Bio of Lonnie Schmidt

Lonnie Glenn Schmidt, decorated Viet Nam veteran helicopter pilot and Captain in the Army Reserves, has been deprived of his liberty since July 7, 2005 by United States District Court, Northern Texas, Dallas Division (USDC NDT) judge, Jerry Buchmeyer! August 7, 2002 Lawrence J. Warfield, receiver for civil case no. 3:02CV0605 filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the USDC NDT March 25, 2002, files a petition (Document #174 of Case #3:02CV0605) with the court requesting Lonnie Glenn Schmidt be ordered to turn over $282,405!Mr. Schmidt is not a defendant in the civil suit and has not been sued by the SEC or the receiver. Mr. Schmidt was a vendor who was paid for services rendered more than one year prior to March 25, 2002, the date on which the civil suit was filed AND the receiver was appointed. How can the receiver and the court “order” Mr. Schmidt to pay back funds he received in good faith for services he provided? How can the receiver and the court “order” Mr. Schmidt to pay back funds without giving Mr. Schmidt opportunity to argue these funds are not receivership assets?

On August 14, 2002, seven (7) days after the Petition was filed and prior to Mr. Schmidt receiving notice of the Petition, the court ordered (Document #179 of Case #3:02CV0605) Mr. Schmidt to turn over the $282,405 within 10 days. Mr. Schmidt did not receive a copy of the Petition or the Order until November 5, 2002. After receiving notice of the order to turn over funds Mr. Schmidt responded by filing with the court on November 18, 2002 (Document #225 of Case #3:02CV0605) notification of a copyright of his name and to stop using it without his permission. Mr. Schmidt is not a party to case no. 3:02CV0605 nor is he party to any case! Mr. Schmidt was given no opportunity to argue funds ordered to be turned over were not receivership assets nor the opportunity to show he did not have $282,405.00. And Mr. Schmidt received the order 72 days after it had already expired.

November 19, 2002, the tenth court day from the date Mr. Schmidt received notice of the order (Document #179), the SEC and the receiver filed a motion (Document #227 of Case #3:02CV0605) to hold Mr. Schmidt in contempt of court for not turning over the funds. On January 7, 2003 the court ordered (Document #236 of Case #3:02CV0605) Mr. Schmidt to appear on January 23, 2003 in Dallas, Texas at 10:00 AM. After receiving a copy of the January 7, 2003 order on January 14, 2003 Mr. Schmidt, a citizen of California and a business owner with responsibilities, appears before the court in writing on January 22, 2003 via a Petition to Quash the Order of January 7, 2003 (Document #243 of Case #3:02CV0605).

The receiver responds (Document #244 of Case #3:02CV0605) to Mr. Schmidt’s Petition to Quash by using, as he has many times before, the case Waffenschmidt v. Mackay, 763 F2d 711, 714 (5th Cir. 1985). In this case assets were transferred after a lawsuit was filed and the court ordered an injunction. If in fact Mr. Schmidt HAD receivership assets in his possession and did not turn them over or was given receivership assets by any of the receivership persons or entities after an injunction was ordered then he would have violated a court order and could possibly be subject to contempt. HOWEVER Mr. Schmidt was PAID for services rendered over one year prior to an injunction, a civil suit and a receiver being appointed! And the services provided had nothing to do with anything alleged in the civil complaint.

On January 23, 2005, supposedly prior to holding a hearing, Judge Jerry Buchmeyer ordered Mr. Schmidt’s Petition to Quash denied (Document #245 of Case #3:02CV0605). Judge Buchmeyer then proceeded to hold a hearing (Document #246 of Case #3:02CV0605) even though Mr. Schmidt was not present and found Mr. Schmidt in contempt of court (Document #251 of Case #3:002CV0605) for two reasons:

“a. failing to appear before this court on January 23, 2003 at 10:00 a.m., to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt of court; and
b. failing to turn over to the Receiver the sum of $282,405 as required by the Order Re: Petition No. 14.”

This order, which Mr. Schmidt never received a copy of, was carried out on July 7, 2005 at the home of Mr. Schmidt’s daughter where he was awaiting the birth of his 7th grandchild. U.S. Marshals with the assistance of Clovis Police and Fresno Sheriffs arrested Mr. Schmidt without an arrest warrant of any kind. They acted only on a copy of the January 23, 2003 order signed by Judge Jerry Buchmeyer. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (F.R.Civ.P.) 4.1(b) part 2 an order of this type can only be served out within 100 miles of Judge Buchmeyer’s court. Mr. Schmidt was not being held in contempt of a decree or injunction issued to enforce the laws of the United States. In fact, there was NO decree or injunction involving Mr. Schmidt at all. And as noted Mr. Schmidt was being held in contempt for failure to appear and for not turning over funds to a receiver. Neither of which is a violation of a decree or injunction enforcing the laws of the United States!

Mr. Schmidt was transferred to Dallas, Texas under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 40 on July 15, 2005 where he has remained incarcerated without being brought before Judge Jerry Buchmeyer for 3 ½ months! If Judge Buchmeyer has held Mr. Schmidt in contempt for failure to appear as stated in the January 23, 2003 order (Document #251) then why has Judge Buchmeyer not ordered the U.S. Marshal Service to bring Mr. Schmidt to his court room to now appear?

Upon his ARREST Mr. Schmidt filed a habeas corpus petition in the Superior Court of California, Fresno which was denied because the Superior Court judge said it was a federal matter (Decision of Judge Donald Franson, CA Superior Court Judge). Mr. Schmidt filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court, Eastern California, Fresno (Document #1 of Case #1:05CV0901) which was denied (Document #5 of Case #1:05CV0901) because the magistrate judge said Mr. Schmidt was in state custody and not exhausted his state remedies.

After being transported to Dallas, Texas Mr. Schmidt immediately filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court, Northern Texas, Dallas Division (Document #1 of Case #3:05CV1449) which was denied (Findings of Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan; Document #2 of Case #3:05CV1449) upholding the incorrect use of F.R.Civ.P Rule 4.1(b) part 2. Unless the contempt is for the violation of a decree or injunction enforcing the laws of the United States it CANNOT be served outside of 100 miles of the issuing court. California is much further than 100 miles from Texas!

Mr. Schmidt objected to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations (Document #3 of Case #3:05CV1449). The federal judge assigned to Case #3:05CV1449 upheld the magistrate’s findings and issued an order (Document #4 of Case #3:05CV1449) and a judgment (Document #5 of Case #3:05CV1449). Mr. Schmidt then filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Document #6 of Case #3:05CV1449) on August 18, 2005 which has never been ruled on.

On July 29, 2005 Mr. Schmidt filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit a Writ of Prohibition (Writ of Prohibition) (Affidavit) asking this court to “prohibit” the lower court from acting on an order outside of their jurisdiction. The Appeals Court filed the writ as case no. 05-10925 as a mandamus due to the fact Mr. Schmidt was asking the court to “mandate” his release. Mr. Schmidt filed the writ on an emergency, expedited basis however the court has done nothing as of November 2, 2005. Realizing the Fifth Circuit suffered greatly during Hurricane Katrina and has just recently settled into its new temporary location in Houston, Texas he has been unable to file anything else with this court.

Having received no relief from the United States District Court Mr. Schmidt filed a habeas corpus petition with the Supreme Court of Texas on September 6, 2005 (TX Supreme Court Habeas Corpus). On September 16, 2005 this court summarily denied Mr. Schmidt’s petition giving no findings, reasons or basis for the denial (Document #931 of Case #3:02CV0605). So Mr. Schmidt filed a Motion for Reconsideration (TX Supreme Court Reconsideration) further explaining legally how the Supreme Court of Texas had jurisdiction to hear his petition. Again on October 14, 2005 the Supreme Court of Texas denied Mr. Schmidt’s petition (Document #947 of Case #3:02CV0605).

Getting no relief through the habeas corpus petitions Mr. Schmidt files a Petition for Relief (Document #926 of Case #3:02CV0605) in the case he is being held under - USDC NDT Case No. 3:02CV0605 - under the control of Judge Jerry Buchmeyer. This case, 3:02CV0605, has long been finished. A final judgment has been rendered on all named defendants so how is Judge Buchmeyer holding Mr. Schmidt on a completed case? The petition was filed on September 14, 2004 and the receiver’s attorneys filed a response (Document #934 of Case #3:02Cv0605) on September 28, 2005. And yet Judge Buchmeyer has issued NO ruling, has NOT ordered Mr. Schmidt brought to his court room and has NOT even set a hearing date for Mr. Schmidt!

Mr. Schmidt has been to the State and Federal courts in California and the State and Federal Courts in Texas. He has filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and has waited for 3 months with no word from them. Mr. Schmidt has filed a Petition for Relief (Document #926) with Judge Buchmeyer with no results. What is Mr. Schmidt to do in order to receive justice and regain his liberty?

In an attempt to bring pressure to bear on Judge Buchmeyer and his actions or in part Buchmeyer’s lack of action, Mr. Schmidt writes a letter to the Chief Judge of the USDC NDT, A. Joe Fish (Letter to Judge Fish). The letter was confirmed received by Aimee Blanchard through the certified return receipt postcard (USPS return receipt card). It was confirmed through a telephone conversation that Aimee Blanchard is a law clerk in Judge Fish’s chambers (Transcript of conversation.) As you will read in the transcript of the phone conversation the letter written to Judge Fish was being turned over to Judge Buchmeyer. This conversation took place on October 25, 2005 and as of November 2, 2005 Mr. Schmidt had not heard from either Judge Fish or Judge Buchmeyer.

July 17th, 2003