The Freedom Seeker

wpe12.jpg (6484 bytes)

THE FREEDOM SEEKER:
Odyssey of the Pro Se
Humpty-Dumpty Trial

THE FREEDOM
SEEKER:

Odyssey of the Pro Se
Humpty-Dumpty
Trial

Joseph Walker, Ph.D.
Cedar Crest, New Mexico
2000

THE FREEDOM SEEKER:
Odyssey of the Pro Se Humpty-Dumpty Trial
by Joseph Walker, Ph.D.

All rights reserved under International
and Pan American Copyright Conventions
No part of this book may be reproduced
in any form—except for brief quotations
(not to exceed 1000 words) in a review or
professional work—without permission
in writing from the author.

Library of Congress
Catalogue Card Number: 00-90210

Printed in the United States of America
on acid free paper

Cover Design by John Anthony Howell

To:

The ENSLAVED
who OMINOUSLY TOIL in
UTTER HOPELESSNESS

Thanks to...

John for his enduring love

DIANN FOR HER LOVING FRIENDSHIP

BARBARA FOR SIMPLY BEING THERE

Marsena, My spiritual mother

JOANNE, FOR HER SHOULDER

DAVID FOR WANTING ME TO LIVE
Dennis for his friendship
Mark, the lifesaver
BOB, MY BROTHER

Loving, Caring Friends

NONA, Don, Jan
DORIS, Rita, RONA

PROLOGUE

     This volume is essentially a continuation of a book entitled: Unwritten Rules: A Factual Case of White-Collar Bigotry. I felt I had sufficiently established the use of the new coinage white-collar bigotry in this above-mentioned volume, but the story was not yet complete. I am writing this sad continuation with the hopes that the terribly damaging situations of the subtle bigotry that I had found myself experiencing at the hands of the American Orchid Society (AOS) would finally come to some reasonable resolve. Bondage in any of its many forms certainly places limits on the free expression of an individual's greatest potential and can crush the very spirit and life forces that give rise to one's own perceived meaning and purpose.
     This devastating experience has taught me so much about the sad state of our society and the awful plight of spiritually and ideologically enslaved humankind. I appropriately titled this volume the Freedom Seeker because I have finally come to a place in my own life where I fully understood the awful predicament of so many disenfranchised people. People are too often falsely enslaved by engraved images that they have been taught to believe are a true and accurate representation of some Devine truth. We are all effortlessly fooled if by nothing else but the fact that we come to believe that if something has been with us for so long and unchanged it must be the truth. Archbishop Desmond Tutu in an interview with Bill Moyers pointed to his head and exclaimed that the real damage suffered by the countless victims of apartheid occurred there. I have come to know that the bondage of false ideas and beliefs are far more devastating to the overall health of an individual than any conceivable amount of physical constraint. It was once profoundly expressed that Truth was the omniscient freedom-giver for the bondage of mankind. The expression of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" haunts my mind daily and I question why I persistently feel the need to depart this modest life of mine in order to achieve peace. Why can't I find peace here in this God given Garden of Eden we have called earth?
     I was fully prepared to "Love my neighbor…" and reap the promised reward of joy. Instead, I searched for and uncannily found the broken image of Humpty-Dumpty to best explain how too many of my neighbors feel and relate within this too often hostile world of ours. The damaged and hurt feelings can't always be observed from the outside and the individual is all often found in a depressed state of isolation and loneliness believing that they have somehow brought this internal devastation upon themselves. I fear that all the King's horses, all the King's men, all the King's money and all the King's courts of justice can't possibly put me or my broken brothers and sisters back together again. What ever happened in our most beloved Garden of Eden?

PORTIONS OF THE BOOK

(Starting with Chapter 1: The Freedom Seeker: Odyssey of the Pro Se Humpty-Dumpty Trial)

ANOTHER YEAR--1998

     In my previous book, Unwritten Rules: A Factual Case of White-Collar Bigotry, I ended the text with some pivotal events that centered around a rather curious bit of legislation that the Board of Trustees and the Judging Committee of the American Orchid Society (AOS) had apparently acted upon at the 1997 fall Trustee’s meeting. Because this particular action is such a pivotal point in the continuation of this factual case of white-collar bigotry, I am going to necessarily repeat the initial events and letters that established what I now perceive to be the intentional institutionalization of the AOS’s continued practice and support of selective discrimination.

(American Orchid Society Letterhead)

December 6, 1997

Dear Members of the Judging Community,

     Enclosed – and as promised by the Judging Committee – are the long-awaited "Appointment Acknowledgement Agreements." This is, by and large, simply a housekeeping measure meant to bring all of our judging personnel, both certified and student, into compliance with the provisions of the Handbook. (Note, too, that your signing of this document protects you, as well as the Society, by acknowledging our nondiscrimination policy,) We appreciate your cooperation in this matter, as the Judging Committee and the Trustees voted to require all judging personnel to sign and return the original copy to the office for permanent archiving. Signed forms should be returned to the attention of our new Awards Registrar, Pam Giust, at the AOS Headquarters; a self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

     Representatives of the American Orchid Society’s Judging System, like yourself, are our most highly visible symbols and among our most effective ambassadors. It is too seldom that we take time out to thank you for your hard work and dedication. We’d like to take the opportunity to do so in this letter. In your efforts as a judge, you display many positive attributes – not the least of which are the highest ethical standards and the willingness to set aside your own personal interests in support of our goals as judges and the broader goals of the AOS. And, of course, you are extraordinarily generous in the expenditure of your time and resources in the furtherance of these goals. Your efforts are recognized and appreciated.

     Along with the staff, we want to take his opportunity to wish you and all of the members of your Center, and your families and loved ones, the very best of this Holiday Season.

Sincerely,

Marvin Gerber, President
Paul Bechtel, Judging Committee Chair

     Enclosed with the above letter was a copy of the agreement that all judging personnel were required to sign at the direction of the Trustees and the Judging Committee. I took the letter itself to being a little condescending in its wording. Its most blatantly misleading implication is that this "long-awaited"?, "housekeeping measure"? will "protect you"! I would very much like to have some AOS official explain to me exactly what was intended by this language in simple laymen’s terms. The only protection I need is from some of those white-collar bigots that the AOS continues to so enthusiastically protect. I’m afraid it was all a bunch of deceptive rhetoric designed to seriously beguile the unsuspecting recipient. The real sad reality is that many of the AOS judges have simply signed this agreement with the same kind of naïve confidence that I had when I signed that agreement with my lawyers a year ago.

(American Orchid Society Letterhead)

          I, the undersigned, agree to serve the American Orchid Society, Inc.’s ("AOS") judging system. I hereby agree to abide by the Bylaws, rules and policies of the AOS and the Judging Committee, including the rules set forth in the Handbook on Judging and Exhibition, as may be amended from time to time. (Students acknowledge understanding that their standing in the AOS Judging System rests solely within their Center’s jurisdiction until such time as their promotion to probationary status becomes effective, if ever.) I have read and understand the AOS’s policy on nondiscrimination (see below), and I agree to abide by its terms in all of my actions.

          I recognize that my continued participation and potential advancement in the judging system is based primarily upon the needs of the Judging Committee and the AOS. I further recognize that the evaluation of my contributions and performance within the judging system are necessarily subjective. I acknowledge that I serve the judging system at the pleasure of the AOS and the Judging Committee, and I have no vested rights in my appointment or further advancement within the judging system.

          The AOS’s policy on nondiscrimination is as follows: "Membership in the American Orchid Society is open to all individuals without regard to race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. All activities of the American Orchid Society are conducted in accordance with the principles of nondiscrimination and mutual respect. Further, the American Orchid Society does not condone or endorse any conduct that is not in accordance with these principles."
                                                            _________________________
                                                            Signature
                                                            _________________________
                                                            Print Name
                                                            _________________________
                                                            Center
                                                            _________________________
                                                            Date

     This agreement, which is apparently composed by the "AOS" and "the Judging Committee," was obviously adopted by the Trustees as the letter claimed that they "voted to require all judging personnel to sign and return the original copy to the office for permanent archiving." This quite deceptive agreement is full of questionable legal flaws, which only further supports, my thesis that the AOS is indeed structured in that most classical manner of a self-perpetuating oligarchy; an oligarchy of the very worst kind! The AOS, by its own self-determined necessity, conducts its business, like this agreement, in such a manner as to specifically maintain itself in its present foul structure and with its current personnel. In the very same breath that the AOS now claims to have incorporated an expressed and written nondiscrimination policy, they require all of their judges and students to: "…recognize that the evaluation of my contributions and performances within the judging system are necessarily subjective." And furthermore all of the students and certified judges and: "…I have no vested rights in my appointment or further advancement within the judging system." If I were to have been so naïve as to sign this crazy agreement as it stood, I would have been voluntarily giving up any rights and necessarily subjecting myself to the unwritten biased evaluation ("necessarily subjective"!) of any certified judge at my judging center and/or member of the Judging Committee (most particularly any potentially white-collared bigot!). Any judge who voluntarily signed this agreement is either pathetically naïve about the ongoing supported bigotry in the AOS, or is possibly mistakenly confident that their own "vested rights" will never be questioned, challenged, or abused by the now acknowledged "subjective" evaluation procedure by some of their potentially bigoted and biased comrades. It will be interesting to see just which of the AOS judges have been so trusting as to innocently sign this ill-conceived agreement that so blatantly and openly supports a policy of: "Unwritten Rules: A Factual Case of White-Collar Bigotry."
     I was about to avoid responding to the AOS because I had been warned, so to speak, that if I should write anymore letters of protest, I just might not get elevated this coming May. I had received a fax of another judges’ rather negative response letter to the above and a copy of their signed agreement in which this particular judge had boldly crossed out the first two paragraphs. I had also received a call from another judge at the other end of the country who said that they were simply not....

(Starting with Chapter 7: The Freedom Seeker: Odyssey of the Pro Se Humpty-Dumpty Trial)

COURTROOM SOUNDS

     Sunday came in spite of my ominous feelings and I had fortunately cleared my desk Saturday night of all the clutter that seems to constantly find its way to the various piles of paper. What remained was a red folder with the sixteen pages of faxed materials. I have decided to actually recreate the suggested form with my own added contributions here in the book to show you some of the paperwork that is involved in a Federal lawsuit. This paperwork seems almost endless and I suspect from that part ("Initial") of the title of this undertaking, that this is by far, not the last bit of drudgery I will encounter. Naturally, I don’t at this moment have Shannon’s and the other lawyer’s contributions to this Report, but I intend to add them at a later date and will place them in Italics to distinguish them from what I am presently writing.
     Shannon suggested in her cover letter to this present undertaking that she would prepare the portion entitled Nature of the Case. I’m not sure why she feels any more qualified except that she would probably like to define the playing field to her own legal liking and position in order to have a better hold on the whole case. I’m not sure I will necessarily and enthusiastically applaud of her particular interpretation, so I will offer my own view at this point, even if it is poorly expressed in my layman’s terms. I’m confidant it won’t necessarily employ all that legalese language that is probably intentionally confusing but more commonly recognized by our illustrious Federal court system. At the very least, Shannon will have some cognitive ideal of exactly what I see as the virtual nature of this lawsuit, and maybe she can willingly incorporate some of its content into her own biased view of this legal playing field. I do not intend to be overly intimidated by this prolonged process of legal jousting. In fact, it is my sincere intent to find it rather challenging and a game that will necessarily exercise the better part of my own intellect. The following layout was marked as a "draft" that was apparently laid out at Shannon’s law firm and given a file name for computer purposes:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

J. LAMAH,
Plaintiff,
                                                                 vs. Civ. No. 98-1403 BB/WWD
ANITA ALDRICH, et. al.,
Defendants

INITIAL PRE-TRIAL REPORT
Counsel have conferred and submit herewith the parties’ consolidated Initial Pre-Trial Report.

APPEARANCES

Counsel/parties pro se are:

J. Lamah, pro se
P.O. Box XXXX
Cedar Crest, NM XXXXX
(505) 555-5555 – Telephone
Plaintiff Pro Se

Shannon A. Parden, Esquire
MADISON, HARBOUR, MROZ & BRENNAN, P.A.
P.O. Box XXXXX
Albuquerque, New Mexico XXXXX
(505) XXX-XXXXX
Attorneys for Defendants

Hatch firm

NATURE OF THE CASE

This case is about the profound and personally devastating effects experienced by an individual when an organization and some of its ranking agents work in concert to prohibit that individual's participation. The organization, in its process of eliminating this person, failed to exercise any reasonable regard for the wellbeing of this member, and instead, exercised intentional, callous, extreme and malicious disregard for the individual’s basic rights. Furthermore, the organization and some of its ranking agents employed tactics that are blatant violations of common tort, most notably the defamation of character, infliction of mental distress, and invasion of privacy. The most heinous part of this case is the intentional and malicious disclosure of the Plaintiff’s HIV/AIDS status, which had been previously held by the Plaintiff in the most meticulously and thoroughly private manner possible. Paramount to this case is the wrongful employment of privately held biases and prejudices with regards to this individual’s sexual orientation in the exercise of some of these agent’s duties and responsibilities within the various stated functions of the organization. This is particularly relevant to this case in light of the organization’s expressed and published policy on nondiscrimination "in all situations."

AMENDMENTS TO PLEADINGS

Plaintiff intends to file:

Defendants intend to file:

STIPULATIONS

The parties hereto stipulate and agree that venue is properly laid in this District and that the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

The parties are willing to further stipulate to the following facts:

The parties further stipulate and agree that the law governing this case is:

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS

It is the contention of the Plaintiff that the defendants did intentionally and maliciously defame his good reputation essentially to expedite and justify the Plaintiff’s elimination from the judging system of the American Orchid Society (AOS). The Plaintiff was most particularly harmed and suffered extreme emotional distress in addition to his medical/physical condition worsening as the result of the excessive stress by the intentional and malicious disclosure of his HIV/AIDS status. It is the contention of the Plaintiff that these actions were primarily based upon prejudices currently and previously employed by the organization and some of its principle agents that are now specifically prohibited by the AOS’s policy of non-discrimination.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS

     It is the contention…

DISCOVERY

     Plaintiff’s intends to obtain the following discovery:

From the American Orchid Society:
1. The tape recording of the Plaintiff’s remarks to the Trustees of the American Orchids Society at the Baltimore Trustee’s Meeting held on Friday, November 15, 1996.
2. A copy of the anonymous letter read by Paul Bechtel during the Toronto Trustees meeting to the Judging Committee on or about May 6-8, 1998.
3. Any and all minuets of past Judging Committee or Committee on Awards that contains documentation of Student Judges being denied elevation by the respective Committee itself.
From Defendant Aldrich:
4. On or about November 15, 1993, you called Roger Brown, then Chairperson of the Great Plains Judging Region, and requested that he reprimand J. Lamah for "behavior unbecoming an AOS Student Judge." What information and from whom did you receive this information that would have prompted this call?
5. About or after August 22, 1994, you made a telephone call to Diann O’Neill, then a Student in the Southwest Judging Region, and suggested that J. Lamah was an unsavory character who was taking "advantage of" Diann O’Neill. What information and from whom did you receive this information that would have prompted this call?
From Defendant Bechtel:
6. On or about May 6 or 7, 1998 the Judging Committee of the American Orchid Society unanimously rejected the recommendation to elevate J. Lamah to Probationary Judge. Based on what information and from whom did you read an "anonymous letter" to the Judging Committee?
From Lois Dauelsberg:
7. When and who first told you that J. Lamah had AIDS?
8. Besides telling Bill Heath of J. Lamah’s AIDS somewhere about or before February 17, 1996, to whom else did you disclose this information?
From Defendant Kramer:
9. Sometime prior to February of 1996, from whom did you learn of J. Lamah’s AIDS and/or HIV status?
10. After learning of J. Lamah’s health status, with which other members of the AOS did you share this information?
From Defendant Schroeder:
11. When and who first told you that J. Lamah had HIV/AIDS?
12. Besides telling Bill Heath of J. Lamah’s AIDS somewhere about or before February 17, 1996, to whom else did you disclose this information?
From Defendant Thompson:
13. Sometime prior to February of 1996, from whom did you learn of J. Lamah’s AIDS and/or HIV status?
14. After learning of J. Lamah’s health status, with which other members of the AOS did you share this information?
15. Besides telling Dr. John Kramer of J. Lamah’s AIDS and or HIV status somewhere about or before February 17, 1996, to whom else did you disclose this information?

     Defendants intend to obtain the following discovery:

     In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan adopted in compliance with the Civil Justice Reform Act, and pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 473(a)(1), this case is assigned to a "__________________" track classification. Accordingly, the termination date for discovery is ___________, and discovery shall not be reopened, except by order of the Court upon a showing of good cause. This deadline shall be construed to require that discovery be completed on or before the above date. Service if interrogatories or request for production shall be considered timely only if the responses are due prior to the deadline. A notice to take deposition shall be considered timely only if the deposition takes place prior to the deadline. The pendency of dispositive motions shall not stay discovery.
     Motions relating to discovery (including, but not limited to, motions to compel and motions for protective order) shall be filed or served in accordance with D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7 no later than ___________________. This deadline shall not be construed to extend the twenty-day time limit in D.N.M. LR-Civ 26.6. Discovery motion "packages" containing the original and one copy of all papers relating to a motion (i.e., the motion, response and reply, with any accompanying memoranda or exhibits) as required by D.N.M. LR-Civ. 7.3(5) must be filed with the Court no later than ___________. Any discovery motion "package" filed after the above date shall be considered untimely in the discretion of the Court.
     Plaintiff shall identify to all parties in writing any expert witness to be used by Plaintiff at trial and to provide expert reports pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) no later than _________. All other parties shall identify in writing any expert witness to be used by such parties at trial and to provide expert reports pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) no later than ___________.

    List all Witnesses who, at this time, you think will either testify or be deposed, giving their name, title, address and a brief summary of their testimony.
     List all document which you believe, at this time will be exhibits at the trial.

     List all experts who you believe, at this time, will testify at the trial, giving their name, address, area of expertise, and a brief summary of the anticipated testimony.

PLAINTIFF

Witnesses: (Addresses deleted in book copy for privacy reasons): (Addresses deleted in book copy for privacy reasons)

The following witnesses have extensive knowledge of certain facts of this case and will very likely be called upon to testify in the areas so designated:
Lee S. Cooke, Ex. Dir., AOS, ….
     Should have full knowledge of most of the AOS’s involvement with this case and have direct knowledge as to the official, but necessarily "off-the-record" position of its officers. The nature of the instruction behind the correspondence prepared by witness and sent to the Plaintiff.
Diann O’Neill, AOS Judge, ….
     Has full knowledge of the entire case from its inception. Testify as to the extent to which the Plaintiff maintained his privacy. Understanding the Plaintiff’s motive behind his participation in the Judging Program of the AOS. Defamation on the part of Defendant Aldrich and Aldrich’s gross negligence as an AOS officer to initiate appropriate restraints on certain Judges’ irresponsible behavior. Qualifications of Plaintiff as an overqualified Student Judge! Testify as to the level of participation and contribution of Plaintiff to the good causes of the AOS. Witness to the infliction of extreme emotional pain and suffering at the hands of AOS officials. First-hand witness to the overly generous character of Plaintiff.
Lois Dauelsberg, Chair-RMJC, ….
     Dissemination of private medical information about the HIV/AIDS status of the Plaintiff. Knowledge of who are the responsible individuals for the initial dissemination of private medical information. Defamation of character and dissemination of such to others in the AOS community and beyond.
Bill Heath, Escalante Orchid Society, ….
     Maliciously disclosed of the HIV/AIDS status of the Plaintiff by Lois Dauelsberg in the light of having no prior knowledge of such. Testify to the defamation of the Plaintiff’s character and to unsolicited discriminatory remarks about Plaintiffs lifestyle. Testify to much the same from Jean Schroeder.
Nona Church, Zia Orchid Growers, ….
     Witnessed the malicious and unsolicited discrimination against Plaintiff at a Tulsa Orchid Show with strong implications of defamation of the Plaintiff’s good character. Testify as to the rigidly maintained privacy of the HIV/AIDS status of the Plaintiff.
Frank Osborne, Member of Zia Orchid Growers, ….
     Witnessed an unsolicited and gross defamation of Plaintiff’s character at a New York Orchid Show by official members of the AOS—Dr. Ron McHatton in particular.
Mark Werther, AOS Judge, ….
     Testify as to the gross inequities of the "Appointment Acknowledge Agreement," the emotional suffering of Plaintiff at the hands of the AOS and the potential damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the AOS publishing the Plaintiff’s rejection by the Judging Committee throughout the US.
Bill Barrett, X-Student Judge, ….
     Testify as to discrimination practices in the past by members of the AOS that resulted in his own elimination from the Judging Program. Testify of a physical attack by Marvin Gerber on the floor of a San Francisco Orchid Show.
Barbara Good, Sister of Plaintiff, ….
     Testimony that will contradict the sworn statements of Jean Schroeder.
Karl A. Siegler, Student Judge, ….
     Testimony as to the extreme practice of privacy on the part of the Plaintiff. The behavior of the Plaintiff as to his treatment of the AOS—his positive promotion of their judging program in spite of the ill treatment suffered by Plaintiff. Witness to the defamation of Plaintiff’s character by AOS judge at a Kansas Orchid Show.
Steven J. Slaughter, AOS Judge, ….
     Witness the physical attack of Marvin Gerber against Bill Barrett at the San Francisco Orchid Show.
Rita Hirschy, Zia Orchid Growers, ….
     Witness to the discrimination against the Plaintiff.
Dick Wells, AOS Judge, ….
     Witnessed the direct and public defamation of the Plaintiff by a Trustee of the AOS, George Vasquez, at the King of Prussia Orchid Show.
Dale Sokkary, Dir. RGBG, ….
     Character witness for the professional behavior of Plaintiff in the context of a local orchid show and the Plaintiff’s generally positive representation of the AOS.
Anne Hammer, Escalante O. Soc., ….
     Testimony that contradicts the sworn statement of Jean Schroeder.
David M. Gayle, Student Judge, ….
     Testimony of the defamation of Plaintiff’s good character at a Kansas Orchid Show.
Dr. Harold Hargreaves, AOS Judge, ….
     Testimony that contradicts the sworn statement of Jean Schroeder.
Roger A. Brown, VP, AOS, ….
     Testimony that confirms the defamation of the Plaintiff by Defendants Aldrich, Dauelsberg and others in the AOS. Testimony that supports the discrimination suffered by Plaintiff.
John Howell, Domestic Partner of Plaintiff
     Testimony as to the endless efforts on the part of Plaintiff to resolve the problems without legal action. Witness to the conversation between Plaintiff and Lee Cooks that confirms the gross negligence on the part of the AOS to make a good faith effort at resolving the problem. Witness to the extreme pain and suffering on the part of the Plaintiff.
Marianne Matthews, AOS Judge, ….
     Testimony as to her own recent experience of being unjustly and maliciously treated by the AOS and her own experience with defamation by Aldrich and others.
Marsena Thompson, Friend, ….
     Testimony as to understanding the Plaintiff’s motives of bring suit against AOS and an expert witness as to the emotional pain that is suffered at the hands of bigoted individuals acting surreptitiously.
David Plumer, Friend, ….
     Testimony as to the extreme privacy maintained by Plaintiff prior to the alleged violations of the AOS. Disclosure of the motives of the Plaintiff for bring suit. Witness to the pain and suffering of Plaintiff.
Peter R. Furniss, Past Pres., AOS, ….
     Testimony as to the defamation of the Plaintiff by various members of the AOS. His own disrespectful and callus response to a request for positive action on the part of the AOS.

The following potential witnesses have all had some involvement with this case and would only be called to testify in the event that some of the above become unavailable for testifying in the specific areas so designated:

Marvin J. Gerber, Past Pres., AOS, ….
Dr. Robert J. Griesbach, VP, AOS, ….
George Vasquez, Secretary, AOS, ….
Clifton C. Curry Sr., Trustee/97, ….
Dr. Norito Hasegawa, Trustee/97, ….
Billie Beck Kramer, ….
Dr. Jerry H. Stephens, Trustee/00, ….
Robert Schuler, Trustee/98, ….
Susan Eloe, Trustee/99, ….
Will Rhodehamel, Trustee/99, ….
Carlos Fighetti, Trustee/00, ….
James Rassmann, Trustee/ 00, ….
Bonney C. Daubenspeck, Past-Trustee, ….
C. W. Hayward, Past Chairman of RMJC, ….
Richard Zeman, AOS Judge, ….
Maurine Gebetsberger, AOS Judge, ….
Dr. Larry K. Magrath, AOS Judge, ….
Dr. Berneice Miller, V-Chair-GPJC, ….
Harold Koopowitz, AOS Judge, ….
Roneida Brandenburg, Chair-Dallas JC, ….
Ray Gabaldon, Student Judge, ….
Bob Goebel, ….
Arnold Gum, AOS Judge, ….
Fred Jernigan, AOS Judge, ….
Lee McAnena, Friend, ….
Ron McHatton, PhD. AOS Judge, ….
Mary Ann Moreno, Friend, ….
Robert Webster, Jr., AOS Judge, ….
Bruce M. Ide, Past employee of AOS, ….
Ilonka Edlund, Past employee of AOS, ….
Steve Gettel, AOS Judge, ….
Harvey Brenneise, AOS Liberian, ….
Ray L. Bullard, AOS Judge, ….
Dr. Eric Christenson, ….
Jim Pluskota, Manhattan Orchid Soc., ….

The following, in addition to some of the above mentioned witnesses were in attendance of the Judging Committee when the Plaintiff was intentionally defamed with an anonymous letter read by Paul Bechtel:

Renee Gerber, AOS Judge, ….
H. Phillips Jesup, AOS Judge, ….
J. Mickey Parker, AOS Judge, ….
Kenneth Wilson, Ph.D., ….
David Brown, Ph.D., AOS Judge, ….
Albert Gugeler, AOS Judge, ….
Gerald Baughman, AOS Judge, ….
Alvin Bolt, AOS Judge, ….
Rita Cohen, AOS Judge, ….
Doris Dukes, AOS Judge, ….
James W. Harper Ph.D., AOS Judge, ….
Gary Kraus, MD, AOS Judge, ….
Elizabeth Lee, AOS Judge, ….
Helen Michel, AOS Judge, ….
Maynard Michel, AOS Judge, ….
Robert Nagel, AOS Judge, ….
Walter Off, AOS Judge, ….
Peter Poot, AOS Judge, ….
DeDee Ratiner, AOS Judge, ….
John Stubbings, AOS Judge, ….
J. David Devine, Jr., AOS Judge, ….
Donald E. Herman, Past Pres., ….
Milton Carpenter, President, AOS, ….
Julius Klehm, AOS Judge, ….
Jerry Rehfield, AOS Judge, ….

Exhibits:

Correspondence:

1. 11/24/92 Plaintiff to C.W. Hayward
2. 1/2/93 C.W. Hayward to Plaintiff
3. 1/25/93 Plaintiff to Don Herman
4. 1/26/93 Plaintiff to C.W. Hayward
5. 2/5/93 D. O’Neill to Leonard Boyer
6. 11/23/93 Plaintiff to Roger Brown
7. 11/27/93 C.W. Hayward to N.M.O.S.
8. 1/9/94 Aldrich to Plaintiff
9. 1/21/94 Boyer to Dauelsberg
10. 1/26/94 Plaintiff to Aldrich
11. 9/19/94 Plaintiff to Brown & Aldrich
12. 9/20/94 Plaintiff to Brown
13. 10/4/94 Brown to Plaintiff
14. 8/6/96 Plaintiff to Furniss
15. 9/10/96 Plaintiff to Furniss
16. 9/18/96 Plaintiff to Cooke
17. 9/23/96 Furniss to Plaintiff
18. 10/1/96 Plaintiff to Furniss
19. 10/9/96 Furniss to Plaintiff
20. 10/1/96 Plaintiff to Brown
21. 10/11/96 Plaintiff to To Whom It May …
22. 10/11/96 Plaintiff to Cooke
23. 8/15/96 Quealy to Plaintiff
24. 11/12/96 AOS(fax) to Plaintiff
25. 12/27/96 Plaintiff to Cooke
26. 1/1/97 ORCHIDS – Statement of Non-Discrimination
27. 1/25/97 Cooke to Plaintiff
28. 12/17/96 November Minuets of G.P.J.R.
29. 1/10/97 December Minuets of G.P.J.R
30. 12/6/97 Gerber/Bechtel to Judging Community "Agreement…"
31. 1/7/98 Plaintiff to Gerber
32. 4/1/97 Shimmel to Plaintiff (Schroeder’s Affidavit)
33. 4/20/98 Plaintiff to Gerber
34. 5/4/98 Cooke (fax) to Plaintiff
35. 5/4/98 Plaintiff (fax) to Cooke
36. 5/4/98 Plaintiff to Rhodehamel
37. 5/6-7/98 JC Report to Judging Community
38. 8/2/98 Plaintiff to Thompson
39. 8/5/98 Thompson to Plaintiff
40. 10/1/98 Plaintiff to Thompson
41. 11/22/98 Thompson to Plaintiff

Experts:

Dr. Fred Koster, M.D., Attending Physician, ….
Testify as to stress and the negative effects it has upon those who are living with HIV/AIDS. Suicide ideation and the fact that individuals can, in fact, inflict such terror upon themselves as a result of unwarranted stress caused by the verbal abuses of others.
Dr. William W. Wilson, AOS Judge, ….
Psychiatric and Medical, but also one of the oldest living AOS orchid judges that can testify as to the frequent and historical misconduct of the organization.

DEFENDANTS

Witnesses:

Exhibits:

Experts:

OTHER PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS

Plaintiff intends to file:

Defendants intend to file:

     Motion "packages" containing the original and one copy of all papers relating to a motion (i.e., the motion, response, and reply with any accompanying memoranda or exhibits) as required by D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.3(5) must be filed with the Court no later than ______________. Any pretrial motion "package" filed after the above date shall be considered untimely in the discretion of the Court.

PRE-TRIAL ORDER

     Counsel are directed to file a consolidated final Pre-Trial Order as follows: Plaintiff to Defendant on or before _______________; Defendant to Court on or before _____________.

     In jury cases, proposed jury instruction shall be filed no later than _____________. In non-jury actions, requested findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be filed no later than ________________. Refer to "Other Matters".

PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL SETTING

This matter is set for a PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE on
___________ at ______, ___. M.

This matter is set for a NON-JURY TRIAL on a trailing calendar
beginning on______________, at ______, ___. M.
This matter is set for a JURY TRIAL on a trailing calendar beginning
on _________________, at ______, ___.M.

ESTIMATED TRIAL TIME

                                     The parties estimate trial will require ___________ days.
                                     ____ This is a non-jury case.
                                     ____ This is a jury case.

SETTLEMENT

             The possibilities of settlement in this case is considered: _________. The parties request a settlement conference __________________________________ .

OTHER MATTERS

     Counsel are directed that the Pre-Trial Order will provide that no witnesses except rebuttal witnesses whose testimony cannot be anticipated, will be permitted to testify unless the names of the witness is furnished to the Court and opposing counsel no later than thirty (30) days prior to the time set for trial. Any exceptions thereto must be upon Order of the Court for good cause shown.
     If documents are attached as exhibits to motions, affidavits or briefs, those parts of the exhibits that counsel want to bring to the attention of the Court shall be highlighted in yellow on all copies which are filed or delivered to the Court or served on other counsel.

EXCEPTIONS

     (Where counsel cannot agree to any recitation herein, exceptions shall be listed.)

APPROVED WITH/WITHOUT EXCEPTION
                                              (note exceptions above)
                                                                                               _______________________________
                                                                                               J. Lamah, pro se
                                                                                               P.O. Box XXXX
                                                                                               Cedar Crest, NM XXXXX
                                                                                               (505) XXX-XXXX – Telephone

                                                                       MADISON, HARBOUR, MROZ &
                                                                                               BRENNAN, P.A.
                                                                                               By ______________________________
                                                                                                             Shannon A. Parden
                                                                                                             Post Office Box XXXXX
                                                                                                             Albuquerque, NM XXXXX
                                                                                                             (505) XXX-XXXX
                                                                                                             Atorneys for Defendant

APPROVED:                                                                              APPROVED AND ADOPTED AS
                                                                                                     THE ORDER OF THE COURT:

__________________________                                         ___________________________
William W. Deaton                                                                   Bruce D. Black
United States Magistrate Judge                                             United States District Judge

File No. 19501.9902
E:sporchid\iptr

I finally finished the above at about the noon hour on Tuesday the 16^thof March. I had received Shannon’s proposed drafts of the "Provisional Discovery Plan" and the "Initial Pre-Trial Report" that mid-morning, but I intentionally didn’t read either of the documents because I wanted to prepare my own take for this report without being unduly influenced. I called Shannon just before the lunch hour and suggested that we should probably meet the next day to actually confer in person on these jointly prepared presentations for the Court. I inquired as to why I had been given so little notice about these particular reports and their respective due-dates, and Shannon replied that she had been faxed these orders from the Court and that I should have received the same notices by mail some time ago. In any case, since I hadn’t initially received this legal notice myself, which also included a set date of May 1 to meet with the Court, Shannon said she would make a copy of this notice for me that I could pick it up when we meet on Wednesday. So much for timely notification!