December 30, 1999. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.
LAMBROS vs. FAULKNER et al., CIVIL CASE NO. 98-1621 (DSD/JMM)
I hereby state under the penalty of perjury that a true and correct copy of the following:
a. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, dated December 30, 1999
was served on the following persons this 4th day of January, 2000,via U.S. Mail through the USP Leavenworth mailroom, to:
1. CLERK OF THE COURT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
U.S. Courthouse
Warren E. Burger Federal Building
316 North Robert Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1460
U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL NO. Z-233-381-749
One original and one copy
2. Attorney Donna Rae Johnson
Attorney No. 50945
Attorney for Defendant's
700 St. Paul Building
6 West Fifth Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
3. INTERNET RELEASE TO ALL HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS
4. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
Organization of American States
1889 F. Street, N.W.
RE: TO BE FILED WITH: JUNE 30, 1998, Complaint and released
to all 35 countries that are members of the Organization of
American States.
5. Judge Baltasar Garzon of the National Court of Madrid,
Spain
Audiencia National
Garcia Gutierrez, #1
Madrid, Spain 28004
RE: TO BE FILED WITH: January 5, 1999, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS,
mailed on January 7, 1999 and received by Judge Garzon on January 25,
1999.
JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS, #00436-124
USP Leavenworth
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, Kansas 66048-1000, USA
Web site: www.brazilboycott.org
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS
Plaintiff
vs.
CHARLES W. FAULKNER, SUED AS ESTATE/WILL/BUSINESS INSURANCE OF DECEASED ATTORNEY CHARLES W. FAULKNER
ATTORNEY SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER
FAULKNER & FAULKNER
JOHN & JANE DOE'S
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION NO.
98-1621 (DSD-JMM)
Plaintiff John Gregory
Lambros, Pro se, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1)
and his status as a Pro Se Litigant,
requests this Court to appoint counsel to represent him in
this case for the following reasons:
1. Plaintiff has alleged facts under which a meritorious claim(s)
might be proved and this Court ORDERED on November 15, 1999, that
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgement is DENIED.
2. On December 22, 1999, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mason, ORDERED, a
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER no later than January 24, 2000, as
per Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also requesting
a list of intended EXPERT WITNESSES with a written report as
to the subject matter on which each expert will be expected to
testify and date on which Plaintiff will be prepared to provide the
Report of the Expert Witness as specified in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and
(B).
3. On January 26, 1999, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mason ORDERED within
his ORDER, MEMORANDUM, and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, that:
Page 1.
a. Defendants shall
retain additional counsel to act as co-counsel or substitute
counsel, to insure that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the Local Rules of this Court will be observed.
b. All parties where ordered NOT TO FILE MOTIONS, NOR ANY OTHER
PLEADINGS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. Also stating,
11[T]hereafter, further discovery may or may not be
appropriate. Given the history of this case, we have required that
the question of the final form of the complaint be considered
first."
4. Therefore, from on or about January 26, 1999, Plaintiff has not
filed discovery requests in this case.
5. Plaintiff is not able to afford counsel.
6. The issues involved in this case are complex as they involve
international law as to the interpretation of Brazil's Constitution
and local laws and the Extradition Treaty between Brazil and the
United States of America.
7. The prison limits the hours that Plaintiff may have access to the
prison law library and the law material contained there are limited
as the library does not contain law books from the State of
Minnesota or BRAZIL.
8. Plaintiff has a limited knowledge of the law, is not educated in
law, has brain control implants that torture and control his thoughts
and deeds, thus preventing him in the development of legal theory due
to BRAZILIAN CONTROLLERS that are NAZI'S.
9. The ends of justice would best be served in this case if an
attorney was appointed to represent this Plaintiff or in the
alternative COCOUNSEL or SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL, to insure that the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court
will be observed.
CASE LAW TO SUPPORT:
Page 2.
10. PETERSON vs.
NADLER, 452 F.2d 754 (8th Cir. 1971), Head Note
6, "[Although there exists no statutory or constitutional right
for an indigent
to have counsel appointed in a civil case, district court does have
the power
to make such an appointment. Title 28 U.S.C.A. §1915." Head Note
7, "[I]ndigent
federal prisoner, whose suit AGAINST HIS FORMER ATTORNEY was
predicated on claim
that the attorney had fraudulently coverted plaintiff's automobile by
wrongfully
selling it after plaintiff had been sent to prison, was entitled to
have counsel
appointed to represent him, considering fact that defendant's answer
admitted the
sale of the automobile but alleged mitigating defenses, and
considering fact that,
for obvious reasons, plaintiff alone could not investigate the
case or hope to
obtain evidence to prove his allegations."
11. WRIGHT vs. DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT., 660 F.2d 623
(5th Cir. 1981), it is recommended that all Pro Se Litigants
seek appointment of counsel. The Fifth Circuit stated,
counsel can: . . . explain the applicable legal principles to the
complainant and . . . limit litigation to potentially meritorious
issues. In addition, appointment of a lawyer provides the unlettered
inmate with an opportunity to obtain representation equally qualified
with the professional counsel usually provided by the state for the
defendant.
12. Title 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1915(e)(1): The Court may
request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford
counsel.
13. BOUNDS vs. SMITH, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977): "[Meaningful
access" to the courts is the touchstone. Id. at 80.
14. GORDON vs. LEEKE, 574 F.2d 1147, 1152, 1153 and n.3 (4th
Cir. 1978) [A] district court is not required to act as an
advocate for a pro se litigant; BUT when such a litigant has
alleged a cause of action which may be meritorious against a
PERSON OR PERSONS
UNKNOWN,
the district court should afford him a reasonable opportunity to
determine the CORRECT PERSON OR PERSONS
AGAINST WHOM
THE CLAIM IS
ASSERTED, ADVISE HIM HOW TO PROCEED AND DIRECT OR PERMIT
AMENDMENT OF THE PLEADINGS TO BRING THAT PERSON OR PERSONS BEFORE THE
COURT.
Page 3.
If it is apparent to the
district court that a pro se litigant has a colorable claim
but LACKS THE CAPACITY TO PRESENT IT, THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD
APPOINT COUNSEL TO ASSIST HIM.
15. SHIELDS vs. JACKSON, 570 F.2d 284.1 285 & 286
(8th Cir. 1978) The Eighth Circuit stated that the indigent
prisoner was in no position to investigate his case when he has sued
arresting officer for confiscating personal property. [W]e
take this action because it is clear that Shields is indigent and not
in a position to adequately investigate the case, and because
we believe that the complaint states a cause of action and that
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WILL ADVANCE THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE. Id. at 286.
16. MURRELL vs. BENNETT, 615 F.2d 306, 311 (5th Cir. 1980) the
Fifth Circuit stated that the district court should have appointed
counsel to aid plaintiff with his discovery.
17. MANNING vs. LOCKHART, 623 F.2d 536 (8th Cir. 1980),
Head Note
6, [Appointment of counsel is not to be endorsed in every civil
rights case filed
by state prisoner, but same was appropriate where there was
question of CREDIBILITY
OF WITNESSES and where case presented serious allegations of fact
which were
not facially frivolous.
18. ADKINS vs. DUPONT, 335 U.S. 331, 69 S.Ct. 85 (1948),
recognized that litigants need not give up their "last dollar . . .
and thus make themselves and their dependents wholly destitute" Id.
at 339, to be granted in forma pauperis status. In SOUDER vs.
McGUIRE, 516 F.2d 820 (3rd Cir. 1975), the ADKINS standard was
applied to a habeas corpus action and the court held that,
"[W]e do not think that prisoners must totally deprive
themselves of these small amenities of life which they are permitted
to acquire in a prison or mental hospital beyond the food, clothing,
and lodging already furnished by the state. An account of $50.07
would not purchase many such amenities, perhaps cigarettes and some
occasional reading material. These need not be surrendered in
order
Page 4.
FOR A PRISONER OR A MENTAL PATIENT TO LITIGATE IN FOF14A
PAUPERIS IN THE DISTRICT COURT." See, SOUDER, at 824; see also,
IN RE SMITH, 600 F.2d 714, (8th Cir. 1979).
RULE 16, RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE:
19. This Court ORDERED on December 22, 1999, that all parties
shall file their written response to areas covered by RnE 16,
FRCP.
20. Upon review of RnE 16, FRCP, this Plaintiff does not think, in
his limited capacity due to brain control implants, that he can
comply with this Courts ORDER of December 22, 1999, without being
SANCTIONED under Rule 16(f), FRCP, as this Plaintiff would be
"SUBSTANTIALLY UNPREPARED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONFERENCE and/or
GOOD FAITH." Therefore, Plaintiff is requesting an attorney to assist
him.
21. Rule 16(b) SCHEDULING AND PLANNING, will place a limit
on
the jointer of parties and the amendment of this action. This
Plaintiff foresees
difficulties as to the inclusion of parties within the legal theories
of
Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel without
further discovery and a ruling
as to same by this court, which may not be necessary if this
Plaintiff had an
attorney.
RULE 26. RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE:
22. Plaintiff has an initial list of witnesses that he would
like to call as witnesses but the problem is that some of the
witnesses addresses are unknown or unavailable to this Plaintiff due
to access to the Internet and U.S. telephone books. Also, many of the
witnesses are past and/or present government witnesses that where on
the same indictment as Plaintiff. Plaintiff would have those
witnesses testify to the fact that they where offered plea
Page 5.
agreements and/or entered into negotiations with U.S. and/or State of
Minnesota Officials and their attorneys that offered the CORRECT
STATUTORY SENTENCING EXPOSURE as to Count One (1) within this
Plaintiffs indictment, U.S. vs. LAMBROS, CR-4-89-82(05). An
example of such is already entered into evidence with this court.
See, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS FROM: LARRY PEBBLES, c/o BURNETT
REALITY, 13608 - 80th Circle, Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369, dated
July 28, 1998 and served on July 29, 1998, where LARRY PEBBLES
ADMITTED in ADMISSION FIFTEEN (15):
15. 1 LARRY PEBBLES was told by the United States
Attorney's Office in the District of Minnesota,
specifically U.S. Assistant Attorney DOUGLAS RAY
PETERSON, that the MAXIMUM SENTENCE LARRY PEBBLES
could receive on Count 1, the conspiracy count,
in criminal file No. CR-4-89-82(05). the same
indictment that JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS was indicted
on in Count 1. was a MAXIMUM OF A LIFE SENTENCE
AND NOT A MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE.
23. Plaintiff has been instructed by the officials at the United
States Penitentiary Leavenworth that he is not to communicate with
past government witnesses within his indictment. This Plaintiff took
a chance in contacting LARRY PEBBLES.
24. Plaintiff believes that in the interest of justice and not to
stir-up the kettle any more than possible, it is best to have an
attorney that is appointed by this court to contact all individuals
that where affiliated with Plaintiff's trial that are needed as
witness in the forthcoming trial and processes of RULE 26, FRCP.
25. If this court does not appoint counsel for Plaintiff, Plaintiff
requests that this court issue an ORDER that allows him to seek the
release of all information within the U.S. Attorneys Office in
Minnesota and any other locals that the U.S. Attorney may retrieve
information from as to the addresses of all information leading to
the correct names, addresses and telephone numbers of all individuals
indicted within criminal file number CR-4-89-82(05), there
attorneys,
and the government officials that debriefed and entered into plea
bargain negotiations with each.
Page 6.
CONCLUSION:
26. WHEREFORE, this Plaintiff requests this court to grant
Plaintiff forma pauperis status that he maintained during his
criminal trial and appoint him counsel in this case.
27. 1 declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Title 28 U.S.C.A. §1746
EXECUTED ON: December 30, 1999
JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS, Pro Se
Reg. No. 00436-124
USP Leavenworth
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, Kansas 66048-1000
For more information write (snail mail) JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS directly at:JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS
Prisoner No. 00436-124
U. S. Penitentiary Leavenworth
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, KS 66048-1000
USATHANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE IN MY BOYCOTT OF BRAZILIAN PRODUCTS.