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
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,
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
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, Kansas 66048-1000, USA
Web site: www.brazilboycott.org
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS
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
CIVIL ACTION NO.
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:
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:
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE IN MY BOYCOTT OF BRAZILIAN PRODUCTS.