Joe Norman`s August 7, 2000 complaint against

CIRCUIT
.JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE EIE"VENTH
coMPItrNT OFJUDICTALMTICOTVDUCT
ORDISADIUTY
UNDER2t U.s.C. ! 3?2(c)
To 6lc a conrphint of jrrtr-r mr:conduct or disability, pleascanswa dl of the quccbr
m dris form and scnd tlrrec cogicr ii ur anveiec ro tne Clcrk, Unitcd Statel Court of Appal$
56 Fonyth SbEEt,N.W., Atlaffr, C.€rg.30303
Pleascwritc'Scction 372(c)Complrinf
on the envelqe. Itri nof rritc thc ormc 6i'tlc coopblncdro(Jridgc oi tic cnvclopc. ltlt
complaintmurt bc tcgibtc: if possibtc, it shogl_dUc typarrinco. . For othcr dcaib, scethc R[b3
of thc ludicial Council of the Eevenrh Circuit GoverningComplainu of Iudisid Misconducc
Disabilitv.
CONFIDENTIAL
TNTEE MATTET OF A COMPIIINT
ADDlEII
4
/ OuD,VDSSAI
185o
r Bq3
DAYTn{E TEIIPIIONI
AGAINST!
NUT.IET
FIIID
7r
tqBLl
EY:
32]98 - 2-o7
Do.r 6l
cglil
r fllirlitr
€
If yc, Frpwbbrunfu
(If qrbo
inrororbdartbhrrr
lrrrli
L icroivd.
COUITafWIIETI
nr riliinl
Exo
ff-
bruri?
.
r srrry.)
FF,
WA.3FTI.ED
q1- 559'7
AtttAL F AlrY
Dcntr{firE,ot
Wbr ir (c rr)
yrlr rob b b
€*r(irra4F!
Plar
prwib
hsri?
b
THBouca
nu.
EIr,..-
tr enoq
r)
eddrrr,
rd
tehgbo
t/F,qDtuc
orJ
anabr
of, ycrr rcrturf
IloTrcN
hvrF5 J, TnfunJ
1
33lo- oNF Bt*A1uF Tr-"^eA
Itt 0N, FL
33'3 /
Ervr yon lllod r hrruf
rtrid
Elxo-db
b 6L hwrrt
FoD S.>nnol>tt J.rOc HEpf
Tt'A: 3'a5
3'74
33oo
EYa E xo
r!. jrd8.?
lf yc, plrr
tb fulloritrt iafr'rordn
rbqr b
Fsri|.
(If orr rhrn o bni
ir isvol".d, ur edditirl
Ffr.
COUTT o{ WHETI T. W!UIr
EI wu.
hrri.
r ulry.)
WAI FIIID
DOCKET I{UI{IE
ETT
ID AJfY
XT'MIE'O?
^'?E^L
PT.ESEI|TSTATUI O' T,.AWSUTTOl' AP?SAL
Plcrr provdr tb no.
3.
Or rgtb
cvfb d &
dddrl-
tL
SlflyoclrDD
rdtE.
.d
t LCn
Erqbr
of ycrr @lqr1?
tb
d pp, r hrfrr rlr tb FF r rlil
tll (cr I prb.4 il'.dasfi
itb'
tlrr
rll
c ftftl
Ib d r st
tr I tr raiq1 d rtt cDbL.
I dclrn rdl ET
dFF
Citsnit GroYrrdq Ch-fL*
c@pbb rrr qr d err-r
U I bvt rd xub I of b fub
of JdbLl l{irctds
rd Dir-ilft,
E rb b d sy brbfr
db rrdicil CaEil
rd b rb rcl
dtb Eld
Ed. b 6b
STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATING TO THE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL
CONDUCT OF JUDGE EDWARD B. DAVIS MADE BY JOSEPHS. NORMAN II
UNDER Section312(c ) title 28 U.S.C.
COURSEOF TTIE PROCEEDINGSAND FACTS OF THE CASE
The complaintis againstJudgeEdwardB. Davis relating to casenumber9I-2679CIV-DAVIS in the United StatesDistrict Court SouthernDistrict Of Florida. JosephS.
NormanII ( Norman) is a namedPlaintiff in this casewhich is alsoreferredto as DUNN v.
AIPA et al.
The complaintwas broughtby hundredsof airline pilots againstthe Airline
Pilots Association(ALPA) and certainofficials of that union regardingthe publicationand
distributionof a defamatorylist of "SCAB" airline pilots that worked for EastemAirlines
during the pilot synpathy strike of 1989. Normanwas nevermorethan a pilot traineefor a
very brief period of time during tlre sympathystrike and did not do pilot work of flying
airplanesduringthe strike. There is no indication in the caserecord that any evidence
presentedby Norman has ever been consideredby the court. Had there been an
evaluation,by JudgeDavis,of the evidencepresentedby Norman and 1lth Circuit Case
law he clearlywould haveconcludedit was falseto labelNorman a "scab".
JudgeEdwardDavis statedat the SurnmaryJudgmenthearingon February14,
1997 "I donotfind an affidavit of JosephNormananlnvherein our records"( Exhibit 1) and
went on to rule in favor of the defendants.Normanwas represented
by leadcounselMyles J.
Tralinstlrroughthe SummaryJudgmentHearing.After June25, 1997Normancontinuedpro
se. On July 3, 1997Normanfiled a MOTION FOR SEVERANCEAND SEPARATETRIAL
OF ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES ( Exhibit 2 ) but the motion was rendered
moot with the SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER in the case. On July 28, 1997 JudgeDavis
grantedSummaryJudgmentin favor of the Defendantswith a 28 pageSummaryJudgment
Order (SJO)(Exhibit 3 ) addressed
to '?laintiffs, formerflight deckoperatingcrew members
for EasternAirlines ( "Eastern")" a descriptionthat hasneverdescribedNorman and there
were no facts relevantto Normanin the order. The facts of Norrnanwere, obviously,not
consideredprior to SummaryJudgmentor at anytime in the proceedings
by JudgeDavis.The
failure of JudgeDavis to considerall, or any, of the evidenceof Normanprior to swnmary
judgmentappears
to conflictwith the requirement
of FRCP56 , andCanon1.2, 1.3,2.2,2-3,
2.4, 2.6 2.8, and 3.81, of the Codeof JudicialConduct. Thus, SummaryJudgmentas to
Normanwas not proper. JudgeEdwardDavis previouslyruled in Eastern Airlines, Inc. v.
ALPA. et al.. 744F. S.tpp.1140,S.D.Fla.,1990andthe 1lthCircuit in EasternAirlines.
Inc. v. ALPA et al.. 92AF 2d 722, Dec. 20, 1990determinedthat traineepilots who had not
completedthe airline training program and initial operatingexperience,had not obtained
FederalAviation Administration(FAA) certificate,andhad not startedflying revenueflights
were not "working Easternpilots". They had not performedwork ordinarily dischargedby
striking pilots and they were not employeesprotectedby the Railway Labor Act. By this
definitionof JudgeEdwardDavisandthe 1lthCircuit, Petitionernevercrosseda picketline
to do work for EasternAir Lines as did the otherPlaintiffs in the case. The list of " SCAB"
pilots publishedand distributedby DefendantALPA was a list of pilots that worked (flew
aircraft)duringthe EasternAir Lines strike. Basedon the court's findingsregardingtrainee
statusduringthis strikeit was falseto labelNormana "SCAB."
STATEMENT OF RECORD FACTS NECESSARYTO ARGUMENT OF THE
ISSUESWHICH WERE IGNORED JUDGE DAVIS
PetitionerNormanspentfive weeks( May 15, 1989throughJune 18, 1939)in the
EasternAir Lines trainingprogramafter the sympathystrike began.Normanneverflew any
aircraftfor EasternAir Linesasdid the otherPlaintiffsin the case. Normanneverqualifiedto
perform the dutiesof a flight deck operatingcrew memberor be a permanentreplacement
employeeat EasternAir Lines as did otherPlaintiffsin the case. While in trainingat Eastern
the circumstances
of Norman were no different than the circumstances
addressedby both
JudgeDavis and the llth Circuit in Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. ALPA" et al., 744F. Supp.
1140,S,D.Fla.,1990andthe l ln' Circuitin EasternAi{lines,Inc. v. ALPA et al.. g20F 2d
722,Dec.20,1990. The namesof otherpilot traineesarenot on the "scab"list; the nameof
Normanis.
PetitionerNormanjoined the DefendantALPA union when askedto do so by ALPA
personnel. He left the Easterntraining progftlm when askedto do so by ALPA. He has
placedin evidencenumerousALPA providedidentificationcardsthat showhe wasa member
in good standingof ALPA at all times.
2
Also in evidenceis a letter from ALPA PresidentBabbitt dated May 19, 1994,
showing that Petitioner Norman was seekingthe office of Presidentof ALPA and that the
then presidenthad no objections. The AIPA Constitutiorl Article 10, Section1, requiresa
memberto be in good standingto seekanyunionoffice.
PetitionerNorman was never subjectedto any union Article VIII union discipline
in the SJOpages6 and 8.
actionthat accusedhim of being a scab,as the Court represented
The other Plaintiffs in the casewere subjectedto Article VIII disciplineaction. The ALPA
Constitution,Article 10(A),statesthrt anypersonwho hasengagedn anyactivity, directly or
indirectly, opposingthe Association,or its aims or pu{poses,or againstthe best interestsof
any memberor membersthereofSHALL NOT BE ACCEPTEDFOR MEMBERSHIPexcept
by specialaction of the Board of Directorsat a specialmeeting. Therewas neverany such
action regarding Petitioner Norman and his membershipcards in ALPA, which are in
evidence,showhe wasa memberin goodstanding,at all times,throughDecember31,1995.
PetitionerNorman " has not beenprovidedopportunityto refute the allegation"(of
in the
SCAB) that he was 'oapilot who hasflown for the company"as the Court represented
SJOfn.7,pg7,pg23.The operativeword is ooflown".
The evidenceshowsthat PetitionerNormanneverqualifiedto be a pilot at EasternAir
Lines underthe requirements
of the federallaw. Appellantnever,therefore,crosseda picket
line to do the work of oneof the striking pilots andwasthusnevera "scab"by applicationof
federal law, 11'hCircuit case law, or Defendant'sorvn definition. Had Norman met the
Defendant'sdefinitionof scabhe would havebeendisciplinedfor his actions.
ALPA neversaidthat PetitionerNormanwas a "SCAI}" exceptin the post strike list
of "SCABS".
A frnal point is that Petitioner Norman w&s always an ALPA member in good
standing accordingto the membershipcards,which are in evidence,that ALPA issuedto him
for 1989through 1995(the time period of this strike and well afterward).In returq ALPA
calledhim a SCAB and madeit impossiblefor him to obtainpilot employmentwhereverthe
providedby the Defendantsto Normanconfirms
union was established.The documentation
Normanis not a "SCAB". The evaluationof this documentation
by the District Court would
havedeterminedit is falseto labelJosephS. NormanII a "SCAB".
Normanneverdid work for EaSernAirlines becausehe wasnevermorethan a trainee
duringthe EasternAirlines work disputeof 1989. The 1lfr Circuit recognizedin EASTERN
AIRLINES v. ALPA et al. 920 F 2d 722, 728 ,C.A. 11,1990that "thesetraineeswere not
'performinganywork' of the carrierby any stretchof the imagination."
CONCLUSION
The completereversalof JudgeDavis on the positionof pilot trainee'sstatusduring
the EasternAirlines strikeof 1989andthe completefailure of JudgeDavis to evaluateany of
the record,unrefutedevidenceof JosephS. NormanII is so far departedfrom the accepted
and usualcourseof judicial proceedingsthat outsidecorruptinginfluence,mentallapsesor
prejudiceagainstpro se litigantsappearsto havepromptedthe judicial conductin the case.
The judicial conductof concernis justification for this judicial counselto refer the caseof
JosephS. Norman II v. ALPA et al. for properevaluationof the evidence. Evaluationof
any of the evidenceprovided,by the Defendant's,presentedby Normanand caselaw would
haveresultedin the exclusionof Norman'snameon the SUMMARY ruDGMENT ORDER
by JudgeDavis.
There is also ample evidenceof attorneymisconducton the part of Defendant's
by the appropriateentity. Normanwas
counsels,misconductthat alsoneedsto be addressed
deposedby Defendant'scounselsJamesLinsey and StuartGoldsteinon June 13, 1995. After
the depositioncounselsknew Norman never flew an aircraft for EasternAirlines but they
failed to correctthe record. JudgeDavis was also led, by the Defendant's,to believeunion
MEC Counselshadthe authorityto makeALPA policy at the airlinethey represented( pages
by the Defendantsto the court is
2,3 of the SummaryJudgmentOrder). This representation
just not true.
Norman was a pilot for an ALPA representedcompanynamed Overseas
National Airways (ONA ) from 1968 through 1978 . In 1978ONA furlouglredits ALPA
pilots and continuedto operatewithout union pilots. ALPA failedto honorits representation
requirementsunderits ConstitutionandBylaws and in 1982the ONA pilots retainedcounsel,
at their own expense,andpetitionedthe NMB to be confnmedasthe rightful pilots at ONA.
ALPA not only did not assistour pilot group but declinedto let us hire counselto help
ourselves.Our pilot groupcounselinsistedwe had the authorityto help ourselvesand cited
the portionof the ALPA ConstitutionJudgeDavisbelievedwasALPA policy on pages2,3 of
the SLIMMARY JI-IDGMENTORDER. However,ALPA declinedto allow our pilot group
to helpourselvesandto rnakethe final decisionon anyproblemof the membersof the airline
(Exhibit 4). In 30 years of dealingwith DefendantALPA Norman has never found any
apparentintegrity within the ALPA organization. Truth and integrity are inelevant in their
schemeof doingbusiness.
The completefailwe of JudgeDavis to considerany of the evidenceof or caselaw
applicableto Norman, presentsan appearance
this pro se Plaintiff can only describeas
judicial conduct that was apparentlyinfluencedby corruption,mental lapse or prejudice
againstpro selitigants. Thejudicial conductof JudgeDavis in this matteris prejudicialto the
efFectiveand expeditiousadministrationof the businessof the courts and the harm it has
causedneedsto be corrected.
JudgeDavis needsto explain with specificswhy Norman, who was only a trainee
during the EasternAir Lines strike of 1989,was in his opinionproperlylabeled"SCAB" by
ALPA. The opinionof JudgeDavis should be basedon caselaw and evidencepresentedby
Norman.
This caseas it appliesto Normanis a greatexampleof why citizen'sconfidencein the
judicial systemis at an all time low and why the frameworkof protestsin Atlanta during the
next oral argumentweek during the fall is in the planningstages. The supportfor protests
comesfrom citizenswho haverespondedto the many LETTERSTO TI{E EDITOR written
by Norrnanand publishedin newspapers
in Georgia,Florida and Alabama----copies
of some
of the publishedlettersof the areattached(Exhibit 5 ).
This the 7h dayof August,2000
RESPECTFULLY,
II, pro se
SantaAnita Drive
hassee,
Florida32308-2007
(8s0)8e3-1484