You are on page 1of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


KENNETH L. SMITH

)
Civil Action No. 13-cv-0298-KBJ
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
HONS. ANTONIN G. SCALIA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________________________________________________
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR THE REDACTION OF
DEFENDANTS HOME ADDRESSES
_____________________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW Plaintiff Kenneth L. Smith, in propria persona and first-person, stating as
follows:

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT


I still dont know where Defendant Janice Rogers Brown lives, and honestly, could care less.
You see, Defendant Brown acted professionally, designating an agent for service of process and
continuing to accept service of appropriate pleadings at her official address.
By the same token, until recently, I didnt even know which state Defendant John G. Roberts,
Jr. lived in, and no compelling reason to find out. Like Defendant Brown, he designated an agent
for service of process, and, or so I had assumed, would continue to accept service at that official
address until counsel entered an appearance on his behalf. But when I served a copy of my First
Amended Complaint and Jury Demand via mail, it was returned by a Court minion. Exhibit A.
At that point, as I had an obligation under the Federal Rules to serve copies of subsequent pleadings on Defendant Roberts, his home address suddenly became my business.
1

On September 4, I received an e-mail from counsel advising me that he intended to move the
Court to redact the home addresses of the judges you sent copies of your complaint to, because
the filing of their personal addresses on the public record creates a security concern for them and
their families. Mitchell Zeff, E-mail (to Ken Smith), Sept. 4, 2013. A more ridiculous Motion
could hardly be envisioned: Given that all of this purportedly classified information is only a few
mouse-clicks away, it is not an argument you can make any more whilst stone-cold sober.
And then, there is the echo of the sheer arrogance of power. On the one hand, the Defendants
have declared with one voice that MY privacy wasnt important but THEIR privacy is. The
Defendants saw nothing wrong with a wild pack of bureaucrats rummaging through the recesses
of MY mind, but THEIR home addresses are suddenly supposed to be a state secret? The sense
of entitlement is truly breathtaking.
Finally, lets keep things in perspective: If the Defendants had executed my waivers of service
and counsel appeared timely, none of this sensitive information would have ever found its way
into the documents in question. In the final analysis, it is the Defendants own damn fault.
ARGUMENT
What began as law school class exercise in privacy has led an apparently upset Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia to criticize a law professor for giving a lesson in how "what
is legal may also be quite irresponsible."
Joel Reidenberg, a Fordham University law school professor, assigned a group project to
students in his information privacy law course: Find any publicly available information
on the notoriously private Scalia and compile it into a "dossier." The class came up with
15 pages of information on the Justice, including his home phone number, his food preferences, his wife's personal e-mail address and photos of his grandchildren, Reidenberg
said.1

Scott Michels, Law Students Collect Personal Info on Justice Scalia, ABCNews.com, May 1, 2009, at
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=7473750&page=1.
2

Apart from the fact that Antonin Scalia has exactly no standing to lecture anyone on what is
or is not irresponsibleallowing Smith v. Mullarkey, 121 P.3d 890 (Colo. 2005) (per curiam),
cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1067 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2006) (No. 05-1055), to stand because you are simply
too damn busy writing books, giving vapid lectures in idyllic vacation spots, and rubbing elbows
with the Queen to do the job we paid you quite handsomely to do is the textbook definitionthe
simple fact is that, in a country where the regime we are ruled by thinks nothing of reading our emails, tracking the websites we visit, lo-jacking our cars, or infiltrating peacenik coffee-klatches,
the concept that our pompous black-robed rulers are somehow entitled to a special dispensation
is downright giggle-worthy.
First and foremost, as Professor Reidenberg so wryly pointed out, it is simply not possible for
this Court to hold back the tsunami of information our modern age has unleashed upon us, even
were it so inclined. Going through the search process with respect to Defendant Roberts is illustrative of the absurdity inherent in the concept.
If you wanted to find a celebrity like John Roberts, you would start at Wikipedia, wherein you
would learn that he was born on January 27, 1955 in Buffalo, New York, and now married to the
former Jane Sullivan.2 Next, you would run his name through a commercial search service like
US Search, where you would find the following entry:

John Roberts, Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts (visited Sept. 5, 2013).


3

If you need to know where a celebrity lives, you start looking at CelebrityHousePictures.com:

Need directions? CelebrityHousePictures is only too happy to provide them:

Need a current mailing address? City-Data.com comes to the rescue:

Actually doing this takes about three or four minutes, and there is so much redundancy in the
system that the absolute last place you would start looking for John Robertss home address is in
the bowels of PACER. While marking district and appellate judges is a little harder, you can pay
a search service a buck a record to save time, and virtually every jurisdiction has its property tax
records on line. All you need to know is who the judge is married to and an approximate age and
general location; even Inspector Clousseau will always get his man.
But it gets worse. Defendant Scalias mailing address is literally a four-word Google search
away. If you type in antonin scalia mailing address, you find this entry:

The author of the page provides what he maintains is Scalias telephone number, which seems
to be in service:

For the cost of a six-pack of Sam Adams, you can get the full monty.3 The students of Fordham Law found wife Maureens personal e-mail address and photos of his grandkids,4 but people
who are willing to forego dinner at L'Auberge Chez Francois for the privilege can engorge themselves on more personal factsnot just about Scalia himself, but his children:

Radaris lists Ms. Scalias address as 110 Babcock, in Brookline, Massachusetts, and her home
telephone as (617) 879-0603.5 I havent vetted this information because I am just not that vitally
interested, but the point has been made: All this information is in the public domain, and that evil
Commie Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google) has made it readily available to everyone who is not
a contractor for the NSA. As I said, you really cant make counsels argument whilst stone-cold
sober.
And let us not forget who is the proximate cause of the harm opposing counsel complains of.
My Colorado-based process server went to the local district court and the mausoleum the Tenth
Circuit is now housed in in an attempt to serve the local yokels (because it was actually cheaper
than mailing), and was unceremoniously rebuffed. I mailed requests for waiver to all Tenth Circuit judges named in this lawsuit and, with apparent knowledge of what was contained therein,

See http://www.ephonereverse.com/checkout.html?phone=703-448-0025
Martha Neil, Fordham Law Class Collects Personal Info About Scalia; Supreme Ct. Justice Is Steamed,
ABA J., Apr. 29, 2009, at http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/fordham_law_class_collects_scalia_info_justice_is_steamed
5
http://radaris.com/~Margaret-Scalia/127042044 (visited Sept 5; screenshot on file).
4

several actually refused to accept the Express Mail packages sent to them. There was nothing I
can see that would have kept counsel from entering an appearance on their behalf, which would
have saved me a small fortune in mailing costs, copying costs, and the cost of retaining process
servers in six separate states. That the Defendants home addresses are on papers I submitted to
this Courtas required by the Federal Rulesis entirely and exclusively their fault.
The controlling law is pedestrian. Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access
to judicial records," Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted)
serving as an important aspect of the overriding concern with preserving the integrity of the law
enforcement and judicial processes." United States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985).
The bar is even higher in instances where government agents and entities are in the dock. FTC v.
Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 410 (1st Cir. 1987). Whereas the redaction of files is
an equitable remedy, committed to the sound discretion of this Court, Mann, supra, "sound" discretion is not unfettered discretion. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 416 (1975). It
comes down to a balancing of harms, as it always does.
The Defendants seek an equitable remedy, and should know that s/he who comes into equity
must come with clean hands. Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machine Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945). Equity does not grant relief from a self-created hardship,
and it would be strange indeed for a court of equity to order a pointless act. As long as the Reidenberg dossier on the Scalia family can be gathered from public sources, it can be uploaded to
Scribd and become an indelible part of the Web.6 As there is no way to hold the tide back, even
making this a federal issue is the textbook definition of baseless, groundless, and imprudent. As

Several of my briefs from previous cases were, in fact, uploaded to Scribd without my knowledge.
7

a Scalia scholar, I rather suspect that this has his panties all in a bunch, and he applied pressure to
my opposite number to file this patently ludicrous motion against his better judgment, but I dont
see any remedy other than us all having a hearty laugh at poor Nios expense. Scalia may think
it is 1789, but most of us know better.
CONCLUSION
The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of
happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and
of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life
are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their
thoughts, their emotions and their sensations.They conferred, as against the Government,
the right to be let alonethe most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by
civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon
the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation
of the Fourth Amendment.
Justice Louis D. Brandeis7
Again, I must remind this Court that this case is a carbon of the Driving While Black case
that made your colleague Robert Wilkins famous. If a black man in a Honda was stopped by the
gendarmes for driving while black and you happen to be white, you tend not to think a lot about
it because it isnt happening to you. But if you are the one being detained arbitrarilyor, being
arbitrarily required to submit to an invasive psychiatric examination that you will have to pay for
from your own pocket as a precondition of your being considered for a professional licensethe
right to be let alone actually matters.
De minimis non curat lex. Whereas the Defendants didnt seem to believe that my legal right
to be free from arbitrary government invasion of my right to privacy was deserving of their Highnesses time, they have the temerity to whine to this Court that a disclosure of entirely pedestrian

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 748-79 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
8

and publicly available informationa freaking mailing address, for Chrissakeso compromises
their security that they are entitled to equitable relief? As the kids say, SRSLY?!?
Whereas the Defendants Motion may not technically be frivolous, it is spectacularly groundless and baseless, as this Courts failure to redact their home addresses could not possibly pose a
material security risk. If I honestly believed that it would do so, I would have agreed to the Motion in a New York minute, but even the concept "taxes the credulity of the credulous." Maryland
v. King, No. 12-207, 569 U.S. ___ (2013) (Scalia, J., dissenting, slip op. at 1). As in an e-mail of
the 5th indicates, counsel intends to waste this Courts and my time with this nonsense despite my
efforts to dissuade him, I am filing my response now to save a Starbucks on mailing costs.
Even were this Court to countenance such lunacy, equity demands that, on account of the fact
that the situation they lament is entirely their fault, the remedy they seek ought to be extracted at
a price. Specifically, as a condition of relief, they should be required to fairly compensate me for
additional time and mailing and service costs incurred as a direct result of their juvenile conduct
and the reimbursement should not come from the public fisc. The men and women who constantly exhort the unwashed masses to litigate more responsibly and efficiently really need to set
a better example than this, and if, like the Justices, you live in a multi-million dollar hovel, it is
little more than petty cash.
Respectfully submitted via United States Mail this 6th day of September, 2013,

_____________________________
Kenneth L. Smith, in propria persona
23636 Genesee Village Rd.
Golden, CO 80401
Phone: (303) 526-5451
19ranger57@earthlink.net
9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 6, 2013, I served a copy of the above-referenced document
upon counsel and all unrepresented parties which have been served by depositing it in the United
States Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:
Mitchell P. Zeff, Esq.
United States District Attorney
for the District of Columbia,
555 4th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., 20530,
Mr. John D. Bates,
c/o United States District Court
for the District of Columbia,
333 Constitution Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20001,
Ms. Janice Rogers Brown
c/o United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia,
333 Constitution Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20001,
Ms. Judith Ann Wilson
c/o United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia,
333 Constitution Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20001,
Mr. David B. Sentelle,
c/o United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia,
333 Constitution Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20001,
the last known mailing address.
_____________________________
Kenneth L. Smith

10