2017/03/22 - OTHER - (NA) - Note (91)

Home Browse Search

Edward Joseph Cycenas, Sui Juris C/o: 7507 Woodland Estates Road Siren [54872], Wisconsin, U.S.A. To: Karen Hendrick, Clerk 28h day of April, 2003 Office of the Clerk of Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison PI.,NW Washington,DC 20439 (202) 633-6550 Re: Edward Joseph Cycenas v. Keith E. Stoner, et al. Appeals Docket No. 03-1274 Dist. Court Case No. 03-C-063-S Dear Karen Hendrick: I have received a "CORRECTED" "DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES' BREIF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL" from an author having submitted only one Notice of Appearance purporting to be valid for six Defendants. Is this legitimate from a procedural standpoint? I was informed that each Defendant received a Notice of Appearance to have his or her Attorney return. I did not sue the Defendants only in a joint capacity and they are not one entity as they would appear to be in Name of Party. Further, I call your attention to the word count on the last page (CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIENCE). On the "CORRECTED" copy the word count read 3477 and on the original copy the word count reads 3455. The discrepancy leads one to believe that more has changed than just the font size. Isn't that non-compliance with the courts order relevant to the corrections required and the limitations of what can be corrected? By citing additional Authorities in his Table of Authorities, Mr. Nowakowski attempts to have the court prejudice me in that these where not listed in Table of Authorities in the original to which I replied. I still cannot tell if the named Defendants have actually retained this author as an attorney for themselves or whether public funds of the county were misappropriated to pay this author and sneak a response in to confuse the matter. The title of the answer document would lead me to believe the author has no idea what he's talking about. I am proceeding as a matter of right not privilege and a brief in opposition to a