In The District Court
215th Judicial District
Harris County, Texas
Cause No. 2009-80663
Louis Charles Hamilton II Plaintiff
Plaintiff Motion to Compel
Vs. Production of Document
Harry C. Arthur (Esq.)
Marine Building, L.L.C.
Defendant(s),
Comes Now the Plaintiff, Louis Charles Hamilton II, hereby files a Motion to Compel Production of the following documents from Defendant herein (Arthur et al) and for “good caused” the Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court as follows:
Introduction
Law 101.
University of common sense... (J)
I
The Attorney-Client Privilege
Background
The Attorney – Client Privilege is an evidentiary rule that protects both attorneys and their clients from being compelled to disclose confidential communications between them made for the purpose of furnishing or obtaining legal advice or assistance. The privilege is designed to foster frank, open, and uninhibited discourse between attorney and their client;
So that the client’s legal needs are competently addressed by a fully prepared attorney who is cognizant of all the relevant information the client can provide.
The attorney- client privilege may be raise during any type of legal proceeding, civil, criminal, and or administrative, and at any time during those proceedings, pre-trail, during trail, or post- trial.
The privileged dates back to ancient Rome, where governors where forbidden from calling their advocates as witnesses out of concern that the governors would lose confidence in their own defenders. In (1577) the first evidentiary privilege recognized by the English COMMON LAW was the attorney- client privilege. The English common law protected the confidential nature of attorney – client communications, regardless of whether those communications took place in public or in private. The American colonies adopted this approach to the attorney - client privilege, and Delaware codified the privilege in its first constitution 1776.
Elements of the Attorney-Client Privilege
Because the attorney- client privilege often prevents disclosure of information that would be relevant to a legal proceeding, courts are cautious when examining objections grounded in the privilege. Most courts generally require that certain elements be demonstrate before finding that the privilege applies. Although the elements vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, one often cited recitation of the elements was articulated in U.S. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F. Spp. 357 (D. Mass. 1950), where the court enumerated the five-part test:
(1) The person asserting the privilege must be a client or someone attempting to establish a relationship as a client;
(2) The person with whom the client communicated must be an attorney and acting in the capacity as an attorney at the time of the communication;
(3) The communication must be between the attorney and the client exclusively;
(4) The communication must be for the purpose of securing a legal opinion, legal services, or assistances in some legal proceeding, and for the purpose of committing a crime or Fraud;
(5) The privilege may be claimed or waived by the client only.
Whether the client is a natural person or a corporation, the attorney-client privilege belongs only to the client and not to the attorney. As a result, clients can prevent attorneys from divulging their secrets, but attorneys have no power to prevent their clients from choosing to waive the privilege and testifying in court, talking to the police, or otherwise sharing confidential attorney-client information with third parties not privy to the confidential discussions. Clients may waive attorney-client privilege expressly by their words or implicitly by their conduct, but a court will only find that the privilege has been waived if there is a clear indication that the client did not take steps to keep the communications confidential. An attorney's or a client's inadvertent disclosure of confidential information to a third party will not normally suffice to constitute WAIVER. If a client decides against waiving the privilege, the attorney may then assert the privilege on behalf of the client to shield both the client and the attorney from having to divulge confidential information shared during their relationship.
In American civil procedure, the work-product doctrine protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation from discovery by opposing counsel.[1] It is also known as the work-product rule, the work-product immunity, the work-product privilege (somewhat erroneous terminology), and the work-product exception.
Work-Product Doctrine
Under the work-product doctrine, "tangible material or its intangible equivalent" that is collected or prepared in anticipation of litigation is not discoverable,[2] And may be shielded from discovery by a Protective Order, unless the party seeking discovery can demonstrate that the sought facts can only be obtained through discovery and that those facts are indispensable for impeaching or substantiating a claim.
[3] That is, the party unable to obtain the information has no other means of obtaining the information without undue hardship. For example, the witness may have left the country. Where the required showing is made, the court will still protect mental impressions of an attorney by redacting that part of the document containing the mental impressions.
Comparison with attorney-client privilege
The work-product doctrine is more inclusive than attorney-client privilege. Unlike the attorney-client privilege, which includes only communications between an attorney and his client, work-product includes materials prepared by persons other than the attorney himself: The materials may have been prepared by anybody as long as they were prepared with an eye towards the realistic possibility of impending litigation. Additionally, it includes materials collected for the attorney such as interrogatories, signed statements, other information acquired for the prosecution or defense of a case, "memoranda, briefs, communications . . . other writings prepared by counsel for his own use in prosecuting his client's case . . . mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories."[3]However, the work-product doctrine is also less powerful than the attorney-client privilege because it is not a privilege, and therefore may be overcome by a showing of necessity, as described above.
History
The work-product doctrine originated in the 1947 case of Hickman v. Taylor, in which the Supreme Court affirmed a United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decision which excluded from discovery of oral and written statements made by witnesses to a defendant's attorney.[3] The Supreme Court, acting at the recommendation of the Advisory Committee of the Judicial Conference, later enshrined this doctrine formally in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as Rule 26(b)(3).[4]
1. The Plaintiff gave the Defendant in this action Harry C. Arthur Esq. the following Notice pursuant to: Rule 193.7 Notice attached to the original disclosure request of the Plaintiff; attached as Plaintiff Exhibit (H)
· “Pursuant to rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby gives notice that all documents produced by any Plaintiff or Defendant will be used at pretrial proceeding or at the Trial of this matter”.
2. The Plaintiff filed a Third Party request with (Christ Church Cathedral et al), * attached as Plaintiff exhibit (F);
3. The Plaintiff filed with Defendant (Arthur et al) (among other things) a request for Production of document * attached as Plaintiff exhibit (G)
4. The Production of document for said Deposition of (Arthur et al) is the evidence (among others) the Plaintiff now seeks and is in fact “the work product” of the (Defendant(s) Christ Church Cathedral et al) obtain services through the Law Firm of Vickery, Waldner & Mallia, LLP and Kenny IV Esq. namely (Andy & Kenny IV)
5. The Plaintiff respectfully assert before this Honorable Court that all surrounding facts” in regards of the “Professional legal piranhas” (Andy & Kenny IV Esq.) and the work product thereof That….The Plaintiff can safely assume said “legal piranhas team” conducted such a “Hell of a work product…before hand with “precise questions of legal strategy of devastation” and being the said work production of one Hell/Holy damaging Deposition” by said way of said “work products” of (Andy & Kenny IV Esq.) execution in direct examination on said defendant (Arthur et al) in the past…that;
6. The Plaintiff can respectfully and safely assume and assert before this particular Honorable Court that the non-suit filed by (Arthur et al) in the previous action (Arthur et al) Plaintiff vs. (Cathedral et al) Defendant(s) is a “direct proximate result” of their (Andy & Kenny IV Esq.) “Professional legal piranhas” combine “excellent bone picking “work products” in anticipation of litigation with Arthur Esq. /et al” in legal defense of and acting as (Attorney(s) of record for (Defendants Christ Church Cathedral et al) at the time said “Professional legal piranhas” (J)…(Andy & Kenny IV Esq.) conducted said deposition…and the deposition is in no way or fashion can ever be claim the “work product” of (Arthur et al) in this particular action.
7. Now Defendant to this action one (Arthur Esq. / et al) boldly and foolishly is now desecrating such the “Honorable Work Product” of the two Professional legal piranhas” as described above.
8. By way of claiming work product of another Attorney(s) namely (Andy & Kenny IV Esq.) the “Professional legal piranhas” listed above who’s legal wording design in the deposition is the work product against (Arthur et al) in the past and not some materials that may having been prepared by (Arthur et al) “himself” with an eye towards the realistic possibilities in defense of this particular impending litigation against The Plaintiff (Hamilton II)
And or materials that (Arthur Esq.) prepared in defense of him self in his on direct examination...? In the previous civil action against the “Holy Church”.
9. Defendant (Arthur et al) seems to think now collectively combining his other wrongful acts and actions precisely committed and directed against the Plaintiff rights and dignity in the past that any future defamatory acts and further fraudulent practices by said defendant (Arthur et al) in the now stated claims of the work product of another Attorney(s) deposition…
Is the same/equivalent as if claiming the Plaintiff to be a total “water/egg head bumpkin” from Jefferson County, Texas whom happen to fallen of a Long Horn Cattle truck in a pasture field upon a petrified pieces of cow crap …thus providing the Plaintiff already being further in a state …from all leaves of his own common sense and
fully rendering this Plaintiff (Hamilton II) as a previously mentioned total “water/egg head bumpkin” ignorant of all of the Civil Court laws of the United States “that even a 5th grader can figure out” in regards to the “work product” and or “Attorney/client doctrine” defendants (Arthur et al) now seeks foolish refuge under.
II
Arguments
The Defendant(s) herein (Harry C. Arthur Esq.) and (The Marine Building L. L. C. et al) collectively hereafter named (Arthur et al)
In this particular style Pro Se action, Defendant(s) (Arthur et al) collectively seeks to (among other things) cause undue-delay(s) in this cause by way of (Arthur et al) enjoyment and now fraudulent abuse of (Arthur et al ) position and privileges collectively as being the acting Attorney of record,
Acting actually as a Attorney within the State of Texas; especially; In this cause of action over all of the Defendant(s) (Arthur et al) “legal affairs” in this particular complaint;
Which “He is in the flesh being (Arthur Esq./Defendant et al) on the “court docket” acting and representing his “self interest” of (Arthur et al) and the Marine Building L. L. C. et al self Interest,
Which “He in the flesh” in all practical sense is (Arthur Esq.) protecting Defendant(s) (Arthur et al) self interest regardless if he is an Attorney or a Civilian both having the same interest.
Plaintiff file for among other things in a discovery devise of a Request for Production of documents requesting (among other things)
Complete copies of all Interrogatories, Request of Admissions, Deposition, Defendant (Arthur et al) engaged in with the Plaintiff Third Party namely : (Christ Church Cathedral et al),
To include but not limited to, Plaintiff also requested other “relevant material discovery documents” which the Plaintiff shall address last;
Defendant (Arthur et al) filed suit against (“Christ Church Cathedral et al)”, here after named (Cathedral et al) and in their Defense of (Arthur the Plaintiff Then) Defendant then (Cathedral et al) obtain the services of the Law Firm of Vickery, Waldner & Mallia, LLP and Kenny IV Esq.
Defendant(s) in this particular complaint (Arthur et al) acting as Attorney for the Plaintiff in (Arthur et al vs. Cathedral et al))
Now said defendant herein (Arthur et al) having been served said request for production of documents namely: Production of a Deposition
Which facts correctly dictate thus said deposition having been the work product by Defendants (Cathedral et al) acting Attorney(s) of record (Vickery and Kenny IV) with other possible valuable discovery document(s) being requested from (Arthur et al) in connection to work product of said acting Attorneys of record listed above before the behalf of the Holy Church; Namely Christ Church Cathedral;
Moreover (Vickery & Kenny IV) them-self in fact conducted said deposition on said Defendant(s) (Cathedral et al) behalf during this same time period with (Arthur Esq.) under direct examination of the work product of (Vickery & Kenny IV) in the previously action now filed under a non-suit status in (Harry C. Arthur Esq.) and (The Marine Building L. L. C. et al) vs. Cathedral et al));
Both (Vickery & Kenny IV) them-self in fact having been previously in preparation in anticipation of an eye towards the realistic possibility of impending litigation in the action previously already done in the past;
Which he” (Arthur et al) is also in fact a Defendant now; instead of the Plaintiff in the past; to this action;
Which he” (Arthur et al) now boldly , fraudulent and foolishly refused to comply with the Plaintiff legal rights of a Discovery request device for Production of Documents namely “Deposition” (among other things) as attached as Plaintiff exhibit (G) herein with the records to this cause;
And he” (Arthur et al) seeks to imply and invoke some sort of Attorney - client privilege and work – product doctrine exist over the Plaintiff Production request in favor for the defendant (Arthur Esq. / et al) to this action;
To include but not limited to defendants (Arthur et al) express wishes to invoke said Attorney/client privileges when such a levy against the Plaintiff rightful discovery request does not exist for said defendant;
To include but not limited to such outstanding facts that (Arthur et al) most certainly do not meet the pre-requisite requirements and previews that’s list below:
(1) The person asserting the privilege must be a client or someone attempting to establish a relationship as a client;
(2) The person with whom the client communicated must be an attorney and acting in the capacity as an attorney at the time of the communication;
(3) The communication must be between the attorney and the client exclusively;
(4) The communication must be for the purpose of securing a legal opinion, legal services, or assistances in some legal proceeding, and for the purpose of committing a crime or Fraud;
(5) The privilege may be claimed or waived by the client only.
To include but not limited to such further outstanding facts that (Arthur et al) most certainly do not meet the pre-requisite requirements and previews of the work- product doctrine that’s list below:
“The materials may have been prepared by anybody as long as they were prepared with an eye towards the realistic possibility of impending litigation”
Defendant (Arthur et al) cannot reasonably be claiming now before the Plaintiff and this Honorable Court that the work product of (Andy & Kenny IV Esq.) the “Professional legal piranhas” prepared materials that was induce in a deposition against (Arthur Esq.) was intended for this particular Plaintiff (Hamilton II)” Civil Action to be frozen under a “Work –product of the Attorney/client relationship between (Arthur Esq.) and his client (Arthur et al);
To include but not limited to all materials, writings prepared, memoranda, briefs, communications. .
To include also mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories." And or other writings prepared by and collected for the Attorney(s), (Andy & Kenny IV Esq.) such as interrogatories, request for admissions, signed statements, other information acquired for the defense of (Arthur Esq.) in (Harry C. Arthur Esq.) and (The Marine Building L. L. C. et al) vs. (Cathedral et al)); is also the work-product of (Arthur Esq.) in this particular civil action Hamilton II vs. Arthur et al..?
All of the said discovery request(s) the Plaintiff (Hamilton II) seeks is very relevant and in the direct scope of these proceedings by way of all of the subject matter that’s having in the past being at issue in (Arthur et al) Plaintiff vs. (Cathedral et al) Defendant(s) and most certainly in the media
In regards to among other things the Issues of Defendants (Arthur et al) label/calling Plaintiff among others a “Derelict” of Houston TX with the rest of Beacon clients among others ;
Which common sense dictate these facts among many others surly having been discuss in the previous action in (Arthur et al) Plaintiff vs. (Cathedral et al) Defendant(s) under direct examination of the “work product deposition” of (Andy & Kenny IV Esq.) the “Professional legal piranhas” in defense of (Arthur Esq.) in the past;
And the Plaintiff is entitled to review each and all said documents, materials, evidences and namely the deposition previously conducted against (Arthur et al) in this regard.
Under the work-product doctrine, "tangible material or its intangible equivalent" that is collected or prepared in anticipation of litigation is not discoverable,
However the “work product” of another (Attorneys) work namely (Andy & Kenny IV Esq.) the “Professional legal piranhas” having been mention above;
And their combine work product(s) efforts that been prepared in defense and anticipation of the Plaintiff at the Time namely (Arthur et al vs. Christ Church Cathedral)
And his ungodly attempt to achieve among other things monetary awards of $250,000.00 of the Plaintiff “ear mark poor man money” from the “Holy Church “
Namely (Christ Church Cathedral et al) with a further commit acts and actions made by defendant (Arthur et al) of a “definite & forever” sought closure of the Plaintiffs’ “Feed-n-Wash Hole”
To include but not limited to facts of Defendants (Arthur et al) posing as the Grinch and committed to the pilferage of the Plaintiff “Christmas Holidays of 2009”
Whom (Arthur Esq.) of this present time;
Now acting as “legal counsel” for Defendant (Arthur et al) in this action …whom both being the same seeking to “fraudulently abuse” the Attorney-client privilege,
With further distortion of fact by way of fraudulent misrepresentation & flagrant claims of the “work product-doctrine” of Another Attorneys work-product(s) in regards to the discovery request made by the Plaintiff for said deposition being conducted against (Arthur Esq. / et al) in the past action (Arthur et al Plaintiff vs. Cathedral et al) Defendant(s)
* The Plaintiff respectfully refer the Honorable court to see definition below
Distortion of Fact
A representor may make a statement which prima facie is technically true; however this may tell only half the story. If a statement of fact is made but the representor fails to include information which would significantly alter the interpretation of this fact, then a misrepresentation may have occurred.Fraudulent misrepresentation (Derry v. Peek) occurs when one makes representation with intent to deceive and with the knowledge that it is false.
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.
flagrant - conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible; "a crying shame"; "an egregious lie"; "flagrant violation of human rights"; "a glaring error"; "gross ineptitude"; "gross injustice"; "rank treachery"
The Plaintiff is appearing Pro Se in this action with the Defendant(s) (Arthur et al/ Esq.) enactment of a “rank treachery of a shame before the Honorable Court at the expense of the Plaintiff
In regards to distortion of facts by way of fraudulent misrepresentation & flagrant claims of the work product-product doctrine of another attorney’s work-product(s) in regards to the discovery request made by the Plaintiff for said deposition as described above to include but not limited to:
Further attempts at bully the weight of the legal law definition(s) in regards to “Derelict”, “Attorney/client”, “work-product” and “nuisances” through-out the entire civil action discovery process as the Defendants (Arthur et al) continue pattern and practices having already achieved (1) counter suit (2) media “hate mail” & exposure (no man should ever, ever, wish upon himself”) self inflicted placement of being at a state of a “unholy out cast” of some sort for crimes against human respectful nature”. (3) Exposure for his staff of Law Office of Harry C. Arthur receiving wrongful vulgar cussing out; which should having been directed at (Arthur Esq.) the person to his face by some unknown individual …for provoking such wrongful behavior …of two wrongs don’t make a right”
To include but not limited to previously stated “above” and “below” notice facts “timely served” upon the Defendant(s) (Arthur et al) in this action of the Plaintiff intent on acting in his best legal benefit and gain in regards to Plaintiff entitlement of a pursuit of justice for this civil action.
Pursuant to rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby gives notice that all documents produced by any Plaintiff or Defendant will be used at pretrial proceeding or at the Trial of this matter which Plaintiff most certainly intend on doing so in this particular cause of action.
III
Conclusion
“You Know the Old saying”:-The Attorney who Represent himself has got a fool for a client;”
Dated this ______ Day of _________________, 2010
Respectfully submitted
By, ____________________________
Louis Charles Hamilton II
Pro Se Plaintiff
No comments:
Post a Comment