Chapters 15 -17 of the Olympic Record, subtitle of the "Pro Se Litigant."
Chapter 15 Los Angeles federal court
It's January now and the transfer motion has been affected and I am assigned a judge named Alice Marie Stottler. I'm glad I was assigned to a woman judge, why I don't know, but my gladness turns to sadness pretty quick. Another Motion is filed by the USOC to transfer the case to a judge who has already heard cases between the USOC and other parties. This is known in the codes as 'judicial economy' and does make certain amount of sense but wait a minute - this is the first screw in the coffin. Whether I know it, my case has already been decided before it has even been seen or heard.
I am assigned to Judge R. Gadbois. He's an expert on all things olympic because he has ruled in a case against 99 John Does on one complaint who were selling knock off t-shirts, unofficial hot dogs and chips, and the olympic burrito and other such minutia and trivia during the LA Games, usually on the streets (street vendors), in favor of the USOC where all of these major offenders (none of whom appeared or were likely to) were ruled against and the USOC won the case. Now that's a surprise. This judge also had a say (insider information) in the Gay Olympics case (appeal) which I knew nothing about at this time. The USOC later touts and publicizes their litigations as in the hundreds of cases they have brought offenders of the sacred word. This was their second case in court using the Amateur Sports Act. Judge Alice Marie Stottler where are you? I don't think this would have occurred in your Court. We could have had a impact on the 9th Circuit.
In Judge Parker's opinion filed with the Transfer Motion he said, "plaintiff's unconstitutional claims are unclear." Had he not made that statement I might have been thrown out by this new olympic judge. One, I was appearing as my own attorney since I could not retain one to take the case (I was considered nutcase, and a musician too). And though I had some of the best corporate attorneys in town and the best personal attorney one could hope for, they were not trial lawyers. And, two, my complaint was several pages of unclear constitutional allegations supported by no evidence other than the claims. This is exactly how it was supposed to be. By virtue of Judge Parker's statements I was able to Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. The judge granted the Motion and I was given six months leave to file my new complaint. Now six months to get the evidence and facts. A condensed version of the information is below enumerated.
Ready Set - Start
I first must locate and collect data relating to the proliferation of olympic companies who existed using the word olympic for the purposes of trade since 1950. A grandfather clause exempted businesses using olympic prior to 1950. (Olympic Paints for example) I thought there were hundreds but there were thousands. Six hundred Olympic businesses in New York state alone. Every conceivable product or service existed in the U.S. with an olympic prefix. But listings and list have no validity in federal court, and almost without exception every document used as evidence must be certified by the licensing authority. Everything had to be certified. Thousands was spent on certifications. I obtained needed certifications from each state, usually a sampling. The states themselves established their enforcement policy by letter to me at my request. Forty-six states contributed records to my eventual filing of my amended complaint. This process took about 5 months.
The Federal Agencies
I started first with the Executive Branch using the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FOIPA) to get information. Copyright Office; Interstate Commerce Commission; Comptroller of the Currency; Securities and Exchange Commission; F.D.I.C.; F.S.L.I.C.; Treasury Department (I.R.S.); Customs; Federal Communication Commission; and U.S. Department of Justice. In other words, every agency of the federal government other than the White House. Don't want to bother Ronny.
Read All About It !
The U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had documents relating to the investigation of olympic committees and the application of U. S. unfair-competition laws to them. They indicated I could not have those documents because they were subject to the exemption privilege. I appealed (as you should) and sued the DOJ and added their letter and refusal to my case file. It was noted as a "related case" to my judge. I never pursued the appeal. The DOJ had gifted me with the information. The DOJ said "olympic committees." Could that be the IOC and the USOC or Donald Duck and Goofy? Not such a stretch.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
(transcription)
Leo O. LaBranche March 18, 1985
Olympic Records, Inc.
PO Box 3365
24640 Upper Rim Rock Road
Idyllwild, California 92349
Dear Mr. LaBranche:
This letter responds to your February 27, 1985 Freedom of Information Act request for documents concerning the United state Olympic Committee (USOC).
We have located a four page internal memorandum written in February, 1980, regarding the application of antitrust laws to olympic committees, portions of which mention the USOC. Since release of this document would reveal the deliberative process of the Antitrust Division, it is withheld from disclosure under 5 USC § 552(b)(5) .
Department regulations (28 CFR §16.8) and the Freedom of Information Act provide that denials may be appealed within 30 days. Pursuant to DOJ order 945-81, such appeals should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy (Attention: Office of Information and Privacy Appeals) department of Justice, washington, D.C. 20530. Any appeal should be clearly identified as a "FOIPA Appeal." Judicial review is available thereafter in the district where the requester resides or has a principal place of business, the district where the records are located, or the District of Columbia.
If you have questions regarding this response, please contact Leo D. Neshkes at the following address:
US Department of Justice (202) 633 2692
Antitrust Division, Room 7416
10th and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Sincerely Yours,
Roger B. Andewelt, Deputy Director of Operations
Antitrust Division
My filing in D.C. federal court against charged unfair competition under the same antitrust laws. In this moment I knew I was right, at least about unfair competition. If the DOJ is investigating what I myself have claimed then I could be correct. I had a short celebration that night. But celebrations are short lived and soon forgotten. Just because I may be right doesn't win me points but did take stress out of wondering if I was on track. Being right didn't make a difference, none. You and I are going together to Mars where Martian laws rules are in play, not like here on this planet, and all stated rules are negated and optional except I better follow them. Included are the rules of fact, truth, observation, precedent, and common sense. When you beat up on the olympic committee you must be raping an angel when in fact your trying to trump the devil.
At this moment in Universal time I won my lawsuit and it's February 1985. My points are made by the United States Department of Justice, my Heros. No, they won't give me those points and investigative documents because that would be using them, their deliberations, work product, and resources of the United States to fight my battle. The federal government can't afford to back or support any litigant or lawsuit unless there is a compelling reason for them to and no nexus existed in my case.
The States
Certifications from the states show olympic business in all fifty states. Exhibits 27 - 526. Twenty-five hundred collected and compiled to be used as indisputable evidence in support of all my claims.
USOC letter to the States. Exhibit 230-232
What would a Fifth Grader do?
The USOC informs all the States to not allow any olympic business to incorporate. No state went along with this except the golden state. When does the USOC have rights over a State and audacity to tell them what to do. It acknowledges that olympic companies exist and is asking the state to discriminate one as against the other. Does this retarded excuse for a law, the Amateur Act, empower them to make this request in the first place? Not one state except California, where I happened to be, went for this. I guess everybody's stupid except California whose always ahead of the curve. I couldn't sue California though they had injured me. I did end up fighting against a California law firm with over 450 lawyers.
The Fifth Grade Question.
If 'You' wanted to beat up on somebody, put somebody out of business - some olympic business for example, are you going to attack Olympic Records Corporation who has 50 employees and 1800 share holders and stores business records for clients in warehouses in Oklahoma, OR, are you going to go beat up on Olympic Fried Chicken in Tupelo, Mississippi which is run by a widow who's barely making ends meet. The USOC olympic hunters will go to Mississippi. Send letters and threaten them at a minimum. This is an example of what did happen repeatedly and names/places are changed to protect the victims and the innocent.
The Fifth Grade Answer.
Let's go to Tupelo and stop that infringer of our olympic rights; after all we got a deal with Colorado Fried Chicken so she's infringing on our right to license fried chicken using the word olympic. This logic(?) was used again and again and the Supreme Court three years from now will agree with this contention. The tune ought to be "Blinded by the Olympic Light." Oh yes, Olympic Chicken is a financial burden, costing us money for all those threatening letters, so let's charge her legal fees and maybe get her house or business if she can't pay. I've heard of sick . . . These are my esteemed and honorable opponents. Heart the size of a molecule, balls the size of a truck, and arrogance beyond any existing on the planet. Makes me wonder "did this policy originate here" or was it imported from across the great water?
By the States (except the golden one) not allowing olympic businesses to incorporate they would be setting them up (the Mom and Pop business) for the olympic hunters when and if it suits the USOC to go after them. This must be the "hundred year" plan. Why on Earth or Mars would a State agree to this ridiculous, obviously unconstitutional distinction, and request? None of them did, except California. You can't discriminate against your own businesses and people because of a idiotic, arrogant, aristocratic, vicious, and invasive law signed by president Jimmy Carter.
Chapter 16 The Gay Olympics
My lawyer Ruth calls and says get the L.A. Times, nothing more. I go the news dispenser, shove in 2 quarters, take the paper home and here it is. An article about the Gay Olympics. "Oh God," what now?
The International Olympic Committee (started in France in 1894) operating from Twistzerland) and our U. S. Olympic Committee have decided to put a stop to Dr. Tom Waddell's idea to have a "Gay Olympics". After all, the Amateur Sports Act was specifically written and made law to prevent this kind of blatant and flagrant amateur sports event infringing on the rights of the USOC and, I guess, the I.O.C. as well. It is not laughable. Question here: what the hell is the International Olympic Committee doing on this complaint and accessing our federal courts to beat up on the likes of Dr. Waddell (a past olympian), whether it's statutorily correct or not. Are we being visited by the honorable, saintly, and ordained by God bunch of usurpers? The article says the Gay Olympics people have been sued in San Francisco federal court, 500 miles north of here, and that puts us in the same judicial circuit and they're over a one year into it already. I don't know it at the time but everything I do, or don't do, from now until it's over is going to be 100% controlled by what happens to them. And nothing I do, no matter how good, bad, or indifferent, will ever affect my action, not for a couple of years at least, and for sure not in this forum (the courts). I didn't know and had I known what to hell was I gonna do. A new and compelling reason me to quit. So it's good to be left in the dark on some things?
Dr. Tom Waddell, like myself, has the privilege and honor of living in the golden state, his organization in San Francisco called the San Francisco Arts & Athletic Association (hereinafter referred to as "SFAA"). As I mentioned CA is the only state which is party to this repugnant conspiracy of all the fifty states; the leader of the band for other states to later follow. The proving ground for the new Amateur Act has hit the legal ground in federal court. It's about to be tried and tested. So here we got France, Switzerland, and America going against a fine man who is a medical doctor, an ex-olympian, and soon will be dying from AIDS. Sounds like a fair deal and a good match up. The stuff of movies. A perfect test case for the new Amateur Act. The honorable ACLU agrees to defend SFAA. [Mary C. Dunlap & Anne E. Thorkelson, Attorneys at Law]
It's summer again and there's a few months left to re-file my amended complaint and evidence is stacking up. The court record will be eight (8) inches thick, including a forty page complaint. I had good experiences dealing with the States and Federal agencies, some of which would not supply documents once they knew why I was requesting them. I was lucky in New Jersey when the Honorable Representative James J. Florio (later Governor Florio) made a request for me (thank you Sir) and assisted the Secretary of State decide to give up their listings of olympic businesses and corporations after they first refused. It's against most state's laws to withhold public information from anyone who wants it for any reason as long as they pay for it. I have to subpoena C.B.S. for a copy of the television program, "Crossroads," and a transcript. After doing this CBS changed their policy and if you wanted a video copy of a program you simply had to order it and pay for it.
Amended Complaint filing
I mail it and get it back, it's mis-numbered. Over 555 pages are now reconstituted and put in corrected order. I re-file and it stays put.
Ex-Parte - Caution: Blunder ahead
After a time I am notified by the court of an ex-parte hearing on calendar and I believe ex-parte means a proceeding without the parties present. Every time you assume something it'll bite you. That's not what ex-parte means. So I miss the hearing, and though it's 90 miles to the L.A. court from my home I would have been there two hours early had I understood that ex-parte does not mean "without your presence." It escaped me. Maybe they thought I was chicken, no not Olympic Chicken. What transpired that day in front of the judge with LaBranche absent was that my complaint was "prolix." I'm sorry but I had to go look it up. How about you, did you know what prolix means? You probably do.
Prolix means too much, overdoing it, piling on, more than necessary, and such. It also could mean, subject to which side your on, comprehensive. It was indicated the judge agreed with the defendant on that point but my record was never touched. And nothing occurred to, or with, my $35,000 filing and six months labor. I wrote the judge apologized for my lack of appearing and explained my misunderstanding. Nothing further happened in this regard and it was not going to matter. The record was going to be ignored.
Meeting of the Parties
O'Melveny & Myers, downtown Los Angeles, 450 attorneys in the firm. That should be enough to take care of one pro-se litigant. We go to a room with a table large enough for a viking ship and there are three present. Good lawyer, bad lawyer, and a pro-se litigant. They tell me how bad it's gonna be for me to continue and this and that and the other, and they're right, but I don't know that. Meanwhile my questions to them revolve around when are they going to answer my request for a) documents; b) request for admissions; and, c) two interrogatories? They know they're going to get a Summary Judgment ruling against me before any of that is going to transpire. But I don't know that. And these guys keep talking about Bill. Bill this, and Bill that, they're sure enamored with Bill. So I gotta ask, "Bill who?"
Before I tell you their answer know this. When you sue somebody it doesn't matter whose running the company or the show. Your suing the entity, in the this case, the non-profit corporation created by Congress. All olympic committee human beings (directors) are safe from liability because you are suing the "thing." The head of a corporation may end up 'doing time' because of what may occur during his watch but that's not going to happen here. So who runs things is irrelevant, certainly in this case. I had no clue who was in charge of the Olympic Committee. For all I knew or cared it could have been Sir Hugo Fottinthemouth's turn. In my mind I was suing ALL the committee and everyone in it. So Bill who? Bill Simon of course.
This ends up being William E. Simon the recent Treasury Secretary of the United States under three presidents. Also known as a take-over specialist. He's the guy that signed the money for a long time. I'm sorry this makes no impression. The head of an organization is usually behind everything so this is his baby, his and those guys from across the great water. If Mickey Mouse is running the USOC I'm still not going to prevail.
The first in a series of requests served on the USOC, after the new complaint filing, demanded that they reveal every member of their organization in the U.S. and addresses of their representatives or real addresses. This is not supposed to be a secret organization and for sure if you're in a court proceeding your anonymity is going south. I did not need to know Mr. Simon was in charge, it would have made no difference except I would have been happy and privileged to put his name on the complaint and sued him along with the committee. They asked me about my suing Richard G. Kline earlier on and if I was going to keep that in the record. I said no, take it out. (I sued him by accident). It takes a really good/bad lawyer to sue by accident. The meeting goes for a while and then I leave. We did what procedure required and that is the "Meeting of the Parties."
Chapter 17 You lose, Mr. LaBranche
Go to Los Angeles the night before the first real hearing on my case, other than the one I missed. Stay in a downtown hotel to be near the federal court house. It's now the morning of October 21, 1985. A Motion for Summary Judgement is made and accepted by the judge and I lose because the judge knows all about these issues. Actually he's off the hook for now because the Gay Olympics case had now moved to the U.S. Court of Appeals having had a Summary Judgement ruling against them also in their first court appearance which was some time back. Now they are in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (hereinafter "appeals court") in San Francisco. NOW my judge tells me I can go there too because "he's utterly convinced" that my case is meritless and he has not to deal with it at all and sends it up the legal ladder to the next court, where he once sat for a moment. (A federal appeal takes place before a three judge panel.)
I'm sorry but that hurt. Six months, 40-50 hours a week, thousands of dollars, months of fight or flight and a 5 minute hearing and "you lose bud." He called me "quixotic." I knew what it referred to but still went and looked it up. Oh yeah, the Impossible Dream, me and Don Coyote. Now another statutory clock begins to tick. Thirty days within which to appeal. I didn't think I would be in the appeals court this soon. Silly me. After this hearing I got in the car and drove without stopping to Arizona. I couldn't handle being in California another minute. The second screw in the coffin. - Case never looked at or heard by the federal court. And, all had already been decided before I got there. [Continued w/Part IV to follow]
Chapter 15 Los Angeles federal court
It's January now and the transfer motion has been affected and I am assigned a judge named Alice Marie Stottler. I'm glad I was assigned to a woman judge, why I don't know, but my gladness turns to sadness pretty quick. Another Motion is filed by the USOC to transfer the case to a judge who has already heard cases between the USOC and other parties. This is known in the codes as 'judicial economy' and does make certain amount of sense but wait a minute - this is the first screw in the coffin. Whether I know it, my case has already been decided before it has even been seen or heard.
I am assigned to Judge R. Gadbois. He's an expert on all things olympic because he has ruled in a case against 99 John Does on one complaint who were selling knock off t-shirts, unofficial hot dogs and chips, and the olympic burrito and other such minutia and trivia during the LA Games, usually on the streets (street vendors), in favor of the USOC where all of these major offenders (none of whom appeared or were likely to) were ruled against and the USOC won the case. Now that's a surprise. This judge also had a say (insider information) in the Gay Olympics case (appeal) which I knew nothing about at this time. The USOC later touts and publicizes their litigations as in the hundreds of cases they have brought offenders of the sacred word. This was their second case in court using the Amateur Sports Act. Judge Alice Marie Stottler where are you? I don't think this would have occurred in your Court. We could have had a impact on the 9th Circuit.
In Judge Parker's opinion filed with the Transfer Motion he said, "plaintiff's unconstitutional claims are unclear." Had he not made that statement I might have been thrown out by this new olympic judge. One, I was appearing as my own attorney since I could not retain one to take the case (I was considered nutcase, and a musician too). And though I had some of the best corporate attorneys in town and the best personal attorney one could hope for, they were not trial lawyers. And, two, my complaint was several pages of unclear constitutional allegations supported by no evidence other than the claims. This is exactly how it was supposed to be. By virtue of Judge Parker's statements I was able to Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. The judge granted the Motion and I was given six months leave to file my new complaint. Now six months to get the evidence and facts. A condensed version of the information is below enumerated.
Ready Set - Start
I first must locate and collect data relating to the proliferation of olympic companies who existed using the word olympic for the purposes of trade since 1950. A grandfather clause exempted businesses using olympic prior to 1950. (Olympic Paints for example) I thought there were hundreds but there were thousands. Six hundred Olympic businesses in New York state alone. Every conceivable product or service existed in the U.S. with an olympic prefix. But listings and list have no validity in federal court, and almost without exception every document used as evidence must be certified by the licensing authority. Everything had to be certified. Thousands was spent on certifications. I obtained needed certifications from each state, usually a sampling. The states themselves established their enforcement policy by letter to me at my request. Forty-six states contributed records to my eventual filing of my amended complaint. This process took about 5 months.
The Federal Agencies
I started first with the Executive Branch using the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FOIPA) to get information. Copyright Office; Interstate Commerce Commission; Comptroller of the Currency; Securities and Exchange Commission; F.D.I.C.; F.S.L.I.C.; Treasury Department (I.R.S.); Customs; Federal Communication Commission; and U.S. Department of Justice. In other words, every agency of the federal government other than the White House. Don't want to bother Ronny.
Read All About It !
The U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had documents relating to the investigation of olympic committees and the application of U. S. unfair-competition laws to them. They indicated I could not have those documents because they were subject to the exemption privilege. I appealed (as you should) and sued the DOJ and added their letter and refusal to my case file. It was noted as a "related case" to my judge. I never pursued the appeal. The DOJ had gifted me with the information. The DOJ said "olympic committees." Could that be the IOC and the USOC or Donald Duck and Goofy? Not such a stretch.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
(transcription)
Leo O. LaBranche March 18, 1985
Olympic Records, Inc.
PO Box 3365
24640 Upper Rim Rock Road
Idyllwild, California 92349
Dear Mr. LaBranche:
This letter responds to your February 27, 1985 Freedom of Information Act request for documents concerning the United state Olympic Committee (USOC).
We have located a four page internal memorandum written in February, 1980, regarding the application of antitrust laws to olympic committees, portions of which mention the USOC. Since release of this document would reveal the deliberative process of the Antitrust Division, it is withheld from disclosure under 5 USC § 552(b)(5) .
Department regulations (28 CFR §16.8) and the Freedom of Information Act provide that denials may be appealed within 30 days. Pursuant to DOJ order 945-81, such appeals should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy (Attention: Office of Information and Privacy Appeals) department of Justice, washington, D.C. 20530. Any appeal should be clearly identified as a "FOIPA Appeal." Judicial review is available thereafter in the district where the requester resides or has a principal place of business, the district where the records are located, or the District of Columbia.
If you have questions regarding this response, please contact Leo D. Neshkes at the following address:
US Department of Justice (202) 633 2692
Antitrust Division, Room 7416
10th and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Sincerely Yours,
Roger B. Andewelt, Deputy Director of Operations
Antitrust Division
My filing in D.C. federal court against charged unfair competition under the same antitrust laws. In this moment I knew I was right, at least about unfair competition. If the DOJ is investigating what I myself have claimed then I could be correct. I had a short celebration that night. But celebrations are short lived and soon forgotten. Just because I may be right doesn't win me points but did take stress out of wondering if I was on track. Being right didn't make a difference, none. You and I are going together to Mars where Martian laws rules are in play, not like here on this planet, and all stated rules are negated and optional except I better follow them. Included are the rules of fact, truth, observation, precedent, and common sense. When you beat up on the olympic committee you must be raping an angel when in fact your trying to trump the devil.
At this moment in Universal time I won my lawsuit and it's February 1985. My points are made by the United States Department of Justice, my Heros. No, they won't give me those points and investigative documents because that would be using them, their deliberations, work product, and resources of the United States to fight my battle. The federal government can't afford to back or support any litigant or lawsuit unless there is a compelling reason for them to and no nexus existed in my case.
The States
Certifications from the states show olympic business in all fifty states. Exhibits 27 - 526. Twenty-five hundred collected and compiled to be used as indisputable evidence in support of all my claims.
USOC letter to the States. Exhibit 230-232
What would a Fifth Grader do?
The USOC informs all the States to not allow any olympic business to incorporate. No state went along with this except the golden state. When does the USOC have rights over a State and audacity to tell them what to do. It acknowledges that olympic companies exist and is asking the state to discriminate one as against the other. Does this retarded excuse for a law, the Amateur Act, empower them to make this request in the first place? Not one state except California, where I happened to be, went for this. I guess everybody's stupid except California whose always ahead of the curve. I couldn't sue California though they had injured me. I did end up fighting against a California law firm with over 450 lawyers.
The Fifth Grade Question.
If 'You' wanted to beat up on somebody, put somebody out of business - some olympic business for example, are you going to attack Olympic Records Corporation who has 50 employees and 1800 share holders and stores business records for clients in warehouses in Oklahoma, OR, are you going to go beat up on Olympic Fried Chicken in Tupelo, Mississippi which is run by a widow who's barely making ends meet. The USOC olympic hunters will go to Mississippi. Send letters and threaten them at a minimum. This is an example of what did happen repeatedly and names/places are changed to protect the victims and the innocent.
The Fifth Grade Answer.
Let's go to Tupelo and stop that infringer of our olympic rights; after all we got a deal with Colorado Fried Chicken so she's infringing on our right to license fried chicken using the word olympic. This logic(?) was used again and again and the Supreme Court three years from now will agree with this contention. The tune ought to be "Blinded by the Olympic Light." Oh yes, Olympic Chicken is a financial burden, costing us money for all those threatening letters, so let's charge her legal fees and maybe get her house or business if she can't pay. I've heard of sick . . . These are my esteemed and honorable opponents. Heart the size of a molecule, balls the size of a truck, and arrogance beyond any existing on the planet. Makes me wonder "did this policy originate here" or was it imported from across the great water?
By the States (except the golden one) not allowing olympic businesses to incorporate they would be setting them up (the Mom and Pop business) for the olympic hunters when and if it suits the USOC to go after them. This must be the "hundred year" plan. Why on Earth or Mars would a State agree to this ridiculous, obviously unconstitutional distinction, and request? None of them did, except California. You can't discriminate against your own businesses and people because of a idiotic, arrogant, aristocratic, vicious, and invasive law signed by president Jimmy Carter.
Chapter 16 The Gay Olympics
My lawyer Ruth calls and says get the L.A. Times, nothing more. I go the news dispenser, shove in 2 quarters, take the paper home and here it is. An article about the Gay Olympics. "Oh God," what now?
The International Olympic Committee (started in France in 1894) operating from Twistzerland) and our U. S. Olympic Committee have decided to put a stop to Dr. Tom Waddell's idea to have a "Gay Olympics". After all, the Amateur Sports Act was specifically written and made law to prevent this kind of blatant and flagrant amateur sports event infringing on the rights of the USOC and, I guess, the I.O.C. as well. It is not laughable. Question here: what the hell is the International Olympic Committee doing on this complaint and accessing our federal courts to beat up on the likes of Dr. Waddell (a past olympian), whether it's statutorily correct or not. Are we being visited by the honorable, saintly, and ordained by God bunch of usurpers? The article says the Gay Olympics people have been sued in San Francisco federal court, 500 miles north of here, and that puts us in the same judicial circuit and they're over a one year into it already. I don't know it at the time but everything I do, or don't do, from now until it's over is going to be 100% controlled by what happens to them. And nothing I do, no matter how good, bad, or indifferent, will ever affect my action, not for a couple of years at least, and for sure not in this forum (the courts). I didn't know and had I known what to hell was I gonna do. A new and compelling reason me to quit. So it's good to be left in the dark on some things?
Dr. Tom Waddell, like myself, has the privilege and honor of living in the golden state, his organization in San Francisco called the San Francisco Arts & Athletic Association (hereinafter referred to as "SFAA"). As I mentioned CA is the only state which is party to this repugnant conspiracy of all the fifty states; the leader of the band for other states to later follow. The proving ground for the new Amateur Act has hit the legal ground in federal court. It's about to be tried and tested. So here we got France, Switzerland, and America going against a fine man who is a medical doctor, an ex-olympian, and soon will be dying from AIDS. Sounds like a fair deal and a good match up. The stuff of movies. A perfect test case for the new Amateur Act. The honorable ACLU agrees to defend SFAA. [Mary C. Dunlap & Anne E. Thorkelson, Attorneys at Law]
It's summer again and there's a few months left to re-file my amended complaint and evidence is stacking up. The court record will be eight (8) inches thick, including a forty page complaint. I had good experiences dealing with the States and Federal agencies, some of which would not supply documents once they knew why I was requesting them. I was lucky in New Jersey when the Honorable Representative James J. Florio (later Governor Florio) made a request for me (thank you Sir) and assisted the Secretary of State decide to give up their listings of olympic businesses and corporations after they first refused. It's against most state's laws to withhold public information from anyone who wants it for any reason as long as they pay for it. I have to subpoena C.B.S. for a copy of the television program, "Crossroads," and a transcript. After doing this CBS changed their policy and if you wanted a video copy of a program you simply had to order it and pay for it.
Amended Complaint filing
I mail it and get it back, it's mis-numbered. Over 555 pages are now reconstituted and put in corrected order. I re-file and it stays put.
Ex-Parte - Caution: Blunder ahead
After a time I am notified by the court of an ex-parte hearing on calendar and I believe ex-parte means a proceeding without the parties present. Every time you assume something it'll bite you. That's not what ex-parte means. So I miss the hearing, and though it's 90 miles to the L.A. court from my home I would have been there two hours early had I understood that ex-parte does not mean "without your presence." It escaped me. Maybe they thought I was chicken, no not Olympic Chicken. What transpired that day in front of the judge with LaBranche absent was that my complaint was "prolix." I'm sorry but I had to go look it up. How about you, did you know what prolix means? You probably do.
Prolix means too much, overdoing it, piling on, more than necessary, and such. It also could mean, subject to which side your on, comprehensive. It was indicated the judge agreed with the defendant on that point but my record was never touched. And nothing occurred to, or with, my $35,000 filing and six months labor. I wrote the judge apologized for my lack of appearing and explained my misunderstanding. Nothing further happened in this regard and it was not going to matter. The record was going to be ignored.
Meeting of the Parties
O'Melveny & Myers, downtown Los Angeles, 450 attorneys in the firm. That should be enough to take care of one pro-se litigant. We go to a room with a table large enough for a viking ship and there are three present. Good lawyer, bad lawyer, and a pro-se litigant. They tell me how bad it's gonna be for me to continue and this and that and the other, and they're right, but I don't know that. Meanwhile my questions to them revolve around when are they going to answer my request for a) documents; b) request for admissions; and, c) two interrogatories? They know they're going to get a Summary Judgment ruling against me before any of that is going to transpire. But I don't know that. And these guys keep talking about Bill. Bill this, and Bill that, they're sure enamored with Bill. So I gotta ask, "Bill who?"
Before I tell you their answer know this. When you sue somebody it doesn't matter whose running the company or the show. Your suing the entity, in the this case, the non-profit corporation created by Congress. All olympic committee human beings (directors) are safe from liability because you are suing the "thing." The head of a corporation may end up 'doing time' because of what may occur during his watch but that's not going to happen here. So who runs things is irrelevant, certainly in this case. I had no clue who was in charge of the Olympic Committee. For all I knew or cared it could have been Sir Hugo Fottinthemouth's turn. In my mind I was suing ALL the committee and everyone in it. So Bill who? Bill Simon of course.
This ends up being William E. Simon the recent Treasury Secretary of the United States under three presidents. Also known as a take-over specialist. He's the guy that signed the money for a long time. I'm sorry this makes no impression. The head of an organization is usually behind everything so this is his baby, his and those guys from across the great water. If Mickey Mouse is running the USOC I'm still not going to prevail.
The first in a series of requests served on the USOC, after the new complaint filing, demanded that they reveal every member of their organization in the U.S. and addresses of their representatives or real addresses. This is not supposed to be a secret organization and for sure if you're in a court proceeding your anonymity is going south. I did not need to know Mr. Simon was in charge, it would have made no difference except I would have been happy and privileged to put his name on the complaint and sued him along with the committee. They asked me about my suing Richard G. Kline earlier on and if I was going to keep that in the record. I said no, take it out. (I sued him by accident). It takes a really good/bad lawyer to sue by accident. The meeting goes for a while and then I leave. We did what procedure required and that is the "Meeting of the Parties."
Chapter 17 You lose, Mr. LaBranche
Go to Los Angeles the night before the first real hearing on my case, other than the one I missed. Stay in a downtown hotel to be near the federal court house. It's now the morning of October 21, 1985. A Motion for Summary Judgement is made and accepted by the judge and I lose because the judge knows all about these issues. Actually he's off the hook for now because the Gay Olympics case had now moved to the U.S. Court of Appeals having had a Summary Judgement ruling against them also in their first court appearance which was some time back. Now they are in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (hereinafter "appeals court") in San Francisco. NOW my judge tells me I can go there too because "he's utterly convinced" that my case is meritless and he has not to deal with it at all and sends it up the legal ladder to the next court, where he once sat for a moment. (A federal appeal takes place before a three judge panel.)
I'm sorry but that hurt. Six months, 40-50 hours a week, thousands of dollars, months of fight or flight and a 5 minute hearing and "you lose bud." He called me "quixotic." I knew what it referred to but still went and looked it up. Oh yeah, the Impossible Dream, me and Don Coyote. Now another statutory clock begins to tick. Thirty days within which to appeal. I didn't think I would be in the appeals court this soon. Silly me. After this hearing I got in the car and drove without stopping to Arizona. I couldn't handle being in California another minute. The second screw in the coffin. - Case never looked at or heard by the federal court. And, all had already been decided before I got there. [Continued w/Part IV to follow]
No comments:
Post a Comment