This is the Law?

February  7, 2000:   I apologize to Ken Smoot as I have not done the necessary work to aid his cause and keep him from being abused, i.e., I have not published the specious decisions for the whole World to see.  Only public disclosure now can possibley aid Ken Smoot and his family if they are ever to be made whole for the damage the UTU and CSXT have done to them.  They have been able to get away with this "abuse of process" with the help of "officers of the courst" who do their business behind closed doors (in judge's chambers) just like Robert W. Earley did his business of violating the UTU Constitution and federal labor law (29 U.S.C. § 401 (a), (b), and (c). I anticipate before this is over, identifying each of these individuals and placing their filings upon this web site. "u" can determine if they acted in accordance with their oath and professional responsibilities.

Quick Update

    While the specious Bankruptcy Court decision has been appealed, the appeal court has apparently determined they have no jurisdiction since a Motion for Retrial is pending.  However, the Smoot family "lawyer" had gotten the wife and kids to admit they accepted a "fraudulant tranfer" and we expect him to withdraw his Motion for Retrial.   None of Smoot's VA lawyers filed for Retrial nor supported the Motion for Retrial (and his alleged "Corporate Attorney" has since withdrawn after giving Ken the worst advice he possibly could, i.e., file for bankruptcy?)!

    While the alleged Smoot family lawyer (for the wife and kids) filed a great motion for retrial, he significantly forgot to file a Motion to stay the judgment which would have been automatic if he had done it?  Now, in the face of the specious judgment and it being overturned, the Judge has allowed the "settlement" to go forward wherein Smoot's wife has lost her car, his son his motorcycle, and his daughter has to pay something like $3000 over 6 months in installments?  So guess what, the Motion for Retrial can't be heard until the settlement agreement if complied with?  Ha Ha, it will be withdrawn as soon as possible because their attorney doesn't actually  represent them anymore, he represents the "establishment", i.e., UTU, CSXT, "Slime Time Deion, the Trustee, and abuse of process!

    So the Trustee hired "Slime Time" Deion who was the CSXT's attorney in the State action which sought to collect the specious judgment by UTU and CSXT for some $300, 000 + judgment against Smoot for his Mock "Summary Bench Trial on Damages" in Youngstown. Funny thing happened in the State Court though, Ken claimed his State exemption for his injury settlement - Good as Gold under State Law! So they get him into federal  bankruptcy court and the state law no longer applies?  Now it's a "FEDERAL CASE" -  the Supremacy Clause?  Like shit!  A first year law student could win this argument!   The Bankruptcy Court can't rule on the "alter ego" claim?  Great footnote in the decision - Judge - I'm not going to rule on this issue because if I did the Trustee would lose!  SAY WHAT?

    Smoot goes on and on and on and on and if the "powers that be" (UTU, CSXT, Trustee, and Abusers) have their way, this case will continue forever without resolution (or at least without justice being served).  Not going to happen - THE SIXTH CIRCUIT CASE MOVES FORWARD!

IT'S THE LAW, CLINT!

   Well now, with the UTU's Brief finally coming due next month on their specious argument the UTU members are not entitled to their rights under federal labor law, i.e. 45 U.S.C. § 153 First. (q), comes a precedent setting case from the Sixth Circuit called "Dorris v. Absher", No. 97-6206, Electronic Citation: 199 FED App. 0200P (6th Cir.), File Name: 99a0200p.06!

    It seems that June 2, of 1999, Chief Judge Marin and Circuit Judges Ryan and Gilman made a very definitive determination about some of the issues that will be soon addressed in the Smoot Appeal. Of first note is the fact that even if Smoot were guilty of a wiretap, and he is not, the current $250,000 statutory judgment would be reduced to a maximum of $20,000. The $100,000 Punitive damages has always been rediculous and a absolute joke (It is based upon Bob Earley's purjury before the contrived "Summary Bench Trial" wherein Smoot's lawyer sold him out lock, stock, and barrel! 

    While it is unknown whether the 6th Circuit will follow the reasoning of this Case and simply overturn the wiretap in its entirety based upon fact, reason, and law, Clint and "Rambo" will lose the issue of the Summary Judgment wherein UTU and CSXT averred the Judge had no jurisdiction (He Agreed - Duh)! Hell, Cushing and I could cut and paste the "Rambo" argument from previous filings and/or decisions in about 5 hours and save union members about 20 to 40 G's! But Hell, Sac-C and Monty don't have to show us how much of our money is being wasted to protect the corrupt arbitration system and Bob Earley, Do They? Hey, "u" just pay your dues and shut your mouth - ah, well, AFTER you vote UTU on the alleged upcoming election of NMB for UTU - the world's premier transportation union!

   Hey Clint, based upon this case, Earley and Emerick had a "subjective"  expectation of privacy because no one would violate federal labor laws if they knew someone was listening, right? Of course, "objectively" this was a privacy issue pursuant to Fultz in which the public would be offended by the intimate matters of Earley and Emerick's discussions?  Hmm, if the four (4) employees in this case had been conspiring to blow up a federal building, murder the Absher's, or even defraud the county out of money, do you think this would have been  "protected" oral conversation?   You da man, Clint?  Can "we" (ha ha) win?   Don't you just love this quote: "We will therefore exercise our discretion to reach the merists of the summary judgment motion against her (smoot?) because we believe that a failure to do so would constitute a miscarriage of justice."

    Let me see if I understood you, Clint: "my job is to keep us in the game until we can cut a deal" ? Remember that, Clint (from a 4 or 5 year old edition of the El Paso Express)? I'll never forgot it! OK, Mr. Wizard, let's see what deal you can cut now to avoid Smoot owning this union before it's all over? I'm waiting! Sealed "Settlement Agreement and Release"? Hell, I know "WE" (UTU) don't have any money (Unity Initiative expensive?),  how much you think the CSXT is willing to shell out for UTU's folley?

    Hey, I got a better plan for the members, why don't you just beat him with continued abuse of process in the courts?  You guys can control the Appeals Courts despite law, can't you?  I mean, we gave a lot of money to Clinton. We are giving a lot of money to Gore!  That's what it's for isn't it, favoritism in court decisions? Comments welcome!

    My Promise!

You (Sac-C, CSXT, and all the "agreeable" officers of the court) are going to get
"your" day in the SUN!  The Epic starts this week with the first feature article entitled "The Unknown Victim of Linda Tripp"!  Look for it soon. Filings, names, times, places, decisions, letters, everthing you always wanted to know about the Smoot persecution but were afraid to ask. All right there on the Internet - Is this a great country or what?

"For example, if a one-time illegal wiretap were to intercept a conference call between 20 parties, and the recording was then played on two differenct occasions, the district court's approach would require a $600,000 damage award (one award for intercepting the communication and two for disclosing it, multiplied by 20 plaintiffs).

"The district court's "$10,000 per violation" approach, on the other hand, appears to misinterprest the statutory scheme and lead to highly inflated damage awards. If every detailed violation resulted in a $10,000 award to each plaintiff, the total would bankrupt most transgressors."  Hmmm, hey, it did bankrupt Smoot and he has never been determined to be a "cross dressor", opps, sorry, I meant transgressor!

    You "officers of the court" had your way with Smoot and his family, abusing process, ex-parte writ of attachment, and regularly abusing someone who did not have the financial ability or necessary legal knowlege (including the selection of attorneys) to protect his interests.  Lets see how tough you are with someone who has the necessary funds and legal connections to expose you? The Ball will soon be in YOUR Court!  Hang in there and have a nice day!

Old Posting but not removed for obvious reasons!

We shall chronical the plight of Kenneth R. Smoot by publishing the specious legal opinions which have occurred in this on-going abuse of process and malicious prosecution/persecution of Ken Smoot and his family. "u", particularly those with legal knowledge and/or "officers of the court" will not be able to believe that these kind of decisions are happening in our society.