# Opposition Brief — Anderson v. Mississippi

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386004_1542%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1996
- **Citation:** 519 U.S. 1009

## Text

Supreme Court, U.S
eee ae ee

"ge OCT SO 1996
\o)
Case Number: 96-21 —

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October, 1996-1997 Term

Franklin V. Anderson, Petitioner, Pro Se
Vv.

State of Mississippi, The Mississippi Bar

a.k.a. The Mississippi State Bar
and South Mississippi Electric Power
Association, a federally financed
electric cooperative,
Respondents

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
Supreme Court of Mississippi

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI

James N. Compton
Attorney for South Mississippi
Electric Power Association
COMPTON, CROWELL & HEWITT, P.L.L.C.
Post Office Drawer 1937
Biloxi, MS 39533-1937
(601) 374-4940

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

(1) Is there jurisdiction for this
Court's intervention in Mississippi's
attorney disciplinary process regarding
suits against complaining parties?

(2) Is Petitioner a "federal
witness", “officer" or "juror" subject to
the protection of 18 U.S.C. Section 1503?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities

ConstetueszOnak Ss 28 eee N Ses
Statutory 2 >. >. _ 7 o > . * 7 > 7 *
ROGULECOEY as ae we hae ee

Cases 7 7 7. . 7 . . ” . . . . o . .

Reference to Published Opinions ...

Statement of JuriseGiction.« as . SMEPA
sought and received an injunction sealing
the documents, and filed a bar
complaint. Anderson eventually decided
to drop his suit, and it was dismissed
with prejudice. Anderson requested that
SMEPA withdraw the bar complaint, but
SMEPA advised it had no authority over
the disciplinary process. Anderson then
signed a covenant not to sue as to all
claims against SMEPA. During the time
the Formal Complaint was pending,
Anderson filed a Motion for Writ of
Prohibition in the Mississippi Supreme
Court. That was overruled on April 29,
1987, without entry of an opinion.

3sustice C. R. McRae's Statement
on Order (Appendix 3 to Petition) is in
error as to SMEPA waiting three years
after knowledge of the theft to file the
bar Complaint. As SMEPA was not a party
to Petition of Attorney GG for Right to
File a Civil Suit, it could not respond

in that action to Anderson's factual
misstatements.

Anderson also sent an ex parte injunction
order to Judge Siler, the federal judge
handling the Sandy Fork litigation in
Kentucky. Without notice or a hearing,
Judge Siler entered the injunction
against the Mississippi Bar. The Sandy
Fork case was ultimately settled on

terms favorable to SMEPA, and the order
regarding Anderson dissolved.

The Committee on Complaints
determined there was probable cause to
believe Anderson was guilty of such
conduct which, if proven, would warrant
the imposition of discipline, and
directed the general counsel of the
Mississippi State Bar to file a Formal
Complaint against Anderson. That
Complaint was ultimately dismissed by the
Complaint Tribunal (Appendix 39 to
Petition).

Despite the earlier voluntary
dismissal of his case, and covenant not
to sue, Anderson again filed suit against
SMEPA and others in the United States
District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama. His Complaint is attached as
Appendix 1. The Alabama court dismissed
one defendant, and transferred the rest
of the case to the Southern District of

Mississippi. ‘ Following discovery,
Anderson's suit was again dismissed with
5 The Court ruled that the
only action by SMEPA which was not barred

prejudice.

by Res Judicata was SMEPA's general
manager testifying, under subpoena, at
the investigatory hearing in 1987.
Anderson did not appeal the dismissal.
SMEPA took no further action in the State
Bar disciplinary proceeding.
ARGUMENT AS TO JURISDICTION
Petitioner Anderson has taken his

allegations concerning wrongdoing to the
United States Attorney for the Southern
District of Mississippi, the F.B.I., the
Rural Electrification Administration®,
and the United States Attorney for the
Northern District of Alabama (deposition
excerpts of Anderson deposition attached
as Appendix 38). No one has deemed the
complaints of sufficient credibility to
take any action regarding SMEPA or any of
the individuals named in Anderson's many

complaints. Anderson is not, and never

{order attached as Appendix 37.

>appendix 42 to Petition.

ONow the Rural Utilities Service.

has been, a federal witness or officer as
contemplated by 18 U.S.C. Section 1503,
and has no more protection than any other
Mississippi employee terminated in 1983.
This action by Anderson is to enable
him to pursue a state cause of action
against a client who filed a bar
complaint and was subpoenaed to appear at
its investigatory hearing. The
Mississippi Bar disciplinary procedures
and immunities are creatures of the
Mississippi Supreme Court, acting as
ultimate arbiter over the conduct of the
members of the Mississippi bar. There
are no issues giving rise to this Court's
jurisdiction’ to intervene in this

‘tn Layne & Bowler Corp. v.
Western Well Works, Inc., (1923), 43 Ss.
Ct. 422, 423-424, 261 U.S. 387, 392-393,
67 L.Ed. 712; the U.S. Supreme Court,
rather than decide the merits of the
case, dismissed the writ of certiorari.
Chief Justice Taft explained, "It is very
important that we be consistent in not
granting the writ of certiorari except in
cases involving principles the settlement
of which is of importance to the public
as distinguished from that of the
parties, and in cases where there is a
real and embarrassing conflict of opinion
and authority between the circuit courts
of appeal."

dispute. The Mississippi Supreme Court's
decision should be final, and not subject
to review by this Court absent some
provable constitutional violation, and
none exists.
CONCLUSION
The Petitioner cannot show

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1257(3) for not being allowed to sue
someone who testified at his state bar
investigatory hearing ten years ago.

The Petition should be denied.

Dated, this the $0~day of October, 1996.

Respectfully submitted,

SOUTH MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC
POWER ASSOCIATION

BY: Its Attorneys

COMPTON, CROWELL AND HEWITT,
P.L.L.C.

JAMES N. COMPTON

oo Re Een Ree

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR |
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA |
SOUTHERN DIVISION |

Civil Action No, CV- )
AETNA INSURANCE CO., et al., )
Defendants. )

ORDER

This case is before the court on
motions to dismiss brought by all
defendants. Defendants Southern
Mississippi Electric Power Association
and Dixie Electric Power Association move
in the alternative to transfer this case
to the Southern District of Mississippi.

To the extent the plaintiff's
complaint states any claims against
Defendant Aetna Insurance Company, they
are barred by the applicable statutes of
limitations. Accordingly, Defendant
Aetna Insurance Company's motion to
dismiss is hereby GRANTED and Aetna
Insurance Company is DISMISSED with
prejudice.

As to the remaining defendants, venue
is proper in the Southern District of
Mississippi. Accordingly, this court
declines to rule on the motions to
dismiss brought by the remaining
defendants and pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
section 1404(a), this case is hereby
TRANSFERRED to the Southern District of
Mississippi, Jackson Division.

This the 10th day of March, 1993.

/s/SAM C. POINTER, JR.
United States District Judge
(Entered 3-11-93)

Appendix 37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

Case No. 3:93CV-124(W) (N)

Franklin V. Anderson, an individual,
Plaintiff,

vs.

South Mississippi Electric Power
Association, a corporation; Dixie
Electric Power Association, a
corporation; and The Mississippi Bar, a
quasi-agency of the Supreme Court of the
State of Mississippi,

Defendants.

DEPOSITION OF FRANKLIN V. ANDERSON,
PRO SE

Taken at the Mississippi Bar Center, 643
North State Street, Jackson, Mississippi,
beginning at 10:00 a.m. on June 15, 1993.

Reported by: Peggy Roberts
Shorthand Reporter
Notary Public

Appendix 38

Excerpts from the Deposition of Franklin
V. Anderson taken on June 15, 1993.

p. 12, lns. 9-25 to p. 13, lns. 1-13:

"Q. Mr. Anderson, have you presented your
evidence or allegations of alleged
blackmail to any other prosecutor
besides to someone in Birmingham?

A. I originally discussed the matter
with the United States Attorney and
the FBI here in Jackson. The Federal
Bureau of Investigation told me,
approximately, September 29, 1986,
‘Mr. Anderson, I don't care how many
Federal agencies you've assisted. I
don't care that you are a Federal
witness. I don't care what
information you have given to any
Federal agent. I don't care that
your life has been threatened. I
don't care that your wife has been
threatened. I don't care that you
are on the verge of losing everything
that you own. You are not my Federal
witness. I did not call you. I did
not select you. I have no duty,
whatsoever, to protect you,'

Q. Who was speaking on behalf of the
U.S. Attorney?

A. This was the special agent in charge
of the FBI office here in Jackson,
Mississippi. I believe his name was
J.E. Murphy.

Q. So, to the best of your knowledge,
the special agent who received the
information you have used as the
basis of this complaint decided not
to prosecute?

A. Special agent, in concert with George
Phillips, the United States Attorney."

Appendix 39

151, ins. 22 to p. 152, in. 21:3

The extent of your allegation of
coercion by them is the telephone
conversation that you had with
Michael Randolph?

No, sir. The orders of the Circuit
Court of Forrest County, which have
been concealed so far in this case,
prohibited me from speaking to a
United States Federal Court. Those
orders prohibited me from speaking to
the Mississippi Bar. They prohibited
me from speaking to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.

But you have done ail of those things.
I certainly have, and I dare anybody
to try anything because I have done
it.

So the order in and of itself as far
as you were concerned really had no
effect. You have done everything
that you were prohibited from doing.
Yes, sir, including writing the
President of the United States.

You wrote the President, and you
wrote the Attorney General, and you
wrote to the REA manager and the
administer. You've told them all,
right?

Yes, sir."

Appendix 40

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386004_1542%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.