Corrupt Federal Judge 3 of 3

In discounting the 8-3-88 letter, Judge Waters listed several
job cost sheets indicating they represented the only actual printings. Of
course, these were selected by Harper as the ones benefiting his case. He
naturally left out those reflecting the printings of 5,000 of each book.

Even so, and probably by oversight, Harper included the job
sheet for 5,300 each of covers for Survivor 1 and Chemistry. (Exhibit A-5). The
figure of 5,300 indicates a printing of at least 5,000 of each book with 300
over to account for any extra books or damaged covers.

There is a job cost sheet for 2,570 Chemistry and 5,300
covers; same job, No. 39801. There may have been a breakdown and the rest were
printed later. At any rate, no printer would print 5,300 covers for only 2,570
books. The 5,300 covers shows 5,000 were scheduled.

There is no job cost sheet for Survivor 1, but a number,
38757, along with the 5,300 covers.
Strangely, there are no job cost sheets at all for PMJB 3.

Another job cost sheet shows 1,560 copies of PMJB 2, printed
for Delta Press. That was certainly over the 1,000 authorized to Blann and not
ordered by the Plaintiff. (Exhibit A- 11)

Still another job cost sheet (Exhibit C-31) shows 2,240
copies of New Improved PMJB illegally printed for Blann. DP&L presented a
bill to Blann. (Exhibit C24). At trial, both Harper and Blann testified that
Plaintiff had agreed to split a 5,000 unit printing of New Improved PMJB.
(Exhibit F-13). The hatred of Plaintiff for Blann would have made such an
agreement impossible. There was no job cost sheet for Plaintiff, nor was there a
billing for the job by DP&L. Judge Waters saw nothing wrong in this.

If the job cost sheets prove anything, they prove shorter
runs were printed after the 5,000 of each book printed for Plaintiff and to
accommodate Blann.

Only six invoices between Harper and Blann for Plaintiff’s
books were submitted. (Exhibit C- 18 to 23) . Interestingly, all payments but
one were to be sent directly to Harper at his home. Aside from PMJB 1, there
were 3,380 of Plaintiff’s books. Judge Waters, in treating with the invoices,
(B-32) wrote, “Plaintiff introduced invoices showing Harper had shipped to
Delta 576 copies of Granddad’s (Chemistry). At trial, Plaintiff testified that
the invoices didn’t exceed the number of books he authorized distribution of.

Such a subterfuge is unworthy of a Federal Judge. Plaintiff
referred to the 576 Chemistrys, which were of course, under the 1,000
authorized. Judge Waters had the invoices and knew they added up to 3,380 of all
titles except for PMJB 1. Even so, the 576 figure is significant in that, had
Blann been limited by Harper to the authorized 1,000 he would not have ordered
more that a couple of hundred Chemistrys as opposed to the more popular PMJB 2
and 3.

Just as important a piece of evidence as the 8-3-88 letter
and one which Judge Waters wouldn’t even comment on, was an undated letter from
Harper to Blann. It was written early on, when possibly only 304 books were
picked up by Blann. Their unit price, however, was only $6.00 instead of the
$7.50 each they would have cost had Harper meant to limit Blann to the
authorized 1,000.

The letter (Exhibit C-27) states that the books Blann picked
up numbered 304 PMJB 2 and 3. They weren’t represented on the invoices so just
add 304 to 3,380 above = 3,684, 2,684 over the authorized 1,000. Near the
bottom, Harper wrote, “When you need some more, let me know.” This
proves Harper intended to sell Blann all of Plaintiff’s books he wanted,
regardless of Plaintiff’s orders to the contrary and as backed up by the
succeeding invoices. Yet, Judge Waters disregarded that letter as evidence.

In his deposition, Harper said Plaintiff owed him $l2,000. At
the trial he amended it to $9,000. Plaintiff didn’t dispute this claim because
he wasn’t asked and felt it too ridiculous to address. In Harper’s last letter
to Plaintiff (Exhibit B-43) he said Plaintiff owed him $7,500.

What makes Harper’s claim foolish is that the letter (Exhibit
C-27) and the invoices proved Harper transferred at least 3,684 books over the
authorized 1,000. At the rate of $7.50 Blann was to pay for the authorized
1,000. Plaintiff was legally entitled $20,130, none of which was applied to
Plaintiff’s account. Judge Waters arbitrarily awarded Harper $9,000.

Note: At that time, Plaintiff’s copyrights weren’t being
challenged. Harper and Blann believed they were acting illegally, as they were,
but felt they could get away with it. It was straight breach of contract, fraud,
conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty.

Judge Waters had to realize they were acting with criminal
intent. Since he hated everything he believed Plaintiff stood for, he should
have rejected the case.

As shown, Judge Waters cared nothing for Plaintiff’s
evidence. But DP&L saw it as proof enough of Harper’s crookedness to fire
him.

Harper’s father was co-founder of DP&L. Harper had worked
for DP&L for 30 years. He had been vice-president for 15 years. DP&L’s
decision to fire him and effectively end his career and ruin his life could not
have been made lightly. The evidence was solid, even though DP&L’s attorney
scorned it at the trial.

But DP&L did not fire Harper because he had swindled a
client, as they should have done before the suit was brought to trial. Ethics
dictate that DP&L should have made amends to Plaintiff. But DP&L was not
concerned about a swindled client but only for the money Harper had diverted
from their own accountant to his home.

Now we come to the U.S. Court of Appeals, presided over by
McMillian, Circuit Judge; Bright, Senior Circuit Judge and Laken, Circuit Judge.
(Exhibit D).

Neither judge studied the case but simply rubber-stamped
Judge Waters’ ruling. For instance, page 3 of Exhibit D says “DP&L
computer records indicated that roughly 15,000 books had actually been printed,
which closely matched the number of books Saxon authorized for distribution by
Blann.” The number was 1,000 and was repeated often enough for any
interested examiner to know it.

Plaintiff’s California-based attorney had moved to disqualify
Judge Waters. (Exhibit E.)

In denying the disqualification, the Appellate judges ruled,
“Saxon did not file an affidavit stating the facts and reasons for recusing
Judge Waters ten days before the trial began, and also failed to show good cause
for not doing so.

The trial was without jury so Plaintiff’s attorney had no
idea of Judge Waters’ prejudice against Plaintiff until he made his ruling
months later. Plaintiff had every reason to believe Judge Waters would be
objective. Long before the suit, Plaintiff had discussed the charges with Norman
Stevenson and Lonnie Cox of the FBI. Stevenson advised Plaintiff to make it a
civil rather than a criminal case.

When Plaintiff learned Judge Waters was to preside, he told
agents Cox and Stevenson. Both affirmed that Judge Waters was a very fair judge,
having ruled against them on occasion. Plaintiff also discussed Judge Waters
with his bankruptcy attorney, Claude Jones. Jones told Plaintiff that to the
best of his knowledge, Judge Waters had always ruled in favor of the copyright
holder in copyright cases.

Not being a member of CSA or affiliated with any radical
group, as Judge Waters obviously believed him to be, Plaintiff had no idea of
Judge Waters’ connection with such people.

Plaintiff’s attorney stated in his request for
disqualification, (Exhibit E-2), “If council for Plaintiff had been aware
of past contacts of Judge Waters with CSA and Survivalists, every attempt would
have been made to move the matter to a different Court; and it is hard to
imagine any such attempt would have been unsuccessful.”

The reasons for Plaintiff’s attorney’s failure to file an
affidavit for disqualification ten days before the trial and the causes for not
doing so were self-evident. The appellate judges were simply unconcerned and
inattentive to the facts.

After Judge Waters’ rulings, Plaintiff visited attorney Mike
Yarbrough, a former close associate of Judge Waters, in his Springdale office.
Yarbrough told Plaintiff and his wife that Judge Water’s clerk, whom he had
given the case to research, had found mostly for the Plaintiff. Judge Waters
ordered that Plaintiff was to get nothing. They argued but since the clerk was
only a woman and had to obey, she rewrote the Memorandum Opinion to conform to
Judge Waters’ prejudice against Plaintiff and for DP&L, Harper and Blann.

Yarbrough further related another instance when Judge Waters
used his office to punish a litigant he disliked.

Of course, this is hearsay. But Plaintiff did not have the
frame of reference to make up such a story.

So here we have a case whereby a citizen was denied the
protection of his nations’ laws simply because he did not belong. He was not in
the mainstream of social thought. Plaintiff had never sued nor been sued and so
had no experience with the court system. He knew little of the rules of
evidence, although the evidence presented was comprehensive.

Plaintiff’s attorney was a California corporate lawyer,
inexperienced in trial law, although meticulous at research.

Judge Waters’ Memorandum Opinion was repetitious with
“Plaintiff failed to prove this and that; Plaintiff’s evidence did not show
this and that, Plaintiff did not produce this and that,” etc.

But it did not matter what Plaintiff, or council for
Plaintiff did or did not present to Judge Waters on October 2, 1990. The case
was decided in favor of DP&L, Harper and Blann from the outset.

It did not matter what council for Plaintiff did or did not
present to the Court of Appeals. A brother judge had to be favored, even above
the law.

Plaintiff failed because he was not one of the in-crowd and
did not endorse the system. His proof, his evidence, was irrelevant because
DP&L, Harper and Blann of Delta Press represented the mainstays of the
system Judge Waters served. This is the stuff that makes revolution. The law is
for everyone or the system is in jeopardy.

Hard Times Ahead?