fair v hodges, complaint for tro 71-572, dec-11-1971.pdf

7/27/2019 Fair v Hodges, Complaint for TRO 71-572, Dec-11-1971.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fair-v-hodges-complaint-for-tro-71-572-dec-11-1971pdf 1/4

I i THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT1 MID. FIA. 1 TAMPA DIV. 71-572 «CIV=.T

JIM FAIR., Plaintiff ,

VSo.

w T. HODGES AND

u0 S. GOVERBMENT,

' ._Bj iShdi fO Defendants.

COMPJ.A.INT, FOR INJUNCTION (THO)

Comes new plait iff Jim Fair, pro se, and fi les this his complaint seeking

a Temporary Restraining Order, and as grounds shows:

1. Jurisdiction l ies here as the United States Government is named defendant. J i ~ / a S ~ ; · for denial to plaintiff and others of his ~ O f the right to petition for re

dress of grievances, and of the right to due process and equal protection of the

law, as per U. 11K Constitution; further, i t l ies here as defendant W.T. Hodges

is a U. S. District Coutt judge subject to being sworn in Dec. 28, 1971, without

time being allowed to contest same;

2. Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen-elector-taxpayer, and resident of Tampa, Fla. ,

who works ~ o l e l y within the system to give Americans hope within that system, and

· th · t · · i h"pC ie brlngs 18 ac lon to glve b m and others ~ b y insuring h s and others Con

stitut10nal Rights are protedted;

3. Protection thereoop failed in that on Dec. 8th U. S. Presidnt Nixon n o m i n a t ~ed tor U. S. Ddstrict Court Judge, here, defendant Hodges who was confirmed by the

U. S. Senate on Dec. 11th; s u c ~ a s t e stopped plaintiff and others form petitioning

U. S. Senators as to said Hodges shortcomings, as Plaintiff did not receive news

of said nomination unti l Dec. 9th and mail alone takes several days f»om Tampa

to Wn., D. C.;

4. Such rubber-stamp confirmation in hours establishes or continues a dan

gerous precedent meriting review by this Court to allow citizens to have time in"which to voice reactions, and order should issue setting as minimal interval be

tween nomination and C O n f i r m a t 1 o ~ f 90 days;

5. Said three months time to safeguard ·our judicial system from i l l -sui ted,

l1te-tim$.PPointees of a patronage-type is well founded, for thai; life.-time can

ofmean 30 to 40 years of"" r:z::t.-g reflecting o f th e money f i r s t , mankind last

philosophy Of'aid Nixon and Senator Gurney ~ O f Macfarlane-Ferguson law firm

c o r p o r ~ t e intrests long served by i ts member Hodges, defendant herein;

6. To eosafe-guard ou r judic ia l system from an app&intee with a falstf-ha1o,

to at least have the pUblic on guard against Macfarlane-Ferguson s 1 ~ t i n g byproxy i" U. S. Judgeshipl the plaint i ff phoned one U. S. Seaator long distance l



and was to write numerous Senators about said Hodges on th e weekeni of Dec. 11th,

only to learn on Dec. 12th that said Hodges was in;

7. Such irreverence of rights by rush-rush rejects Rppue-licaniSkm, and

denies the Constitutionally guaranteed r i th t to a RepUblican Form of G o ~ e r n -mentj such hurry-up t o ~ < t A ~ . '.. pick patronage plums for appointees leaves the

courts suspect as being not for people so much as for powers, as being in fact

a pyramid for power solidly to frustrate change within th e system;

8. Such poli t ical patronage appointment to perpetuate Reprblican hope

lessness for peoplets needs, as opposed to property's profits, merits puri .

fication, and necessity therefor is well shown by the apparent unethical practices

.5of defendant Hodges or of his clients or law associate;F, for:

Ao Said Hodges, agent-attoBrney for Hillsborough County, Fla. , Tax Assessor

Walden, ha4 bis 545 feet of Lake Front property assessed by said Walden for

$11,580 when at market value, $100 to $150 front foot it was worth $55,000 to

$82,000, as confinied by real estaee men familiar with Lake Keyston area;

B. Said Hodges, as attorney with Macfarlane-Ferguson firm, represented no t only

the people (through their tax assessor) but huge corporations also advantageously

J. ~ underassesse)fby said t ~ assessor, for ~ c m i e n t s are (With assessments approci •

mate ):

um (1) mass-media monopolist, The TribuneCo., assessed a t of value fixed

by law;

(2) Anheuser-Busch, Inc. , a t 45%;

(3) Maas Bros., Inc. , a t 45%;

General Telephone Co.; Ferman Motor Co; First Natt·l Bank (Tampa); Pen.

State BAnk; Capital Nattl Bank; Tampa Ship Repair; and numerous others, including

oil , insurance, canning, and ranching interests,all generally powerful by said

firm..

c. Said Hodges now is to take theBench vacated by Judge Lieb who long

~ p ueenjoyed under-assessments fZgorss as to imply taci t inf'J.JIiRoce of said Walden·s

attorney or his firm in SaiW court. .

D. Further, said Hodges served as ~ e r s o n a l counsel for said Walden under

suspicions, t unethical circumatances, particularly in a suit on e l e c t i o n ~ law

brought by one~ r t o n

Tucker, whose intersts were adversely affected, tax-wise

and otherwise;



E. Further, said Hodges served as attorney for said Walde:p., am was fully in

formefbt discrimination against plaint if t F ~ . for political oppression, byJ . ·ctef

groS1over assessment of land in which Fair . . interest;

9. Thus said Hodges so ~ o n g has a l i ~ h i m s e l f with vested in teres ts .

bankS, insurance, as have Gurney, Chiles and many Senators - that his confir

mation may w ~ l be automatic, as of like conscience as ruling cliques, but

plaintiff maintains his right to petition s a J . ~ denators, and to inform them of

D es-violation (o r implication) or of unethicalipra ces;

A. For said Hodges had a duty (to public through TaB Assessor, to corpor

ation clients property interests tlmough law firm) "to represent the interst

of the clent with undivided f ideli ty"-a spl i t p e r s o n a l i t ~ l

B. And he had. a duty "never to reject for any consideration personal to

(himsel:e, like u n d e r a s s e s s ~ e n t of his lake front estate) th e cause of the de

fenseless or oppresseJ (the vast majority of taxpayers exploited to the

profit or advantage of a few/)

C.And he had a duty, paid for by taxpayers, to advise his client-tax

assessor to assess a ll properties equitably at l O ~ of value .. and not "to

disobey any valid law or coutt order thereon - which client Walden did and is

now doing tor the BIG;

D. And, by his ttattitude of mind" for BIG he justifies Uthe impression

K . .that any person (li)t& Macfarlane-Ferguson and clients) can improperly influence

him or unduly enjoy his favor, n and he can "be swayed by partisan demands" of

. · ub.{ ~ a I } or .vested interests , of BIG money whethe R e ~ l r n " b 1P" - -* Democrat, for.",.

has he not been bkrii "the active promoter tt of such interests1

. .

10. Conclusively, said Hodges in his,

relations wih said Tax Assessor

(and controllers of a courthouse gang) has supported a "decepton or betrayal

of the public" so deep rooted in his nattitude of mind" that tlcorrupt1on of

I ..

a (tax assessor) exersising a public officE rubs off on him and shadows him

that i t indicated he is not an honest man not a patriotic and loyal citizen,}

and not desweving of a reputataon for ft ideli ty to private duty and to pUblic

duty.

11. Further, so conspiratorially have such conflicts of inteBests maim ..

tained to the advantage of a few insiders or powers, and to the hardship of

pla in t i f f and others, tha t great and irreparable harm. has resulted, and such harm t8



" ' 1 ~ \ ; l ~ ( } d l l ~ e d / a t . , the"Na tiona I:A ..chives~ t , ~ ~ / ; ; : ' ; : ,

_ i f ~ ~ ~ b ~ ' ; ; ; ; , :

can tlow into th e puritYft this Court tai l ing protection by this court ot

plaintiff ' s and others rights as above.

12. Such rights apply also to other nominees for Federat Judgeships,

for defendant Hodges is one of a class.

'WlIEBEFORE, plaintif f prays:

(a)Accept jurisdiction as a class action,

(bO Enjoin swearing in as U. S. District Judge of defendant W. T. Hosges,

Itemporarily

u n t ~ c o n f i r m a n t i o ntime is re-opene d, or prospectively in future

nominations,

( (c) Set time of 90 • days between nomination and confirmation, or

(d) Grant su1(p other reletf as merited.

Respectfully

Jim Fai r

Plaintiff, in pro. per., 124 S. Franklin

Tampa, Fla 33602~ UDx· .-- --( Y I ' l " " ' P 9 F9UOitl-}

fair v hodges, complaint for tro 71-572, dec-11-1971.pdf

Documents