fair v hodges, petition no. 71-6883 scotus june 21, 1972.pdf

7/27/2019 Fair v Hodges, Petition No. 71-6883 SCOTUS June 21, 1972.pdf

1/4

' : 1 r ' ~ ~ ~ ? R ' l ! , ! ) ~ e ! ~ ~ tio\la\A rchives1 : } ; ; ; ~ S 1 :

71.-6883 RECEIVED 1JUN 2 11972 'IN THE SUPREME COURT, U. S.

OFFICE OF THE CLERKJIM FAIR, PETITIONER, SUPREME COURT, U.S.VS .

W. T. HODGES"ANDu. s. GOVERNMENT,RESPONDENTS. APPEAL, OR

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARITO THE U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, 5TH CIRCUITAND TO THE U. S. DISTRICT COURT, MID. FLA., TAMPA DIV.

Pro Se, Peti t ioner prays ahat a writ of Certiorari issue review the U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Cireui t , order deny-ing

p ' ~ e r i s proceedings and, thereby, r e v i e w ~ u . S. Distr ic t Court,Middle Dist r ic t of Florida, Tampa DiVision, order, said orders beingunreported. They a.re appended. Or he appeals.

Jurisdiction i s here sustained, as said Appeals Court Orderwas entered Mar. 24, 1972; and as such i s allowed by 28 u. s. c. ss1254(1); 2 U. S. C. 8S/& 7; 42,ss 1981, 1983 , & 1988; 28, ss 1331,1343 (3) & (4), 2201, 2202 & 228I; and 42, ss 1988 -- or other unknown to ~ p e r s o n peti t ioner. This action was brought below byplaint iff-pet i t ioner m K i ~ R ~ maintaining he was denied ~ e processand equal protection of laws, and a Republican form of Gov't.U. So Constitution, 14th Amend. and Art. IV, Sec. 4. Also, he is maintaining he was denied his I s t . Amendment r ight to pet i t ion forredress\Pf grievance.QUESTIONS PRESENTED - I . W h e t h e r ~ U . S. Supreme Court Justice nomin

aees shopld, be infl icted by greater , lengthier public exposure thanpti/Hcf-U. S.A-Court judge nominees? 2. Whether three days or three months

between f r e s i d e n ~ l s nomination and Senate's confirmation of suchjudge protects Constitutional rights? 3. Whether a class action asto c i t i z e ~ and judges maintains? Whether a ci t izen 's sincere accion seeking guidelines as to minimum tim. between a judge'snominationf and confirmation is meri tJ.ess? 5. Whether in f o r m ~ pauperis proceediagg are a right?


2/4

: \ , { ; l ; t ~ ; J l l r o d l U : e . d at)the NationalArchivcs

2. 6-18-72The case arose out of President Nixod's nomination of respond

ent W. T. Hodges to be judge of the U. S. Dis t r ic t Court, Midd.leDistr ic t of Florida, Tampa Division. In 1971, he nominated himDec. 8th and the U. S. Senate confirmed him Dec. 11th - for a l i fe time job.

Upon learning of said nomination ahe pet i t ioner , Jim Fair,who works RaBID solely wi th.in the system pursuing social just iceand who looks to judges for re l i e f from vested in terests 's unjustlaws, ~ p h o n e d one U. S. S e n a t o r ~ in deep concern about the appointee,as se t out in complaint made par t hereof, appended, but by the hastyconfirmation was prevented further peti t ioning for redress of hisgrievances. As the swearing in of said nominee was upcoming, pe-

Ja t i t ioner sued in the concerned Dist r ic t Court which denied a~ temporary restraining order a ~ dismissed she action, one 41smax

,naming as respondent the U. S. Government.Petit ioner sought to proceed and to appeal in formq* pauperis,

and in good fa i th , only to be denied this r ight to due process.He established federal jurisdict ion in the court of f i r s t instanceocby set t ing forth denials of due process, equal protection andRepublican form ofagoveenment, and therein naming as defendant theu. s. government. He paid for docketing and for serVice, thoughhe could not afford to do so, as in good fai th he seeks neededguidelines rtprospect,ively in futlure nomi11a,tions," as pra.yed below.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ARE MA.NIFEST. I . The Courtshould decide whether only' U. S. Supreme Court justices should be subject to public invest igations, while Distr ic t Court judgesgo relatively unexposed, even uncrit icized, by rubber-stamp, co

operative Uo S. senators protecchive of th.eir own pa,tronageplum proposals to l i f e - t ime judgeships.2This Court in insta,nt casecan bring into the sunshine such young plants as wil l grolv and.bear frUit , for a histor ical harvest the pride of present and future generations of laymen and lawyers al ike . This Court, thehigh to which lesser appointees aspire , can now show i t s bignessby upholding pe t i t ionerss contention th.at said proposals shouldbe of such quality as to whthstand the elements of investigationfor a reasonalbe time of germination.

2 0 The decisions below seriously l imi t the intended efficacy


3/4

~ i \ J l ~ i r n . , U d l l i C e : d ; a t t l l l e ' N n l : l O n n l Archives

3. 6-19-7Z2

of a judicial systerm wherein lawyers and lawyer-judges concealcritcisms by rushing through approvals, for over four out of five

u. S. sena tors a , l ~ e at torneys,


4/4

4. 6-18-72

climb the ladder here, he claims he has l ike right on groundsmpled below a.nd here , by' h is xpa.uperis motion-affida.vi t rna.de par thereof by reference thereto. He a,sks this Court to ' protect his14th-Amendment r ights to due process and equal protection r ights ,

~ s e e m 1 n ~ l y granted or denied b e l o w ~ ~ o t on his insolvency statusbut on Court's att i tude as to issues.

Thus, peti t ion should be granted.

RespecifWIY,- 9 4im Fair

fair v hodges, petition no. 71-6883 scotus june 21, 1972.pdf

Documents