In Re Anthony R. Martin-Trigona. Appeal of Anthony R. Martin-Trigona. Anthony R. Martin-Trigona v. Harold Lavien, Anthony R. Martin-Trigona v. William F. Smith

Citations: 737 F.2d 1254; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 21359Docket: 577

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; June 18, 1984; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The appeal involves Anthony R. Martin-Trigona challenging an order from the district court that enjoined him from initiating any further litigation in state or federal courts without meeting specific conditions. The case encompasses three civil actions related to bankruptcy and alleged civil rights violations against various defendants, including Harold Lavien and William F. Smith. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed Martin-Trigona's extensive history of litigation, noting that he has filed numerous meritless lawsuits primarily aimed at harassing individuals. His actions have included baseless claims against judges, public officials, and others connected to his legal matters. The court highlighted Martin-Trigona's pattern of vexatious litigation and cited past judicial observations regarding his lack of responsibility and respect for the judicial system. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed part of the district court's order, vacated another part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The court previously noted that Martin-Trigona's actions in the legal system have been characterized by non-cooperation with court orders and deliberate attempts to delay proceedings, significantly hindering the progress of bankruptcy cases over the past two and a half years. His involvement in the District Court of Connecticut began in 1981, following the transfer of two bankruptcy cases from the Southern District of New York. These cases were consolidated, and trustees were appointed for both Martin-Trigona's personal estate and New Haven Radio, Inc., where he is the sole shareholder. Martin-Trigona was found in contempt for refusing to be examined.

Throughout the bankruptcy case, he initiated numerous legal actions, including one that named all judges in the District of Connecticut as defendants. This resulted in difficulties for the efficient management of related litigation. In response to his escalating filings, Chief Judge Daly transferred all pending actions to Judge Cabranes in January 1983. 

On May 6, 1983, Judge Cabranes stayed all bankruptcy proceedings and scheduled a hearing for June 6, 1983, requesting input from all parties, including the U.S. government, on how to proceed. The U.S. recommended a broad injunction to prevent relitigation of resolved issues and set conditions for future filings. Various defendants sought to dismiss Martin-Trigona's lawsuits and to restrict him from suing bankruptcy trustees and their associates without prior court approval.

On June 3, 1983, Martin-Trigona was reminded of the upcoming hearing, but on June 4, he wrote to Judge Cabranes requesting the cancellation of the June 6 hearing, labeling it a "waste of time," and he did not attend. At the hearing, the court heard from other parties, including Martin-Trigona's criminal contempt attorney. On June 8, 1983, Judge Cabranes issued a temporary restraining order preventing him from filing new actions in the District of Connecticut until a further hearing could be held, which was scheduled for June 16 and later postponed to June 17, 1983. Martin-Trigona's motions to recuse Judge Cabranes and for counsel were denied at the start of the June 17 hearing.

The court consolidated the injunction hearing with a trial on the merits, as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). Martin-Trigona, representing himself, sought to call multiple witnesses, including bankruptcy trustees and the United States Attorney, to demonstrate that the "Jewish defendants" had not suffered injury justifying injunctive relief. This request was denied. He then expressed a wish to testify about his allegations and good faith, but ultimately chose not to when given the opportunity.

On June 23, 1983, Judge Cabranes issued a comprehensive permanent injunction against Martin-Trigona, which included the following prohibitions: (1) he must obtain court permission before filing any new cases in the District of Connecticut; (2) he cannot file any actions related to his bankruptcy proceedings in any court without prior approval; (3) he must seek leave before appealing any bankruptcy decisions; (4) he cannot initiate any new court actions without obtaining leave; (5) he cannot file documents in cases where he is not a party without court permission; (6) he cannot serve documents unless they are properly filed in a court.

The injunction includes specific limitations ensuring that Martin-Trigona retains the right to defend himself in criminal proceedings, access to file petitions for extraordinary writs, and the ability to pursue pending actions in other jurisdictions. Judge Cabranes outlined extensive findings supporting the injunction, noting Martin-Trigona's history of over 250 civil actions characterized by persistent and aggressive litigation tactics, often involving contemptuous and racially charged allegations against individuals of Jewish heritage. His actions were deemed aimed at entangling numerous parties in convoluted legal processes.

Martin-Trigona has engaged in a pattern of frivolous motions and vexatious lawsuits in two bankruptcy cases, In re Martin-Trigona and In Re New Haven Radio, Inc., which has disrupted the administration of the bankrupt estates and delayed his own testimony. His extensive filings have overwhelmed the District of Connecticut, impairing judicial operations. Despite this, he has indicated plans to continue his litigation efforts. The district court's conclusions are well-supported by the record.

In his appeal, Martin-Trigona raises four specific issues: 1) denial of due process, 2) lack of Article III jurisdiction due to absence of a case or controversy, 3) failure of moving parties to meet the burden of proof or demonstrate irreparable harm, and 4) whether the order's scope infringes on his right to access the courts. 

Regarding due process, Martin-Trigona claims inadequate notice and opportunity to be heard at a preliminary hearing, as well as a violation of his right to a fair hearing due to the court's refusal to appoint counsel. These claims are found to be without merit, as he received sufficient notice of the hearing and was familiar with judicial processes. His assertion of inadequate notice regarding the consolidation of the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits is also dismissed, as his absence from the prior hearing does not exonerate him from its legal consequences, and he has not demonstrated any resulting prejudice.

Finally, his claim that he was denied the opportunity to call witnesses is deemed meritless; the court allowed for relevant testimony but he failed to present any beyond his own and declined the chance to testify.

The appellant's claim that the denial of his motion for appointed counsel compromised his right to a fair hearing is unfounded, as the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel applies only to criminal and quasi-criminal cases. While federal courts can appoint counsel in non-criminal cases, it is not obligatory, and the decision lies within the court's discretion. The district court did not abuse this discretion in denying the motion, particularly given the appellant's last-minute request before the hearing and his history of using motions to obstruct proceedings. Furthermore, the appellant's assertion of a right to appointed counsel under former Bankruptcy Rule 215(a) is rejected, as the trustee did not request such counsel, and the appellant's actions have hindered the bankruptcy process, making appointment inappropriate.

Additionally, the appellant's objections to the injunctive relief granted in the case are misplaced, as they wrongly assume that the judiciary's role is merely to arbitrate private disputes. Federal courts have the constitutional duty to safeguard their jurisdiction, especially given the appellant's actions that disrupted the administration of the bankruptcy estate, harassed involved parties, and diverted judicial resources. The district court's findings highlight the appellant's obstructionist behavior and its detrimental effects on access to the courts and the efficient resolution of claims.

Litigants using tactics similar to Martin-Trigona's could undermine federal law enforcement, deter legitimate claims, discourage legal representation, complicate judicial personnel recruitment, and ultimately disrupt the justice system, denying others timely adjudication. The court affirms its role not just in private disputes but in protecting the judicial process from abusive litigation practices. It asserts that it has the authority to combat vexatious litigants without waiting for affected parties to seek relief, as traditional standards for injunctive relief are not applicable in these cases. A history of vexatious litigation justifies preemptive action against such behavior.

The district court was empowered and obligated to safeguard public interests and judicial efficiency from Martin-Trigona's litigation habits, deeming injunctive relief appropriate given that other sanctions would likely be ineffective. Martin-Trigona's challenges to the injunction's provisions are limited to significant issues, with the court affirming necessary restrictions on his ability to initiate new actions across federal district courts. These restrictions require him to disclose relevant facts about any new filings, including the injunction and ongoing litigation, and to obtain court permission before proceeding. This approach prevents the inundation of meritless claims and is deemed reasonable given Martin-Trigona's extensive litigation history across multiple circuits.

Federal jurisdiction does not necessitate the blanket extension of an injunction to state court actions. The independence of federal courts from other government branches supports this view, as issues arising from state judicial processes do not inherently threaten Article III jurisdiction or federal interests. The district court's broad extension of the injunction to state courts was therefore deemed erroneous. 

However, to protect federal interests, certain qualifications can be imposed on Martin-Trigona's access to state courts. While federal courts typically refrain from interfering in state matters, it is appropriate to inform state courts of Martin-Trigona's history to ensure they consider relevant information in new cases. Consequently, the district court should maintain provisions requiring Martin-Trigona to include necessary disclosures in state court pleadings.

Additionally, the need to protect federal litigants, their attorneys, and court staff from Martin-Trigona's abusive litigation practices necessitates a broader injunction. His history of vexatious lawsuits, targeting various individuals involved in federal litigation, warrants measures to prevent him from initiating new actions against these individuals without prior approval from the district court. 

The district court must remain vigilant in revising the injunction as needed, adapting to Martin-Trigona's evolving harassment tactics. The injunction should also exempt complaints under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 372(c) related to judicial misconduct unless Martin-Trigona is found to have abused this process in a way that undermines justice. Such complaints are crucial for judicial accountability and should only be limited upon a clear finding of abuse, with oversight potentially resting with the judicial council of the circuit.

The district court's order clarifies that Anthony R. Martin-Trigona retains access to the U.S. Courts of Appeals, despite his history of baseless litigation, which includes abusive appellate practices that hinder justice. The court mandates Martin-Trigona to file a motion for leave to appeal within 20 days of any district court judgment, with all related proceedings stayed until the motion is resolved. Failure to file will result in dismissal of the appeal. Additionally, he is enjoined from submitting applications for relief other than appeals, unless accompanied by a motion for leave that states supporting grounds, with similar stays on proceedings. These rules also extend to New Haven Radio, Inc., unless authorized by the bankruptcy trustee. However, Martin-Trigona's rights to petition for rehearing or access the Supreme Court remain intact. The court aims to protect against vexatious appeals while allowing legitimate claims. The district court’s injunctive relief is partially affirmed and partially vacated, remaining effective until 21 days post-mandate or until modified. Martin-Trigona must demonstrate within 30 days why the preliminary order should not be made permanent.

The complaint filed by Anthony R. Martin-Trigona in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut presents a civil rights lawsuit against multiple defendants, alleging a conspiracy primarily involving Jewish individuals to deprive him of due process and unlawfully seize his property. The court has jurisdiction under various sections of the U.S. Code, and the venue is deemed appropriate due to the defendants' actions affecting the district. Martin-Trigona demands a jury trial.

Key factual allegations include claims that he was kidnapped in 1980 through illegal means and held until 1982, during which time his property was seized by the defendants. He asserts that all bankruptcy judges, trustees, and lawyers involved in his case are Jewish, suggesting a coordinated effort among them to manipulate the bankruptcy system for personal gain. The plaintiff alleges that the Jewish community operates in secretive networks, fostering exclusionary practices against non-Jews, particularly Christians, which he claims has a chilling effect on non-Jewish legal representation in bankruptcy cases.

Martin-Trigona describes Jews as a collective acting in concert against him, portraying them as a "clan" with a historical tendency to exclude others. He expresses a belief that Jews regard themselves as a superior race and harbors accusations of widespread animosity towards Christians. The complaint concludes with a characterization of the plaintiff as an honest individual victimized by a systemic effort to strip him of his property and undermine his rights.

Defendant Bankruptcy Jews' actions impact interstate commerce by seizing FCC radio licenses, constituting a violation of antitrust laws under 15 USCA Sec. 1 et seq. The plaintiff seeks damages for these violations. In the second count, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to violate his constitutional rights to due process and access to a neutral judicial system, claiming total denial of meaningful access. The plaintiff demands judgment for these violations. The third count reiterates prior allegations and asserts that the Department of Justice's non-discriminatory standards for bankruptcy trustees have been violated by the defendants, who allegedly sought Jewish counsel for trustees. The plaintiff claims damage from these violations and the defendants' refusal to comply with disclosure regulations, leading to secret dealings and manipulative settlements. The plaintiff seeks judgment for these regulatory violations. In the fourth count, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to violate 42 USCA Sec. 1985(2)(cl. 1), demanding damages for these violations.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-29 from Count Four, asserting that defendants have violated 42 USCA Sec. 1985(3) by using their organization as a religious group to discriminate against him. In Count Six, the plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-30 from Count Five and claims that the defendants are violating the spirit of 42 USCA Sec. 2000e-16, suggesting its applicability through Executive Order 11478, and demands judgment for this violation. 

In Count Seven, the plaintiff includes paragraphs 1-32 from Count Six, alleging that defendant Nevas conspired with other defendants to manipulate the Department of Justice, the U.S. Marshals, and the FBI to further unlawful discriminatory acts, including an attempt on the plaintiff's life in January 1982. He claims Nevas has failed to investigate the plaintiff’s complaints while pursuing complaints from defendants, which the plaintiff argues are used to invoke Jewish loyalty in a conspiracy to unlawfully seize his property. The plaintiff demands that the U.S. Attorney's office be prevented from such manipulation and that all complaints be investigated without discrimination.

Count Eight incorporates paragraphs 1-35 from Count Seven, asserting that the bankruptcy court in the District of Connecticut is an agent of the District Court and that district judges are responsible for the actions of bankruptcy judges and trustees. The plaintiff maintains he has not invoked bankruptcy jurisdiction, has requested the dismissal of all related litigation for almost two years, and accuses the court of ignoring these requests while contributing to the damages he has suffered from a purported Jewish conspiracy. He requests the court to vacate the emergency appointments of bankruptcy judges and appoint a receiver to ensure all positions are open to Christians and Jews without bias.

Advertisements must indicate that Jewish appointments should not exceed 3% to reflect their national population share, with potential adjustments based on Connecticut's Jewish population. The plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including the appointment of a receiver for bankruptcy court. The demands include:

1. An injunction preventing any Jewish involvement with the plaintiff's property and immediate restoration of said property, dismissing all bankruptcy litigation associated with Jewish influence.
2. Monetary damages totaling $30 million, with $10 million sought from non-immune defendants, trebled under antitrust claims.
3. A receiver for bankruptcy courts to eliminate Jewish control and ensure fair treatment for all individuals seeking justice.
4. Additional relief, including legal fees, costs, and further monetary damages as proven at trial.

Additionally, the affidavit supports a renewed motion to recuse a judge, citing a court partner's refusal to comply with a subpoena, which the plaintiff argues indicates a conflict of interest. The plaintiff alleges a long history of persecution and property theft by Jewish individuals, claiming that past positive sentiments towards Jews have been replaced by animosity due to ongoing mistreatment. The affidavit expresses extreme views, linking historical events to a personal narrative of victimhood and calling for judicial intervention against perceived Jewish oppression.

In biblical times, Jews were considered the "chosen people" by Yahweh, but this status allegedly ended with the death of the Messiah, which the author claims resulted in ongoing suffering for the Jewish people. The author accuses Jews of continuing to deceive themselves about their chosen status while engaging in sinful behavior, specifically accusing them of conducting a prolonged campaign against his property due to greed. He alleges that Jewish judges favor Jewish lawyers, manipulate legal findings, illegally imprison him, and obstruct his access to the courts.

The author expresses frustrations similar to the character in the film "Network," declaring a counterattack against what he perceives as Jewish oppression, which includes efforts to amend the Constitution to restrict Jewish rights. He claims to advocate for state-sanctioned actions to redistribute wealth from Jews to assist the needy, asserting that he does not seek personal gain but is responding to an initiation of conflict against him. The author anticipates a favorable political climate for his proposed changes due to historical cycles of economic downturns linked to Jewish influence.

He expresses a lack of faith in receiving justice from Jewish judges, specifically naming Judge Krechevsky as biased due to a supposed Jewish conspiracy. The author believes that the rights of Jews should be curtailed through constitutional amendments rather than violent means, despite acknowledging the historical repercussions faced by Jews when governments have shifted power. Lastly, he reflects on the notion that history may unexpectedly judge those who he perceives as arrogant, specifically targeting Jews for their past experiences in Europe.

The author reflects on the fall of the Shah in Iran and the subsequent removal of peaceful individuals, expressing a deep-seated anger and frustration towards Jewish individuals whom he perceives as threats to his business. He articulates a belief that the historical context of the Holocaust has been overshadowed by his personal grievances, arguing that the actions of Jewish survivors in the present are provoking extreme resentment. The author acknowledges the need for lawful justice but indicates a readiness to pursue legislative changes as a form of revenge. He expresses a lack of faith in the impartiality of Jewish judges in his case and cites experiences of retaliation against him, suggesting that the judge should recuse himself and dismiss the cases. The document concludes with a certification of the truthfulness of the statements made, dated April 21, 1983. An appendix follows, listing various legal cases involving the author, many dismissed for procedural reasons or failure to follow court orders.

The document details multiple appeals involving Anthony R. Martin-Trigona and various cases, primarily focused on motions filed in forma pauperis regarding dismissals and other procedural matters in district court. Key points include:

1. **Case Numbers and Appeals**: Numerous appeals (e.g., #82-5048, #82-5049) are listed, involving Martin-Trigona against different entities, including New Haven Radio, Inc. and IBM.

2. **Dismissals and Orders**: Several motions were dismissed, including those for relief from judgment and for improper venue. Specific dates and judges are mentioned, indicating the legal context and the progression of these cases.

3. **Pending Motions**: Multiple motions are pending, such as those for immunity, recusal, and to transfer cases. Some of these motions are related to contempt proceedings against Martin-Trigona by the United States.

4. **Denials and Dismissals**: The document notes various denials of motions for pauperis status, reinstatement, and rehearing requests, indicating ongoing litigation challenges faced by Martin-Trigona.

5. **Judicial Involvement**: A range of judges and clerks are referenced, suggesting the involvement of multiple judicial figures in the proceedings.

6. **Legal Representation**: The document lists several attorneys associated with the cases, reflecting the complexity of the legal representation involved.

Overall, the excerpt provides a comprehensive overview of Anthony R. Martin-Trigona's legal challenges, emphasizing the procedural history and the status of multiple related cases.

Dowd, Buckley, and the U.S. Department of Justice are involved in various proceedings related to Martin-Trigona's bankruptcy case. A scheduling order was issued, and a default dismissal occurred for New Haven Radio, case #83-7936. Martin-Trigona's request for a summary dismissal of his bankruptcy petition was denied by Judge Jose Cabranes, and an appeal is pending in case #84-3005. On a separate matter, Martin-Trigona had filed for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming the bankruptcy court lacked authority to imprison a noncompliant witness; however, the district court granted the writ erroneously, as Martin-Trigona did not seek proper leave to appeal. 

Judge Cabranes has maintained separation between civil and criminal contempt proceedings against Martin-Trigona, appointing counsel for him in both contexts. Following a previous decision, Martin-Trigona was held in civil contempt for refusing to answer questions, a ruling that was recently upheld. The injunction specifies a detailed procedure for Martin-Trigona to seek court permission for new claims, requiring him to file a motion with a copy of the order, a declaration or affidavit for new claims, a list of all prior lawsuits against the same defendants, copies of those complaints, and service of the order on defendants if leave is granted. Noncompliance may lead to denial of future motions or dismissal of lawsuits.

Appendix I of the district court's order lists Martin-Trigona's cases but omits some recent and state court matters, while Appendix II enumerates 53 pending cases. Neither appendix accounts for the extensive motions and documents Martin-Trigona has filed, nor does it include unfiled complaints served on parties.

Martin-Trigona's litigation activities are significantly understated in the compilation. Appendix A includes a typical complaint filed by him, while Appendix B contains a standard motion paper. Appendix C outlines the cases involving Martin-Trigona in this Court since 1980. Former Bankruptcy Rule 215(a) stipulates that employment of any attorney or accountant for the trustee or receiver requires a court order based on a trustee's application detailing the necessity, selected professional, services to be rendered, and any connections to the bankrupt or interested parties. Employment is permitted if the professional has no adverse interests and serves the estate's best interests, including those previously employed by the bankrupt, provided it benefits the estate. Employment must be limited to specified purposes unless a general retainer is justified. Several cases involving Martin-Trigona are referenced, illustrating his extensive litigation history. An amendment proposal submitted to Congress is attached as Exhibit A, although the actual amendment is omitted.