OCHOA – “What a Tangled Web We Weave!”
# Defeat Ochoa 2020
On or about Jan. 15, 2020, celebrated civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, posted comments at the two Facebook pages of Las Vegas family court judge, Vincent Ochoa. Phillips’ comments were critical of the judge’s record. Phillips urged folks to not vote for the judge.
Viewpoint Discrimination
Phillips’ comments were promptly removed from both of the judge’s pages and Phillips was then “blocked” — but curiously, Phillips was “blocked” at only one of the judge’s two pages. By censoring Phillips on social media, the judge engages in unlawful viewpoint discrimination.
First Amendment
Where elected officials engage in censorship — removing comments or blocking folks on social media — there lay First Amendment violations. Pres. Trump was recently sued for censoring folks on social media. The Trumpmeister lost the lawsuit. Why?–because elected officials may not censor members of the general public on social media, [see Knight Institute v. Trump].
Phillips Sues Ochoa
On Feb. 7, 2020, Phillips sued Ochoa in federal court alleging infringement of First Amendment liberties, [42 U.S.C. § 1983]. One week later, in response to Phillips’ lawsuit, the judge filed an affidavit (written testimony) giving his account of the Facebook fracas.
The Judge’s Testimony
The judge testifies that Phillips has “issues” with the judge’s Facebook page (singular). Curiously, the judge never mentions his other Facebook page. The judge testifies to no involvement with his current Facebook page. So, whose page is it? The judge testifies: “This page … is not Judge Ochoa’s page; nor is it Vincent Ochoa’s page. The page … is operated by the staff of the Reelection of Judge Ochoa.”
Testimony Summarized
Basically, the judge testifies that: (A) the judge has only one Facebook page; (B) the page is not the judge’s page; and (C) the page is operated by the judge’s staff. Hmm…
Judicial Doublespeak
Long story short, the judge claims he does NOT operate what appears to be his own Facebook page! But this sounds like clever word games — just like Bill Clinton back in the day: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman!” What did Clinton mean by “sexual relations?” What does Ochoa mean by “operate?”
Truth Hits!
Phillips offers a different set of facts: (A) there are two Judge Ochoa pages at-issue, (B) the current page is indeed Judge Ochoa’s page, and (C) the current page is indeed “operated” by Judge Ochoa.
Two Facebook Pages
The judge testifies to just one Facebook page—so, what happened to the judge’s other Facebook page? Get this — according to Phillips — the other page suddenly disappeared one day, (depublished), apparently on the same day Phillips sued the judge! And this was the page that had “blocked” Phillips.
Why Was the Page Depublished?
Could it be that Facebook removed the judge’s other page because Ochoa spouts milquetoast left-wing rhetoric that violates community standards? (Not likely.) However, based on “when” the page disappeared, there is a rather strong inference that the judge ditched the other page—to destroy evidence of having blocked Phillips—and this apparently happened on or about the same day that Phillips sued the judge! (Coincidence?)
Appearance of Impropriety
The judge depublished his other Facebook page, apparently to hide evidence of the viewpoint discrimination, (the “blocking”). Curiously, the judge’s affidavit testimony omits any reference to his depublished page. Here, the judge “sins by silence.” The judge purposely omits facts — despite having a duty to be forthcoming. The judge fails to tell the whole truth and nothin’ but!
The Judge Operates His Own Facebook Page
It appears the Facebook page is in fact “operated” by the judge—and the judge appears to be dancing around this fact and not owning-up to it. Remarkably, the judge contends his page is “operated” by his staff. But again, what does the judge mean by “operate?”
The Verb ‘to Operate’
In Facebook lingo, “to operate” a page means to post comments, photos and videos, and it also means to remove comments, photos and videos. “To operate” also means blocking undesirables. Notably, once a page is set-up, there’s nothing to “operate.” Facebook “operates” itself, [see 47 U.S.C. § 230].
Pin it on the Staffers!
Notice how Ochoa blames his staff for blocking Phillips! Sidebar: on a somewhat humorous note, when Columbia Univ. sued Pres. Trump for blocking folks on social media, he too tried to deflect blame — by pinning it on White House staff! Typical narcissistic maneuver—blame others!
Red Pill, Blue Pill
Regardless of whether it’s a Republican (Trump), or Democrat (Ochoa), the song ‘n dance remains the same—i.e., where sneaky-snake politicians get caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar, they always blame the staffers!
“I, Claudius”
At the judge’s Facebook page, many posts “speak” in the first person, “I,” as in, “I did this, or I did that.” Phillips argues that the conspicuous use of the first person, “I,” is proof positive that the judge is the one doing the posting—not the staffers.
Who Made This Post?
One post at the judge’s page, (Feb. 15, 2020), states: “I previously served as Alternate Domestic Violence Commissioner.” Okay, so “who” made this post? The judge?—or his staffers? (Hint: it was the judge.)
And Who Made This Post?
Another post, (Feb. 14, 2020), states: “Happy Valentine’s Day from Deb and me (and the dogs).” The reference to “Deb,” of course, is the judge’s wife. Okay, so “who” made this post? The judge?—or his staffers? (No, you can’t use a lifeline!)
“I, Ochoa”
It goes without saying — using the first person pronoun, (“I”), proves the judge is the culprit! The judge is “operating” the Facebook page—not the staffers! When the judge testifies that his page is “operated by the staff of the Reelection of Judge Ochoa,” the judge’s testimony is calculated to deceive.
“I, Government Official”
According to its About section, the judge’s Facebook page belongs to a “Government Official.” So, who is the “Government Official” referenced at the page? C’mon!—it’s Ochoa!
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
If one visits the judge’s Facebook page and sends a message asking who runs the page, it’s totally crickets! No response! No transparency! No accountability!
PERJURY on the BENCH?!
Remarkable as it sounds, Ochoa testifies that his Facebook page: “is not Judge Ochoa’s page, nor is it Vincent Ochoa’s page”—but how can this be? The judge’s Facebook page is self-authenticating. It plainly indicates the page is hosted by a “Government Official”—presumably, the judge—not the judge’s staff! It thus appears the judge makes “false statements under oath,” which is called perjury — a felony punishable by up to four (4) years in prison.
Conspiracy Theory
So, here’s a wild theory –> it must be that the judge emails his staffers with photos and first-person narratives, “I did this, or I did that,” and the staffers then dutifully post the photos and narratives word-for-word—and the judge never even logs-in to Facebook, right?
Facebook Subpoena
We expect Phillips will subpoena Facebook records to get to the truth behind “who” is doing the posting at the judge’s Facebook page. And, if Facebook records reveal that the judge is actually the one doing the posting, then how on earth will the judge reconcile his prior inconsistent statements?
Take Ochoa’s Deposition!
The Truth Hits! I-Team learned that, on Feb. 25, 2020, Phillips filed a motion to take the judge’s on-camera deposition. (I know, right?!) Under Nevada law, Phillips gets to depose the judge—to resolve glaring factual discrepancies in the judge’s testimony, [see EDCR, Rule 2.21].
Chief Judge to Decide
But will Phillips be allowed to take Ochoa’s deposition? Chief Judge Linda Bell will soon decide whether Phillips gets to depose Ochoa (or not). Phillips added, “Hey, I’m willing to submit the questions in advance! I’m good like that.”
Ten Questions for the Judge
The Truth Hits! I-Team here presents the ten questions that Phillips submitted to the judge in advance of the much-anticipated deposition.
TEN QUESTIONS for the JUDGE:
(1) Admit that, before Feb. 7, 2020, there were two Judge Ochoa re-election pages on Facebook; but after Feb. 7, 2020, there is now just one.
(2) Explain why, on or about Feb. 7, 2020, one of your Facebook re-election pages was depublished.
(3) Provide your definition for the verb “to operate,” as used in the sentence: “The page that PHILLIPS refers to is a campaign page that is operated by the staff of the Reelection of Judge Ochoa.”
(4) Identify the person who created your current Facebook re-election page, as well as the person who created your depublished Facebook re-election page.
(5) Identify all persons who serve as “Admins,” “Moderators,” or “Editors” at your current Facebook re-election page.
(6) For each person who serves as “Admins,” “Moderators,” or “Editors” at your current Facebook re-election page, explain that person’s relationship to you (including financial entanglements).
(7) Identify all persons who serve as “Admins,” “Moderators,” or “Editors,” at your current Facebook re-election page, who post commentaries using the first-person pronoun, “I.”
(8) Admit that you are the “Government Official” referenced in the “About” section of your current Facebook re-election page.
(9) Admit that, on or about Jan. 15, 2020, your current Facebook re-election page “censored,” (i.e., removed), commentaries that PHILLIPS had made at that page.
(10) Admit that, on or about Jan. 15, 2020, your other Facebook re-election page, (now depublished), “blocked,” (i.e., indefinitely suspended), PHILLIPS’ ability to make commentaries at that page.
Stay tuned for more litigation updates! ~~TMP. 🙂
– T H E E N D –
Produced and Directed by TMP’s Midnight Minions
in association with Chapter Eleven Productions,
Fly-By-Night Management Services, and
Neurotica Entertainment Group
Copyright 2020 – T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
“Time flies like an arrow,
fruit flies like a banana.”
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli
tmatthewphillips 
Leave a Reply