JUDGE MELINDA HARMON is a Ramiiam ..... vol 9e InJustice4Most 2010-04-25 | full mp3: http://donotgod.com/rsucks.mp3
JUDGE MELINDA HARMON is a Ramiiam ..... vol 9a InJustice4Most 2010-04-25 | full mp3: http://donotgod.com/rsucks.mp3 part 1 of 5 possible fucktard, plausible shitbrain, probable ASSHOLE
JUDGE MELINDA HARMON is a ..... vol 8 InJustice4Most 2010-04-24 | http://inmendham.com/suetube/pmrecon2.html
JUDGE MELINDA HARMON is a ..... vol 7 InJustice4Most 2010-04-23 | http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28a/usc_sec_28a_02000012----000-.html
JUDGE MELINDA HARMON is a ..... vol 6 InJustice4Most 2010-04-22 | http://inmendham.com//suetube/M1d2.html
1] JUDGE MELINDA HARMON is a ..... vol 5 InJustice4Most 2010-04-21 | Part 1 of 2 http://www.inmendham.com/dog/FUCKMH2.html
JUDGE MELINDA HARMON is a ..... vol 3 InJustice4Most 2010-04-19 | http://www.inmendham.com/dog/FUCKMH1.html
JUDGE MELINDA HARMON is a ..... vol 2 InJustice4Most 2010-04-17 | If the court orders [ORDERS] a more definite statement and the order [ORDER] is not obeyed within 14 days after notice of the order or within the time the court sets, the court may strike the pleading or issue any other appropriate order.
JUDGE MELINDA HARMON is maliciously incompetent...part 2 InJustice4Most 2010-04-14 | http://www.inmendham.com/dog/mh1.html
I will prove JUDGE MELINDA HARMON is maliciously incompetent InJustice4Most 2010-04-14 | OPINION & ORDER Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Gary INMENDHAMs (INMENDHAM) motion for recusal. (Doc. 36.) Also before the Court is pro se Defendant XXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX) motion to dismiss (Doc. 6), as well as Plaintiff INMENDHAMs response (Doc. 9) and XXXXXX reply (Doc. 10). Although XXXXXX motion included information outside Plaintiff INMENDHAMs complaint, arguably making it a motion for summary judgment, the Court will rely solely on the facts contained in the complaint and therefore construe XXXXXX pleading as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Upon review and consideration of these motions, the responses and replies thereto, the relevant legal authority, and for the reasons explained below, the Court finds that Defendant XXXXXX motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) should be granted, and that Plaintiff INMENDHAMs motion for recusal (Doc. 36) should be denied. I. Background and Relevant Facts This is a copyright case with a multifarious procedural history. On December 17, 2008, the parties in this case failed to appear for a scheduling conference before Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith. Pro se Plaintiff INMENDHAM had earlier requested special accommodation to appear by teleconference due to an alleged anxiety disorder. (Doc. 7.) On December 18, 2008, the day after the scheduled conference, U.S. District Judge David Hittner dismissed the case for failure to prosecute, without ruling on INMENDHAMs request for special accommodation. (Docs. 11 and 13.) INMENDHAM appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the case to the district court because there was no clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff and therefore his request that the conference be held by telephone or electronic means was not unreasonable given the distance from his home in New Jersey and his assertions, albeit unsupported by evidence, that he suffers a disability that prevents him from traveling. (Doc. 25 at 2, USCA No. 09-20057, September 15, 2009.) On remand, Judge Hittner scheduled a Rule 16 conference by telephone for October 8, 2009. (Doc. 18.) Although both parties appeared by telephone, the minute entry reflects that the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference [was] not held, and the conference was reset. (Doc. 20.) On the same day Judge Hittner recused himself from the case. (Doc. 21.) On or about October 9, 2009 Plaintiff INMENDHAM posted a video on the internet site YouTube that included recorded excerpts from the teleconference with Judge Hittner along with INMENDHAMs commentary. See, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICTrVUvYqDo. Related videos posted on the internet can be found at http://www.youtube.com/donotgod and http://www.youtube.com/inmendham. Plaintiffs recording and posting on the internet the October 8, 2009 conference with Judge Hittner constitute a direct violation of Local Rule 83.7, which states that, [e]xcept by leave of the presiding judge, no photo- or electro-mechanical means of recordation or transmission of court proceedings is permitted in the courthouse. Local Rule 83.7 of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/district/rulesproc. After Judge Hittners recusal, the case was reassigned to this Court. (Doc. 22.) On October 13, 2009, Magistrate Judge Frances H. Stacy reset the Rule 16 scheduling conference for March 3, 2010; all parties were specifically ordered to appear in person at the conference. (Doc. 30.) On February 25, 2010, Plaintiff INMENDHAM filed a Motion for Accommodation and Notice of Special Circumstances requesting that he be allowed to appear by telephone. (Doc. 33.) In the Minutes of the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference held March 3, 2010, the case manager to youtube has a text limit so I will provide link to complete text http://www.inmendham.com/dog/mh1.html
[1] Judge MELINDA HARMON : unwriting the Constitution InJustice4Most 2010-03-13 | stuff here later... part 1 of 2
I made fox news ...in Houston InJustice4Most 2009-11-14 | http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/091113_youtube_judge_harassment
Another crystal clear example of high court judicial crookery InJustice4Most 2009-10-09 | State Superior Court Judge W. Hunt Dumont is an obscenity to the justice system. the town lawyers methfessel & werbel esqs.
1,500 mi. from justice... Federal Judge David Hittner is incompetent. InJustice4Most 2009-10-09 | The lawsuit is a libel/slander and copyright lawsuit filed in accordance with the requirements of the federal DMCA. The judge dismissed the case because the defendant could not, and would not, travel over 1,500 mi. to attend a routine scheduling conference. Conferences which are routinely conducted through teleconferencing. On appeal to the federal fifth circuit court the judge's dismissal was VACATED citing that the request for teleconferencing "was reasonable". Unfortunately, as is traditionally done the case was remanded back to the same judge who committed the egregious error. Considering the outrageousness of Judge David Hittner's destruction of constitutional rights through the initial malicious dismissal of the case, it is hardly surprising that he would repeat offend in his effort to destroy individual constitutional rights. The judge is committing the exact same crime for which he was reversed... this should not be a possibility in a United States Federal Court. Judge David Hittner is not umpiring justice, he is perpetrating crimes against basic human rights under an authority government disgraces itself by bestowing to such a despicable human being. mp3 of 3mins of shit: http://inmendham.com/video/hittner.mp3 Flv file of this video http://inmendham.com/video/jdh1.flv
Channel Introduction Rant InJustice4Most 2008-12-27 | the way the judge disposed of this DMCA a complaint, has become standard operating procedure in federal and state courts. if you don't have money, you won't get justice. http://inmendham.com/suetube/M3p1.html inmendham
