Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

, __g mso __M rooeeo
- ` __, RECEIVED __ cow
1
_. JAN I 2 ZUUE
] Ammar Halloum
· P. O. Box 26662 crtaar 0 s ¤;~¤sTa=cr comet
2 Tempe, AZ 85285 orsmser os esezewa
Tel: 480-593-4444 E*/,______,,,_______,______g__ UEP_UT“Yg
3 Fax: 602-268-6644 '
Plaintiff (pro se)
4
5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 FOR TI-IE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7
8 Ammar I-Ialloum NO. CIV-02-02245-PHX-EHC
9 Plaintiff PLAlNTIFF’S MOTION IN
LIMINE REGARDING EVIDENCE
10 vs. or DEFENl)ANT’S ALLEGED
STATE CHARGE AND OTHER
U CIVH5 LAWSUITS
Intel Corporation,
12 Defendant. `
13
14 Intel Corporation,
I 5 Counterclaimant,
16 Vs.
17 Ammar Halloum and Sawsan Hamad
Counterdefendants.
18
19 MOTION
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Ammar Halloum hereby moves, in limine, to preclude
20
21 the defendant, Intel Corporation, from offering evidence or argument pertaining to state
22 charges, and lawsuits tiled by or against plaintiff, whether instigated by defendant Intel or
23 not, which occurred after the filing of the tmderlying lawsuit on September 13, 2002, for
24
the reasons set forth in the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
25
26 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
27 I. Introduction
23
Case 2:02—cv—02245-EHC Document 132 Filed O1/12/2006 Page 1 of 4

i
* 1 On September 13, 2002, Plaintiff Ammdf Halloum filed a lawsuit against
2 defendant Intel for discrimination, constructive discharge, intentional inflection of
ii injuries, and collaboration among bad elements at Intel against Plaintiff Intel had no
5 legitimate defense to this case after its own witness Christian Hess and owniexpert
6 witness Carla Minard testified before an ALJ that Intel discriminated and retaliated
7 against plaintiff. This matter is set for trial on February 14, 2006.
; More than a year after the plaintiff was constructively discharged and well after the
10 filing of this lawsuit, Intel instigated a criminal complaint against Halloum that
ll resulted in a misdemeanor conviction against plaintiff in 2005. Also, upon
12 information and belief Intel instigated a civil lawsuit by a third party against plaintiff
51 in order to totally destroy him, to prevent him from prosecuting this lawsuit in open
15 court, and to protect its reputation and the bad elements that control Intel corporation
16 and its vital resources. Significantly, Intel is not a party to that litigation and that
17 litigation was initiated after the events at issue in this matter.
E The continuation of these vicious, inhuman, and concerted effort by the bad
20 elements at Intel that started on the day of the sad event 9/ 1 1/200I and continues until
21 today should not be allowed to be presented in the trial since they are not relevant
22 evidence and they are ground of prejudice, confusion and waste of time. Also, these
ir cases have been fabricated or instigated by Defendant after the filing of this lawsuit for
25 many reasons including the assassination of Plaintiffs character.
26 Notwithstanding this, Defendant is attempting to introduce into evidence
27 documents and/or testimony relating the criminal matter and the unrelated civil
28
-2-
Case 2:O2—cv—O2245-EHC Document 132 Filed O1/12/2006 Page 2 of 4

' 1 litigation. For the reasons set forth below, the Court should preclude Intel from doing
2 so under Rules 40l, 403 and 404 ofthe Federal Rules of Evidence.
3 II. Argument
5 Rule 401, FRCP, provides the test for the relevancy of evidence:
"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the
6 existence of ang fact that is of consequence to the determinationpf the
7 action more pro able or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
8 Additionally, Rule 403, FRCP, states that even relevant evidence may be excluded
9 "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
10 confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay,
1; waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence?
13 Finally, Rule 404, FRCP, precludes the admission of evidence of "other crimes,"
14 with only limited exceptions.
15 Here, this matter involves a Defendant’s wrongful constructive termination of
I; Plaintiff based on the discriminatory motives of Defendant. Evidence involving an
18 entirely unrelated criminal matter, and civil lawsuit initiated by an unrelated party, is
19 absolutely irrelevant. Moreover, even if it were somehow relevant, the prejudicial
20 impact of this evidence on the jury, especially the criminal conviction, completely
g; outweighs the probative value of this evidence. Indeed, this evidence really has no
23 probative value as it does not address any of the issues before the court. Finally,
24 evidence of "other crimes" and "wrongful acts" is precluded in any event and Intel
25 cannot establish any exception to this rule.
26
III. Conclusion
27
28
-3-
Case 2:O2—cv—O2245-EHC Document 132 Filed O1/12/2006 Page 3 of 4

5
t 1 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Ammar Halloum respectfully requests that the Court
2 precluded Defendant from submitting any evidence relating to Plaintiff s criminal
3
misdemeanor conviction or any other civil litigation in which he is a named party.
4
5
6 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this [2 day of January 2006.
7
8 Byr
9 P a1nt1 Ammar um, pro se
10
11 The Original submitted
this ] Q day of January, 2006
12 Honorable Judge Earl H. Carroll
13 And
United States District Court
14
A Copy of the foregoing
15 mailed this _Q-day of January, 2006 to:
Michael D. Moberly
16 One North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85001-4414 1
17 Attorney for Defendant Intel Corporation
1 8 gk &
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
Case 2:O2—cv—O2245-EHC Document 132 Filed O1/12/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-02245-EHC

Document 132

Filed 01/12/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-02245-EHC

Document 132

Filed 01/12/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-02245-EHC

Document 132

Filed 01/12/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-02245-EHC

Document 132

Filed 01/12/2006

Page 4 of 4