminal according to 18 U.S. Code § 4 and Branzburg v. Hayes as I proved in the amended complaint.  He also unquestionably violated 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2) and Cal. Pen. Code § 96.5 and almost certainly § 182 with other conspirators. Justice must be served—not injustice.  There’s not a snowball’s chance any of the other criminals in the WLCS will reprimand or prosecute him as they should.

What he and other criminals like him do is, in one way, worse than Hitler’s atrocities.  It is worse because Hitler had a warped, deranged ideology and eventually was stopped from doing purely evil things.  On the contrary, all the evil perpetrated by these legalized criminals is far worse because it is done in the name of “justice" and without encumbrance.  In fact, their heinous acts are cultivated, and these criminals are protected so they can victimize others.  That's the difference.

I am not saying any of this lightly.  I have “experienced” well over 100 glorified, unelected lawyers in black gowns.  Only about twelve have not behaved criminally—at least not that I can prove in my cases.  This means I can say—at the 95 percent confidence level with less than a 5 percent margin of error—that about 92 percent of judges are truly criminals.  The margin of error for a sample size of 145 glorified lawyers in black gowns of 31,700 total here in Amerika at a 95 percent confidence level is only about 5 percent. See, for example, qualtrics.com/experience-management/research/margin-of-error.

Vicencia has committed several crimes, which include, but are not limited to, those mentioned in the last paragraph.  He blocked my case, (www.stloiyf.com/case.html).  One reason may be that Joseph Michaud called him after Michaud was officially served process on April 10, 2025, and was clearly made aware of the lawsuit.  Michaud would have had plenty of time to call Vicencia and commit more felonies alongside him as Michaud has done numerous times in prior related matters.  Regardless, multiple beings have committed multiple crimes.  I can't call them "people" because they are satanic entities.  In fact, the data show that—percentagewise—judges and other members of the WLCS commit more premeditated crimes than ordinary citizens and by a minimum of an order of magnitude. 

I’ve submitted dozens of complaints against lawyers with and without black gowns nationwide.  All have been filed under “G.”  This should convince anyone that complaints against lawyers and judges are dismissed about 99 percent of the time because the fox is in charge of the henhouse.

Incidentally, Sara and I would like to announce that our blog has been selected as one of the Top Ten Best Anti-Corruption Blogs out of more than one thousand.  We are honored to have been bestowed this distinction and will continually try to meet the requisite standards by doing our best to fight corruption in the American "justice" system every day.