MEET THE KANGAROO COURT

HOPPING OVER JUSTICE FOR INJUSTICE

A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN THE COURTS OF GEORGIA

UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR COMMITTED ON IT'S HIGHEST LEVELS OF COURT PROCEEDINGS

THE COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT ALTERED AND FALSIFIED EVIDENCE WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF GA CODE § 16-10-20.1 AND ABA MODEL RULE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULE 3.3(A)(3)

Excerpt from APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

Dyer presented the above graphic as evidence to showcase the original letter versus the altered document fabricated by AISS and their attorneys at Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough. Dyer is also on record as submitting the February 8, 2018 Letter to Superior Court with the date received as June 7, 2018.

Laurence J. Warco and Brandon Moulard, attorneys at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, presented the altered letter which was dated February 6, 2018 during Dyer’s deposition. Dyer had no idea that the letter was not authentic. However, the court order for summary judgment addressed the letter in this manner:

There may be a dispute regarding APS’s February 2019 letter(s) to Dyer. One letter, dated February 6, does not ban all forms of communication with APS officials. The other, dated February 8, does include such a ban. Though Dyer contends in his response to APS’s motion for summary judgment that APS “submitt[ed] tampered evidence” and committ[ed] “perjury” by offering the February 6 letter into evidence, [35-2] at 25, he authenticated and acknowledged receipt of the February 6 letter during his deposition. (Doc. 42, Pg. 19).

Here, the court incorrectly dated the February letters 2019 as opposed to 2018. The court did not catch their error but Dyer caught his. Dyer had authenticated what he believed to be the original letter after being misled by the Defendant and their legal counsel. At Dyer’s deposition, he was shown several familiar documents. Most of documents reviewed were the ones Dyer had submitted during discovery. The conversation concerning the February 6, 2018 letter with attorney Moulard was as follows:

Moulard Q: Do you recognize this document?
Dyer A: Yes, I do.
Moulard Q: So this is a letter dated February 6, 2018, signed by Board Member
Jason Esteves; correct?
Dyer A: Correct (Doc. 34-6, Pg. 26)

Dyer never read the letter but truthfully answered the questions posed to him. Because in his mind, only one version of the letter existed. Dyer presumed that being under oath and telling the truth was a prerequisite for all parties involved including opposing counsel. The letters in question inarguably present more differences than similarities. For instance, the February 8, 2018 letter states in part, “This letter is to inform you that your privilege to speak at any meeting sponsored by the Atlanta Board of Education (“ABOE”) is hereby suspended for one year beginning on February 6, 2018. In contrast, the Defendant’s February 6, 2018 letter states, “This letter is to inform you that, once again, your privilege to speak at any meeting sponsored by the Atlanta Board of Education (“ABOE”) is hereby suspended for the remainder off my current term as a Board Member. Dyer’s February 8, 2018 letter is on the record in Superior and Federal Court’s docket. Dyer’s letter references (Exhibit C - February 5, 2018 Flyer) on page two. The Defendant’s letter makes no reference to Exhibit C; however the Defendant acknowledges the existence of Exhibit A and Exhibit B in their letter but makes no reference to Exhibit C. Similarly, both letters proscribed to have been delivered Via Personal Delivery but Dyer had the February 8, 2018 letter.

2. Citations Referenced to the February 8, 2018 Letter by Dyer

On February 8, 2018, AISS issued a third “Suspension from Public Comment at Atlanta Board of Education Meetings” letter. This suspension is for a year as issued by current School Board Chairman Jason Esteves. (Doc. 1-1, Pg. 7) On February 8, 2018 the letter was hand delivered to Mr. Dyer while he was attending a community meeting at Perkinson Elementary concerning reconstitution. (Doc. 1-1, Pg. 8) Mr. Dyer was never given

information about how to contest the February 8, 2018 order. Furthermore, the suspension letter instructs Mr. Dyer not to set foot on Atlanta Public Schools property for one year. It states that Mr. Dyer is not to have any communication whatsoever with any employee or representative of the ABOE or AISS for the duration of the suspension. This prohibition on communication includes, but is not limited to, verbal, written, electronic, or in-person communication. (Doc. 1-1, Pg. 8) “You are instructed not to set foot on Atlanta Public Schools (APS) property during this one-year suspension. If you do, you will be arrested for trespassing. You are further instructed not to have any communication whatsoever with any employee or representative of the ABOE or APS for the duration of this suspension. This prohibition on communication includes, but not limited to, verbal, written, electronic, or in-person communication. (Doc. 1-1, Pg 50), (Doc. 8, Pg 31) You are further instructed not to have any communication whatsoever with any employee or representative of the ABOE or APS for the duration of this suspension. This prohibition on communication includes, but is not limited to, verbal, written, electronic, or in-person communication.” (Doc. 1-1 at 52; Pl. Ex. J) (Doc. 10, Pg. 16). “Furthermore, he is not to have any communication whatsoever with any employee or representative of the ABOE or APS for the duration of the suspension. This prohibition on communication includes, but is not limited to, verbal, written, electronic, or in-person communication from February 6, 2018 through February 5,
2019”. (Doc. 1 at Appx J) (Doc. 10, Pg. 12-13).

3. Citations Referenced to the February 8, 2018 Letter by Defendant

Having tried unsuccessfully for two years to prevent Plaintiff from disrupting Board meetings, AISS’s decision to issue a trespass warning and prevent Plaintiff from communicating with AISS employees was narrowly tailored to achieve AISS’s interest in having efficient, orderly meetings. (Doc. 1-2, Pg 16). Prior to its February 2018 decision to prevent Plaintiff from entering AISS property or speaking to AISS employees, AISS issued a series of suspensions to prevent Plaintiff from disrupting meetings. (Doc. 1-1 at ¶¶ 46 – 47; Pl. Ex. J). (Doc. 1-2, Pg 17) The first two occurred on February 2 and 29, 2016, when AISS alleged issued “criminal trespass orders” to Plaintiff. (Doc. 1-1 at ¶¶ 35, 36, p. 8,; Pl. Ex. F & G). The third incident took place on February 8, 2018, when AISS issued Plaintiff a letter instructing him “not to have any communications whatsoever with any employee or representative of the [Board] or [AISS] for the duration of the suspension.” (Id. at ¶¶ 46-52) (Doc. 1-2, Pg 21). Plaintiff was prohibited from entering AISS property or communicating with AISS officials because of the offensive nature of his speech, not because of the content of the speech itself. (Doc. 1-2, Pg 14) Here, the Defendant acknowledges the correct date when the leter was delivered, “The third incident took place on February 8, 2018, when AISS issued Plaintiff a letter instructing him “not to have any communications whatsoever ...” (Id. at ¶¶ 46-52) (Doc. 1-2, Pg 21).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Excerpt from CIRCUIT JUDGES MARTIN, BRANCH, and LAGOA

Hon. Beverly B. Martin

U.S. Circuit Judge

United States Court of Appeals
Eleventh Circuit
Born:
Macon, Georgia
Date of Appointment:
January 20, 2010
Entered on Duty:
February 1, 2010
Education:
Stetson University, B.A., 1976
University of Georgia, J.D., 1981
Previous Employment:
Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, 2000 – 2010
United States Attorney, Middle District of Georgia, 1997 – 2000
Assistant United States Attorney, Middle District of Georgia, 1994 – 1997
Assistant Attorney General, State of Georgia, 1984 – 1994
Martin, Snow, Grant & Napier, 1981 – 1984

Hon. Elizabeth L. Branch

U.S. Circuit Judge

United States Court of Appeals
Eleventh Circuit
Born:
Atlanta, Georgia
Date of Appointment:
March 19, 2018
Entered on Duty:
March 20, 2018
Education:
Davidson College, B.A., 1990
Emory University School of Law, J.D., 1994
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. J. Owen Forrester, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, 1994-1996
Private practice, Atlanta, Georgia, 1996-2004, 2008-2012
Associate General Counsel for Rules and Legislation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2004-2005
Counselor to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 2005-2008
Judge, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012-2018

Hon. Barbara Lagoa

U.S. Circuit Judge

United States Court of Appeals
Eleventh Circuit
Date of Appointment:
December 6, 2019
Entered on Duty:
December 6, 2019

Dyer further asserts that the district court erred by not finding that AISS had “altered and falsified evidence in violation of Georgia Code § 16-10-20.1 and ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3.(a)(3).” Specifically, Dyer contends that there is a dispute between the February 6 letter and a different letter dated February 8. It appears that Dyer presumed that the February 6 letter shown to him at his deposition was actually the February 8 letter and AISS deliberately misled him. He then argued to the district court, and only passingly here on appeal, that AISS “falsified” this evidence.
While we construe pro se briefs liberally, Harris v. United Auto. Ins. Grp., Inc., 579 F.3d 1227, 1231 n.2 (11th Cir. 2009), pro se parties are still required to follow the rules of court, Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). “A party fails to adequately ‘brief’ a claim when he does not ‘plainly and prominently’ raise it.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681–82 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 530 (11th Cir. 2013)). This occurs when the party only casually raises an issue, makes passing reference to the claim, or fails to elaborate the argument in the brief’s argument section. Id.; see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (explaining that a brief must contain an “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”). Beyond a conclusory assertion, Dyer fails to adequately explain—and cite to legal authority demonstrating—how AISS falsified evidence and how that alleged falsification constituted violations of section 16-10-20.1 and rule 3.3(A)(3). We therefore deem this argument abandoned.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Excerpt from JUDGE BATTON'S ORDER

Hon. Timothy C. Batten, Sr.

Assumes Role of Chief Judge

The Honorable Timothy C. Batten, Sr., has assumed the role of Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia effective May 8, 2021, upon the completion of Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.’s term as chief. Judge Batten was nominated to the Court by President George W. Bush on September 28, 2005 and took his oath of office on April 3, 2006.

There may be a dispute regarding APS’s February 2019 letter(s) to Dyer. One letter, dated February 6, does not ban all forms of communication with APS officials. The other, dated February 8, does include such a ban. Though Dyer contends in his response to APS’s motion for summary judgment that APS “submitt[ed] tampered evidence” and committ[ed] “perjury” by offering the February 6 letter into evidence, [35-2] at 25, he authenticated and acknowledged receipt of the February 6 letter during his deposition.

GET A FREE QUOTE

Please fill this for and we'll get back to you as soon as possible!

TOP