◆ SpookStack

cere Pathe peels +, or ne crew rtaah ptt aye RE” (a) plaintiff's brother, Jerry Zay, was intiaidated to the extent that he had to reatg bis job in the Cuicago, Illinois, area; sue sequently after forcing him froa his job the FRI attempted to frane him for numerous criszes. . (b) plaintife's other brother, John Ray, was arrested by police while driving his car in the St. Louis, Mise-uri, area and subsequent- ly charged by the FBI for aiding and abetting a bank robbery. Tried and convicted with a defendant chom the governsent alleged actualiy robbed said bank, Jchn was given 18 yeare and the alleged robber 10 Years; upon appeal the olleged robber'’s conviction was reversed ty the 8th 0.8. circuit court of appeals because the fruits of an illegaly gearch & seizure wae used against hin; however, the 8th circuit miled ther the fruite of the illegal seerch was not ground for reversing John Ray's case becasue the alleged evidence (stolen money) was not taken from hin; upon re-trial the alleged robber was acquited; sub- sequently another defendant in the robbery vas charged ond entered a plea for three (3) yeara which was later reduced to eighteen nonthe by the government, -. 12. That in June 1959 Plaintiff filed a civil action in the United States - District court for the M.D. of Tennessee seeking to wold contrasts between Plaintiff, the aforenentioned Percy Foreman, and defendant, Huis. In att- eapting to have said civil action (Complaint) dismissed, thus neccesttat- ing the refiling by Plaintiff da the 7.D. of Tennesses, the defendants atterney the lates, John J. Hocker ar., of the Davidson county Tennesses bar, Diegally procured Plaintirr’s entire prison record, including docicle informatinn, from the aforementicned corrections coumissioner, Harry Avery, Shee -bt ae & oe me 44 fone aist disci Conplais A te *~ = a a a a ah. te =_ fo me WVLELSSEU 1 Le Aas GUL LEODSSREE a g * - & 5 ‘ and and reflied in the W.D. (civil action so. €-69-199) before Judge McRae, because cf said domicile information. , 4 33. That thereafter ir civil action no. C-69-199 one of Judge McRae's initial rulinsrwas that said action would be decided by deposition rather then live testinony—-mubsequently the Judge disniased the suit on notion - af Abe defendants. 7 . 1h, That following the United States Sixth circuit court of appeals ruling on February 3rd 1974 ordering an evidentiary hearing inte the circunstances Of Plaintiff's aforenentioned guilty plea under acid indictment defendant, Judge McRee, again ascuned jurisdiction to conduct said hearing (civil action no.C-74-166) and again ruied that the two principal witnesses, the ~184-