Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_02-cv-05184/USCOURTS-arwd-5_02-cv-05184-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

YORAM RAZ PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 02-5184

ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR DEFENDANT

and

YORAM RAZ PLAINTIFF

v.

UNITED STATES DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 2 day of September, 2005, comes on for

nd

consideration Plaintiff’s Rule 59(a) Motion To Reconvene Trial

Showing Inadequate Opportunity To Present Case (document #229).

1. In his motion, plaintiff Yoram Raz (“Raz”) asks the Court

to reconvene the trial of this case for two additional trial days.

Raz contends that, if such a reconvening be allowed, he would

put into evidence and show to the Court “video clips,” and present

testimony about those video clips which he believes to be necessary

to a clear understanding of them. 

Raz contends that he was “crippled,” “hampered,” “confused,”

and “rushed” in his trial presentation by the Court’s “decisive plan

to limit the length of the Trial to four (4) days.” He claims that,

had he been given sufficient time, he would have presented “a very

shocking and tormented account of outrageous and illegal FBI

offenses against Plaintiff.” 

Case 5:02-cv-05184-JLH Document 245 Filed 09/02/05 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

2. The Court notes that, before the trial was convened, it

ruled that it would keep the record open after the trial for one

specific purpose only -- to allow defendants time to respond to a

discovery matter and, depending upon the Court’s ruling on that

matter, for receipt of specific evidence relating thereto. Inherent

in that ruling -- and clearly understood by Raz before trial -- was

the notion that Raz should go forward with his entire case during

the trial. 

3. During the trial, Raz had full and adequate opportunity to

present his case. He finished his presentation and announced to the

Court that he rested his case, whereupon the defendants proceeded

with their case. When defendants rested, Raz was given a chance to

present rebuttal, and he did so by once again testifying in his own

behalf.

After both sides announced that they had rested, the Court took

the matter under advisement, so that it could determine in due

course if any additional proof would be permitted by reason of its

ruling on the outstanding discovery issue and so that it could

consider the evidence which had been placed before it at trial in

light of the applicable law. Never, at any time, was it suggested

to Raz that if, on reflection, he later determined that he should

present more evidence, he would be allowed to do so. To permit such

a procedure in this -- or any other case -- would turn trial

procedure on its head, and the Court declines to do so. Raz has

been fairly heard and there is no reasonable basis to allow him to

Case 5:02-cv-05184-JLH Document 245 Filed 09/02/05 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
While the second trial day did not convene until after noon, this was because Raz 1

requested a shortened day, not because the Court imposed it upon him.

-3-

reopen his proof.

4. The foregoing having been said, the Court also observes

that it would not be persuaded by Raz’s claims in this motion even

if it were otherwise proper, for the following reasons:

(a) The video clips shown by Raz at trial were not probative

of any misconduct (or indeed, of any conduct at all) on the part of

the FBI. Accordingly, if Raz’s claims in this motion are to be

given credence, the Court would have to conclude that -- during the

three days Raz spent presenting his case -- he chose to show only

1

video clips which did not reveal any FBI activity whatsoever while

then also choosing, for some reason, to hold back and not then

present those video clips he now asserts do reflect “clearly

outrageous and shocking” FBI conduct. There is no basis for the

Court to so conclude.

(b) The video clips not shown at trial, which Raz now says he

desires to show, do not appear to be probative of any conduct on the

part of the FBI. Raz placed four DVDs of video clips into evidence,

and submitted along with those DVDs a document entitled “DVD of

Surveillance and Incidents,” which was marked as Court’s Exhibit #1.

This document is a list of the video clips on the DVDs. Raz

designated (by circling them with a yellow highlighter) the video

clips that he wanted to have considered as evidence (some of which

were shown during trial). The circled entries do not suggest that

Case 5:02-cv-05184-JLH Document 245 Filed 09/02/05 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

the video clips would be probative of any misconduct on the part of

the FBI. They are as follows:

* 11) February 22, 2004; 18:21; driving from home to

the Post Office in Gentry; A gentry police car turns

around, follows me and tries to catch me on

speeding.

* 12) February 24, 2004; 14:04; A white unmarked car

(three last digits ‘ATY’) came to examine me as I

was resting on the side of the street in my car on

Arkansas Highway 59 South, between Siloam Springs

and Van-Buren; it is seen hiding on the right side

at 14:21:41.

* 13) February 24, 2004; 14:17; Same incident as

previous one but from Diagonal camera 5 (with

noise).

* 14) February 24, 2004; 21:28; Judy Killian of

Shreveport, Louisiana (a woman Raz dated that was

converted into being an undercover agent to spy

against him) arrives at the Wal-Mart store on West

70 Street in Shreveport, Louisiana for a Pseudo th

Chance Encounter (PSE). (Raz is on his way from

North-West Arkansas to central Louisiana).

* 17) March 14, 2004; 12:11; Sheriff Deputy M. Lyons

(Washington County, Arkansas) arrives to check on me

while I am resting in my car on the shoulder of

Arkansas Highway 59 south, then follows me and tries

to catch me on speeding.

* 18) Same incident as previous one - view from

Diagonal camera #5.

* 33) August 6, 2004; 21:00; SSPD Officers Scott

Miller and Bryan Austin stop me at the Wal-Mart

Parking Lot in Siloam Springs based on request of a

Surveillance team that followed me from Gentry.

View from diagonal cameras.

* 38) August 11, 2004; 22:35; Experiment: I parked

about three (3) miles north of Gentry on a gravel

road off Highway 59; a Sheriff Deputy was dispatched

to intercept me and read my license plate to the

dispatcher - while following me home.

Case 5:02-cv-05184-JLH Document 245 Filed 09/02/05 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

* 42) August 25, 2004; 18:47; Scenes of stalking by

Fayetteville Police as I return from examining a

Travel Trailer in Pettigrew, Arkansas (south-east of

Fayetteville). Majority is on end of DVD-3, but a

small part continues on dvd-4.

* 43) August 25, 2004; 18-47; A small continuation

scene from stalking by Fayetteville Police as I

return from examining a Travel Trailer in Pettigrew,

Arkansas (south-east of Fayetteville). Majority is

on end of DVD-3 (Scene 42), but a small part

continues on dvd-4.

* 50) September 29, 2004; 11:12; A Gentry, Arkansas

police car follows me from the Shook’s car

dealership to the southern outskirts of town and

tries to catch me on speeding. X cameras.

* 59) April 15, 2005; 16:39 (yoyo time); the Bohemian

with the white beard sat next to me at University of

Arkansas’ main library (suspected as an undercover

agent).

Not one of these scenes – even according to Raz’s own index -

involves the FBI. Nor did his trial testimony about the scenes the

Court viewed during the trial link anything on a video clip to the

FBI.

The remaining scenes on Court’s Exhibit #1 (those not

highlighted for Court scrutiny by Raz) likewise carry no suggestion

that they would prove any conduct on the part of the FBI. Like the

highlighted ones, the only specific references in the un-highlighted

video clips are to police cars from various communities. The

remaining references are to vague entities such as “the undercover

woman agent,” “a stubby man in black cloths,” “a big man that I

have seen before,” “a young black man, wearing an undershirt.”

There is no reference to the FBI in the description of any video

Case 5:02-cv-05184-JLH Document 245 Filed 09/02/05 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

clip. 

(c) Raz testified at trial that he often did not know who was

following him or watching him, and that his belief that various

people were associated with the FBI is based in large part on the

appearance of the people he suspects (such as a “marine haircut”)

and on their conduct (such as shopping in a store without a buggy

and making no purchases). 

5. As can be seen from the preceding, what Raz wants to show

the Court is video clips of people he suspects of being FBI agents,

carrying out what he believes is surveillance of him. This is not

evidence, it is merely speculation and not admissible to prove Raz’s

case. Thus the Court is not persuaded that even if Raz had not felt

“crippled,” “hampered,” “confused,” or “rushed” in his trial

presentation, he would have been able to offer probative evidence

from the video clips he wants to show the Court. 

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the pending

motions should be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Rule 59(a) Motion To

Reconvene Trial Showing Inadequate Opportunity To Present Case

(document #229) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:02-cv-05184-JLH Document 245 Filed 09/02/05 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-7-

Case 5:02-cv-05184-JLH Document 245 Filed 09/02/05 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>