Frank Louis Amodeo # Federal Correctional Complex-Low P.O. Box 1031 Unit B-3 Coleman, Florida

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Frank Louis Amodeo # Federal Correctional Complex-Low P.O. Box 1031 Unit B-3 Coleman, Florida"

Cory Harrell
5 years ago
Views:

1 The Honorable David A. Baker 401 w. Central Blvd. Ste Orlando, Florida Frank Louis Amodeo # Federal Correctional Complex-Low P.O. Box 1031 Unit B-3 Coleman, Florida /10/2013 Re: Case 6:12-cv DAB, Recent Filings Dear Judge Baker, The impetus of this letter-pleading is the inherent inability of an imprisoned, pro se litigant to adequately communicate with either opposing counsel or the court. This is not an exercise in impatience. I am not trying to hurry the court; quite the contrary, I believe my imprisonment results only from the judicial-law enforcement complex's tendency to "rush to justice." But I do fear that my patience and respect for the time necessary to digest the complexities of this case will be perceived or treated as inattentiveness, lack of diligence, or laches. As a result, in an effort to dispel any such notion, I have filed a variety of pleadings, along with this companion letter as an explanation. I believe it is important to explain my actions, since throughout these proceedings my actions seemed to be judged against a background that does not fully comprehend the challenges bipolar pro se litigants face. Only in recent weeks have I gained sufficient control over my own disease to properly read documents related to my case without any adverse physical reaction. A benefit of that change is an increase in comprehension of this court's prior orders and statements. Correspondingly, the

2 implications of those orders for my case and rights are also now understood. By example, this court previously denied a motion to amend my 2255 because I waited too long to initiate the amendment. Thus, the current filings are largely designed to ensure there is no further perception of inaction. It is worth noting that I continue to challenge the correctness of that decision,!/ which highlights another concern. My inferior skills (writing and legal reasoning) two years ago may have hindered my ability to clearly or precisely explain the facts, the law, or how one relates to the other. In the light of my current abilities, I am concerned my prior efforts were inadequate. Consequently, I feel the need for my new filings to eliminate my contribution to any erroneous decisions. Three recent events reaffirm my concern that more clarity and precision are required. Current Events 1. I have completed a self-study course, which improves my ability to communicate. First, during oral arguments in McQuiggin v. Perkins, Feb. 27, 2013 (BNA Crim. L. Rep. attached), it was revealed that prose filings are first reviewed by staff attorneys. My familiarity with the legal system leads me to believe that staff attorneys and law clerks, although intelligent, are often inexperienced; and inexperience leads to missed nuances. While practiced attorneys 1/. This court seems to have applied the wrong standard, but that is a discussion for another day. This letter is not meant to be substantive.

3 are usually less prone to this type of mistake, they can contribute their own issues. For instance, many experienced attorneys seem to be less familiar with current developments in the law, are not as thoroughly educated in abstract reasoning and far more focused on pecuniary gain or busy schedules. Accordingly, I am compelled to present my concern that a cursory review or a non-reflective review of my legal premises, even by a respected staff attorney, may likely result in an inaccurate memorandum of the case and lead to an incorrect judgment by this court. Select examples from other of my neither imagined nor unfounded. Two cases reveal this fear is recent cases exemplify the point: Donald Duhart (11th Cir.) 2/ and Tiger Theodorious (8th Cir.). 3/ In both of these examples, the government's appellate division conceded error by the district court in their initial responsive briefs. It appears that as soon as skilled counsel examined the claims, the district court's error (my position) became apparent, and the government chose to concede rather than pursue a meritless position. The question presents itself: how can experienced judges make such mistakes? The logical conclusion is that the error in both cases was likely the result of a staff attorney's review and miscomprehension of the facts and arguments. No doubt some of these misperceptions arise from young attorneys' disdain for the "fuzzy" logic of laymen or pro se litigants, regardless of the core reasoning, no matter how valid. 2/. Duhart v. United States, Dist. Crt. t 0:11-cv KAM (S.D. Fla.); Appeals No D (11th Cir. 2013). 3/. Theodorious v. United States, Dist. Crt. 14: 12-cv CAF (D. Kan.); Appeals No (8th Cir. 2013).

4 But that same disdain often infuses young attorneys--and the not so young--with similar disregard for the spray and spattering style of a manic savant. Obviously placing myself in.that category, I want to ensure any 'first blush' look at my claims does not lead to mistaken final impressions. In other words, it is conceivable that the conjunction of an attorney's judgment clouded by bias and my mania-tainted writing skills could lead even gifted legal-thinkers to the wrong conclusion. My skills, however, are improving, as exemplified by the samples displayed on my website (FrankAmodeo.com), one of which I attached for ease of access. The new filings in my case are meant to militate any deficiencies of my earlier pleadings. I sincerely believe my improving ability to communicate will help clarify the issues and facts for the court. 2. Attorney tells me that Judge Antoon can hear the birds singing, but wants someone to point out the ne~ts. The second event occurred when an attorney familiar with the case; who has perused the habeas record, told me that in her view 11 Judge Antoon could hear the birds singing in the forest, 11 but needed someone to point out the nests in the trees. Allusion aside, this perspective comports with my own experience in other cases. As I have gotten better at writing and more disciplined at legal reasoning, I have obtained increased success, often including reconsideration of prior decisions. Accordingly, I am hopeful these new filings will help cure any deficiencies in my prior pleadings and ease the court's path toward an appropriate adjudication.

5 3. There appears to be a profound misunderstanding of mental illness, and of the side effects of the medication used to treat it. The third event is a cumulative response from other attorneys who think it odd I could be so intelligent on the one hand and a blathering idiot on the other. They needed an explanation of that duality in order to make a fair judgment. In the absence of that explanation, the more risk adverse, conservative members of society default to the belief that such a person must be evil, rather than sick. And the limited experience with the mentally ill often reinforces this default position. Further augmenting the misperception is the belief that, even if wrong, it is safe. But that result is born of cognitive dissonance rather than a reasoned analysis. Competency Status The court should be aware that I am continuing my return to both actual and legal competency. This path seems to have some obstacles though, because the psychologists believe I remain delusional. It is a paradox that I can be so very intelligent and apparently functional, and yet so ill at the same time. Of course, I do not believe I am deluded. And, I believe I have progressively gained reasonably good control of the bipolar condition. The State of Florida and my de jure guardian, however, seem to have a different opinion. The dichotomy is further illuminated when one considers that someone as sick as I am has effectively completed an LLMequivalent, self-study course in appellate advocacy, and managed

6 or assisted in thousands of legal matters. And quite successfully.4/ In some sense, this paradox illuminates the true nature of the bipolar disease; a disease that seems to alter my perception, but not intellect. Even though my IQ swings widely depending on where in the biologic cycle I am, it is always high and I am nearly always creative. Yet, I can be absent-minded and naive at the same time. I often find myself incapable of either communicating my perspective to other people, or to align my views with their understanding of reality. Only after having learned the rigors of criminal legal analysis do I believe I can compensate 11 for what was previously described as my fatal flaw. 11 Intellectually, I have created mental filters. I literally envision a visor clicking down in order that I can see events or analyze matters from what I believe is a more mundane perspective, but seems to correspond to generally accepted views of reality. This bipolar effect has overshadowed my life and this case. I think an illustrative comparison of my most recent work to that of a few months ago will be res ipso locqui tor on how I changed. Here I attach two petitions for certiorari in Edward Dell's case (current) and a similar petition for Steven Clark (August). These and others are readily accessible on FrankAmodeo.com or its attendant website, Franksjournal.wordpress.com, as well as on pacer.gov. Comparisons 4/. Again, the best way to confirm this claim is to read the more recent filings and compare them to my filings. (Dell Petition for Writ of Certiorari) (FrankAmodeo.com) some of earlier

7 of current work to my earlier legal writings is demonstrative. Character Assessment A former-lawyer here, who initially was annoyed that I helped people for free, eventually came to realize that I "did this legal stuff because I love it." He described me as "some kind of 'Rainman' in law." Others have come to see past my intellect to my compassion for people. I care about abstract principles, and work assiduously at making things right even when those things do not affect me directly. (After four years, it finally occurred to me in a "V-8" moment that I should display some of the hundreds of testimonials from the inmates and family who I helped; the testimonials are being placed on the website now.) If this were only post-incarceration redemption and rehabilitation, it would be one thing. But my life has always reflected the same core values--being faithful in my marriage, as well as abstaining from any alcohol, any illegal drugs, smoking, and even from any swearing. Also, I have always had a propensity to charity and generosity; and not just flashy events, but (like proper prayer) anonymous giving: a couple months of income to an employee's suddenly-widowed friend (I never knew her name); replacing a ten-year old prosthetic limb of an employee (who I never met) in a company just acquired; Christmas Eve to give $10 0 bills to taking my children out on the homeless so the less fortunate could get a room and dinner for the holiday; teaching my children to tithe without filling out the normal Catholic forms, etc. All of these things were done out of the spotlight; not for

8 reward in heaven, but merely because I was able to, and it was the right thing. This 2255 and the main case are about my character and my credibility. These pleadings are a prelude, hopefully, to your and Judge Antoon' s personal assessment of me-undrugged, something that has not yet happened. In closing and in summation, please recognize my current pleadings are the response of a comparative neophyte attorney who happens also to be a prisoner and unable to directly communicate with the court. They are not meant to hurry the court. Respectfully, cc: The Honorable Judge Antoon II Roger Handberg, Esquire, Assistant United States Attorney Under penalty declare that the contained in this knowledge. V E R I F I C A T I 0 N of perjury as authorized in 28 u.s.c. 1746, I factual allegations and factual statements motion are true and ~ ~~ ~... Recent Filings 1. Notice of Supplemental Authority 2. Summary Judgment Claim Motion to Disqualify Handberg 4. Motion to Appoint Counsel 5. Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem 6. Letter to Judge Baker 7. Motion to Expand the Record 8. Summary Judgment Claim 3.1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,387 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DAVID SMITH, Appellant, REX PRYOR, Warden, Appellee.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,387 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS DAVID SMITH, Appellant, v. REX PRYOR, Warden, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Leavenworth District Court;