Judge Stone's Chicanery

I dismissed without prejudice all defendants because of Judge Stone's judicial chicanery as described below and, in my book The Judges Oath. Disqualification or Recusal is determined by the Reasonable Person Test, but judges rarely disqualify themselves. In this case any reasonable person would think that Judge Stone who is in his 70s - who should had been disqualified. 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.

A summary of my case follows:

Judicial Complaint.pdf

Download PDF • 252KB

Summary.xlsx

Download XLSX • 18KB

Why I Dismissed Without Prejudice Everyone Before a Ruling - It Wasn't a Win for Anyone

Cheryl dismissed the Bergs, the sellers, her former tenant Colin, and SDD due to ongoing and extraordinary bias \by Judge Martin Stone. Cheryl attempted to disqualify Judge Stone four separate times, each following a series of prejudicial and inconsistent rulings that undermined her ability to receive a fair trial. Below is a summary of key rulings that support her position:

1. Service of Process Issues: Cheryl made three formal requests for alternative service on Vera Ann Wallace—first by mail, then by posting—supported by evidence that Vera's business email was functional and that Vera knew service was being attempted. Judge Stone denied all requests, forcing Cheryl to spend over $3,000 on process service, compared to the approximately $500 cost if alternative service had been granted. SDD was not involved.

2. Venue Change Denials Cheryl filed two Motions to Change Venue:

• The first motion detailed that the Bergs had 2,500 followers and over 1,000 defamatory comments about Cheryl on social media—within a small town of only 6,500 residents.

• The second motion provided additional evidence of prejudice from both the Brookings Police Department and the Municipal Court.

  
  

  Judge Stone denied both motions despite substantial documentation of local bias. SDD was not involved.

  
  

3. Binding Arbitration Rulings: Cheryl raised constitutional objections to the enforcement of a binding arbitration clause. Judge Stone dismissed these concerns by stating that Cheryl should have understood the implications because the clause was printed in bold. …and Cheryl was right regarding the unconscionable fees involved. Mediation alone was projected to cost $3,500 to $7,000 per day, with only a 17% chance of success—making the arbitration clause financially and procedurally unfair. Due to these circumstances, Cheryl dismissed the sellers. Earlier, Cheryl had also dismissed the realtors following personal hardship caused by wildfires in California. All parties, including the realtors and sellers, agreed to dismissal without prejudice and with no attorney fees. SDD was not involved.

4. Defamation by Tiffany Berg: In January and March 2025, Cheryl filed Motions for Summary Judgment against the Bergs for defamation. Tiffany Berg had accused Cheryl of tax fraud on TikTok, then deleted the posts after being sued. In their opposition, the Bergs admitted to making the defamatory statements. Still, Judge Stone denied the motions, allowing Tiffany to rely on unsupported claims and self-authenticated affidavits without requiring production of the deleted content or an expert opinion. This rewarded destruction of evidence (spoliation) and undermined Cheryl’s sworn testimony and ability for a fair trial. SDD was not involved.

5. Intrusive Light Claim: Cheryl filed a Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the Bergs’ intrusive lighting, supported by:

·                A notarized affidavit

·                Certified video footage (from ADT and Blink)

·                Photographs by Billy Bench

Despite requesting to present this evidence at the hearing, Cheryl was denied that opportunity. The Bergs submitted no counter-evidence or expert affidavits. Later, the Bergs filed a motion to inspect Cheryl’s property using an “expert” without disclosing the expert’s qualifications or the type of camera to be used—critical to assessing light damage. Cheryl objected on constitutional grounds, but Judge Stone again sided with the Bergs. SDD was not involved.

6. Interference with Business Relationship: In March 2025, Cheryl moved for Summary Judgment for interference with business relations. She submitted a notarized affidavit from a Brookings police officer confirming that Tiffany Berg posted photos of Cheryl’s personal property, taken from her locked shed from Cheryl’s past tenant Colin, on TikTok, which Tiffany deleted after being sued. Still, Judge Stone ruled against Cheryl. No expert affidavit was required from the defense, and SDD was not involved.

7. Subpoena and Discovery Denials: Despite spending significant time and money to subpoena deleted evidence from TikTok, Google, and Facebook, Judge Stone failed to hold Tiffany accountable for evidence spoliation. He denied Cheryl’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Google, incorrectly asserting that Cheryl needed permission from a California court to enforce an out-of-state subpoena—an inaccurate interpretation of the law.

8. Unfair Discovery Rulings: Throughout the proceedings, Cheryl made numerous attempts to obtain discovery from the Bergs, who continually evaded disclosure, playing games with the evidence. But Judge Stone denied each of Cheryl’s motions, enabling a pattern of evasion and noncompliance, setting Cheryl up to lose at trial. SDD was not involved.

9. No Pre-Trial Hearing: Judge Stone denied Cheryl’s request for a Pre-Trial Hearing, preventing her from challenging undisclosed witnesses and surprise evidence at trial—an essential right for any litigant. SDD was not involved.

10. Violation of Property Rights: When the Bergs sought to inspect Cheryl’s property for alleged light damage, Cheryl requested transparency about their expert and the equipment to be used. She argued this was critical to documenting the effects of the light and protecting her property rights. Judge Stone denied her request, once again favoring the opposing party without requiring any evidentiary support from them. SDD was not involved.

11. Dismissal of the City of Brookings: As a self-represented litigant, Cheryl learned she was required to notify the City of Brookings of damage within 180 days. Upon realizing this procedural error, she voluntarily dismissed the City without prejudice and without incurring attorney fees. SDD was not involved.

12. Dismissal of Former Tenant: Cheryl also dismissed her former tenant, Colin, after Officer Hernandez submitted a notarized affidavit confirming that Tiffany Berg obtained and posted photos from Cheryl’s locked shed, acquired through Colin. Tiffany deleted the evidence after being sued—again constituting spoliation. No attorney fees were sought. SDD was not involved.

13. Final Decision to Dismiss the Bergs Given:

·       The total lack of fair process

·       Denials of key motions (discovery, pre-trial hearing, venue change)

·       Unchecked evidence destruction

·       Repeated deference to unsupported claims by the Bergs

Cheryl concluded that continuing litigation would be futile, costly, and fundamentally unfair. She therefore dismissed the Bergs without prejudice. No attorney fees were requested. SDD was not involved.

Now, despite having participated in only one hearing regarding Cheryl’s Motion to Dismiss SDD’s attorney, Charles Belon, is now exploiting Judge Stone’s bias by demanding attorney fees far exceeding any requested by parties who were actually litigated against. Cheryl asserts this is a blatant abuse of process and a misrepresentation made solely for personal gain

Cheryl did not file this lawsuit in bad faith, nor did she dismiss any defendant with improper intent. Her decisions throughout the case were driven by necessity, not malice—particularly in response to the extraordinary and consistent prejudice demonstrated by Judge Martin Stone. As a self-represented, retired individual, Cheryl faced a judicial environment where attorneys were rewarded despite engaging in dishonest conduct, evidence spoliation, and procedural manipulation. These actions occurred in what can fairly be described as a deeply biased and unjust forum.