|
|
|
|
Seems Rambo et al. discovered a recent Supreme Court Case that allegedly represents their position for punitive damages in the upcoming Smoot Appeal at the Sixth Circuit? Smoot and I disagree; what do "U" think? IMWTK? Case Number: No. 01-4071 Case Name: Kenneth R. Smoot, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. United Transportation Union; CSX Transportation, Inc., Defendants - Appellees.
The Office of the Clerk United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit 524 Potter Steward U.S. Courthouse Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 - 3988 _____________________________________________________ Plaintiff-Appellant FRAP 28(j) Reply Plaintiff Smoot, pro se, does not feel that the recent case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell et al. in any way supports the Defendants in the instant appeal; it only supports this Plaintiff. Of extreme importance to this Honorable Court relative to State Farm, are some very significant differences: 1. No Jury Trial. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/01-1289.html ) Pursuant only to an alleged agreement of my attorney, Mr. Merritt Green, III, without my knowledge or consent, the jury trial in 1:94CV0485 was replaced with a "Summary Bench Trial on Damages". During said "bench trial", the District Judge determined he had already "ruled" on the wiretap issue in the Consolidated Cases and therefore allowed no evidence nor my witnesses, on any issue. I feel, the punitive damages in this case are the quintessential "decision maker’s caprice" when one views that the District Judge previously granted summary judgment against me on my claims with concrete evidence. Awarded more than ten times the maximum statutory damage allowed by law to each defendant, because there was no actual harm to them other than self inflicted. Coupled with the known bias towards "pro se" litigants culminating in his actions against this "pro se" litigant throughout 1:94CV0597, 0674, and 0485 (See Motion to Recuse). 2. No Compensatory Damages: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/01-1289.html ) Suffice to say Defendants "opted" for Statutory Damages because they had no identifiable actual damages without the use of my evidence, nor can I find any case that associates "punitive damages" with statutory damages? 3. Criminal Penalties: "Great care must be taken to avoid use of the civil process to assess criminal penalties that can be imposed only after the heightened protections of a criminal trial have been observed, including, of course, its higher standards of proof. Punitive damages are not a substitute for the criminal process, and the remote possibility of a criminal sanction does not automatically sustain a punitive damages award." (on page 19 of 31 at http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/01-1289.html ) Throughout all three (3) cases, I have maintained one fact above all others; NO Criminal charges would/could ever be considered against me because of the heighten protections being observed and higher standards of proof, that any prosecutor (Federal or State) would have been required to do what the District Court and Sixth Circuit refused to do, i.e., "open the box" (listen to the tape). ONLY the Defendants could have ever been subjected to "criminal prosecution" for the actions that took place at PLB 3882, Case No. 155 and that are a matter of record without any tape or transcript (See the Award). In conclusion, nothing in State Farm supports the Defendant’s position IF the entire record is viewed by the Honorable Court. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ Kenneth R. Smoot, Pro se This will certify that a copy of Appellant’s FRAP 28(j) Reply was sent to the following this 18th day of April , 2003; John Lewis Baker & Hostetler 1900 E. Ninth St., Suite 3200 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-3485
John Edmond Guerrieri, Edmond & Clayman 1625 Massachusetts Ave. N.W. Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036-2243
_________________________ Kenneth R. Smoot P. O. Box 1732 Midlothian, VA. 23113
|