Civil Case 1:08-1600 (RMC)(Pro Se) - Response Delivered to ALPA's Motion for Summary Judgment

Field McConnell
N3572 County Road S
Plum City WI 54761

Ms Chashawn White
U. S. District Court, District of Columbia
333 Constitution Ave., N. W.
Washington DC 20001

Civil Case 1:08-1600 (RMC)(Pro Se)

cc Suzanne L. Kalfus, ALPA
James W. Johnson, ALPA
Barbara Hollingsworth, media

13 January, 2011

Ms. White:

Per Judge's order of 13 December, 2010, I deliver, in a timely fashion, to her office my Response to ALPA's Motion for Summary Judgment. I will send electronic tracking numbers for proof of USPS delivery.

Very respectfully submitted,


Field McConnell
Plaintiff, Civil Case 1:08-1600 (RMC)(Pro Se)
218 329 6190
e: avalonbeef@msn.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________________
FIELD McCONNELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 08-1600(RMC)

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION,
INTERNATIONAL,

Defendant
________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

On 13 December, 2010, The Judge ordered Plaintiff to respond to ALPA’s Motion for Summary Judgment. On 12, January, 2011, Plaintiff sought forty-eight hour extension to 15 January, 2011. That request is hereby vacated and dismissed as my response is completed now, 13 January, 2011, per order of Judge.

Pursuant to the Rules established in 1938 replacing the Field Code, and completely rewritten effective December 1, 2007 for avowed purpose of making them easier to understand Plaintiff now moves the Court on the following issues.

In Chapter I, a sort of mission statement for the FRCP, Rule 1 states that the rules "shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." This has not been achieved as the Case was filed in September, 2008 proving lack of speed. Plaintiff has been ‘bilked’ out of $14,000 by two members of the District of Columbia Court; one who has been sanctioned during this Case and one who assured me Pro Se was my only hope, proving lack of ‘inexpensive’.

To secure justice, the third objective of Rule 1, I move the court to deliver justice.

Rule 11 requires all papers to be signed by the attorney (if party is represented). It also provides for sanctions against the attorney or client for harassment, frivolous arguments, or a lack of factual investigation. The purpose of sanctions is deterrent, not punitive. My first Attorney of Record, James Q. Butler, was sanctioned pursuant to Rule 11 not related to my Civil Case but delaying it in violation of the spirit of Rule 1, above. My second Attorney, Chris Zampogna, was fired by me for his failure to communicate our factual investigative Result #1 ( Ex.1 of 1) Exhibit 1 also proves that ALPA has committed the same failure (lack of factual investigation) and if the 44 page affividavit signed by ALPA Attorney Rob Plunkett is admitted to the Record of Civil Case 1:08-1600 (RMC) it appears to Litigator in Person, FIELD McCONNELL, that Plunkett and ALPA are engaging in activity that may represent FRAUD UPON THE COURT.

Pursuant to Rule 13 Plaintiff suggests that defendant be required to assert claims against other parties, i.e. Northwest Airlines, to the suit per joinder pursuant to Exhibit 1, which is the only exhibit necessary to deliver Judgment. To do so would cause further delay and increased inefficiency of the Court however if my Motion for Summary Judgment is denied and this goes to a jury trial, my right, I will be adding Northwest Airlines as a witness to prove ALPA never caused Northwest to prove issue of Exhibit 1 and wish that the joinder of Northwest Airlines not be barred if unspeedy and expensive delays persist as caused by ALPA, and as covered in Rule 1, would be unjust. Rule 13 describes that ALPA was required to assert claims against Northwest to the suit for Northwest’s failure to respond to the two feeble attempts chronicled in Exhibit 1.

Pursuant to Rule 14 I am confused as to whether Attorney Plunkett is a party to this lawsuit. The question is critical as it was his personal and professional failure, see Ex.1, on which this thirty-one month delay rests. In precedent Civil Case 3:07-cv-24, MCCONNELL v. BOEING AND ALPA Boeing responded in 4 days whereupon the case was dismissed without prejudice. ALPA has now had precise and verifiable information relating to aviation safety since 11 December, 2006 and while Boeing responded favorably, ALPA has delayed and denied in remedying the underlying issue of both the dismissed precedent Civil Case and the Civil Case before the Honorable Judge Collyer today, 13 January, 2011. If Attorney Plunkett is a party to this case I wish to have him understand that Adam Air 574, Kenya Airways 507, Colgan Air 3407 and Air France 447 were unnecessary hull losses and losses of lives during ALPA’s delay in the opportunity for Justice before this Court.

Pursuant to Rule 19 I believe the Joinder of Rob Plunkett is not necessary as no amount of superfluous fodder would cause any jury to be confused as to Exhibit 1.

If Attorney Plunkett is now, or is by joinder later, a party to this Civil Case, pursuant to Rule 11, I will move the court to note his signature on his ‘declaration’ which may be, in fact, an Affidavit, and in which he delays the court with 43 pages of frivolous arguments, none of which satisfy the factual investigation burden in Rule 11, of Exhibit 1; the only Exhibit necessary. Plaintiff request The Court to deter ALPA Attorneys, past and present, from delaying Justice in Civil Cases involving aviation safety and wrongful death(s).

Pursuant to Rule 56, Plaintiff FIELD McCONNELL, moves the moves for expedited Summary Judgment as there is neither a materiel genuine issue of fact as is proven in Exhibit 1 and is not disproved nor made unclear in 43 superfluous pages of delay spewed by Attorney Plunkett and forwarded by ALPA in Civil Case 1:08-1600 (RMC)(Pro Se). I believe that Exhibit 1 shows that any imagined disputed factual issues are illusory, are not genuine and the entirety of the 44 page Affidavit should be expunged from the Court Record. ALPA’s inadequacies in response affirmatively negate their claims seeking Summary Judgment in their favor. I, FIELD McCONNELL, believe I am entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and also the moving this case to trial by jury in absence of any such judgment from this Court. Exhibit 1 would allow no way for a jury to conclude in favor of ALPA.

CONCLUSION

Summary Judgment is warranted on two independent bases; the undisputed fact that this process has dragged on unnecessarily and Exhibit 1 demonstrates that ALPA violated my fair representation in twice accepting no answer as a adequate answer to the request to prove that Northwest ever told Plaintiff to attend an appointment with Dr. Elliott. Accordingly, I respectfully request that summary judgment be granted in favor of Plaintiff, FIELD McCONNELL. In my timely opposition to ALPA’s Motion for Summary Judgment I move the court to consider Exhibit 1 and move this case to a Jury Trial if the Court does not render judgment in favor of Plaintiff.

Dated: January 13, 2011


Very respectfully submitted,

/s/ Field McConnell
Field McConnell (Pro Se Bar)
N3572 County Road S
Plum City, WI, 54761
Telephone: (218) 329 6190
Email: fbi@usdoj.gr