Justice; Chief Justice John Roberts!

Justice; Chief Justice John Roberts!

Chief Justice John Roberts,

Justice Louis Brandeis known as the peoples judge said “Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen” No man is above the law so the confirmation hearings say.

Today Executive branches of the U.S. government are running criminal enterprises in violation of Federal laws, federal antitrust laws, and the Constitution. Three times I previously brought this matter to the attention of then President Barack Obama. Please refer to the correspondence which can be found on this blog. None of the communications was ever addressed.

Congress approved the implementation of these enterprises in violation of the Constitution and their oaths of office. Consequently, they do not want their despicable deeds exposed. I have multiple times by mail and phone requested of Congressman Morgan Griffth the opportunity to address Congress regarding this matter.  No request was ever acknowledged. You may also refer to written correspondence evidenced in this blog.

These enterprises are specifically designed for the obstruction of justice, to deny due process, to deny equal protection, and to deny fair hearings. These procedures are an absolute abysmal affront to Due Process, American values, and the Constitution.

The Federal Judiciary is aiding, abetting, and protecting these criminal enterprises and even gifting them with the ability to write new laws at will avoiding accountability for criminal and civil violations of Federal law against the people they’re supposed to serve. See the Statements of the Supreme Court on deference made over the last five years in the Courts rulings.

These acts Sir are in violation of the government’s contractual obligation to operate legally and within the law. These acts are a complete and utterly criminal violation of the Constitutions intent for the separation of powers. These acts Sir have the Government warring against the Constitution and against the American people. These acts Sir, are acts of treason as defined by the Constitution of the United States.

As you should now beware, Sir, these criminal, unAmerican, and unconstitutional allegations, allege a criminal conspiracy of wrongdoing by every branch of the US Government. It’s a tenant of the rule of law that no man may preside over his own case. I, therefore, submit that this case must be heard against the US Government by a Jury of the American people and its criminal operations must be stopped.

The rule of law states: The Law should govern a nation as opposed to being governed by the arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. The Judiciary has repeatedly corruptly, maliciously, relied solely on arbitrary decisions of corrupt Government officials in the judiciary aiding, abetting, and protecting the Government’s criminal and unconstitutional RICO enterprise. They’re guilty of Treason by conspiring, aiding, and abetting domestic enemies of the Constitution and the American people.

This country is founded on the rule of law. If it’s to be governed by the rule of law then All branches of the US Government must stand trial as defendants and defend themselves before a jury of unbiased civilian jurist.

To Quote Thomas Jefferson:

“Trial by jury is the only anchor yet ever imagined by man, which can hold a government accountable to the principles of its constitution.”

John Adams called trial by Jury:

“the heart of liberty.”

As Justice Brandeis said:

“A government of laws will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. If a government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy.”

The prophecy of Elbridge Gerry  declining to sign the Constitution and the warnings of Thomas Jefferson in 1820 are proven accurate.

How Sir can I, can any of us, have anything but contempt for a judiciary that’s aiding, abetting, and protecting illegal and unconstitutional operations of the people’s government? How should I, or any of us, not have contempt for a Government operating above the law and against justice for its people?

This petition is made pursuant to the First Amendment to the Constitution the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Government is not entitled to immunity in this matter because its sovereignty cannot supersede the Government’s agency requirements as defined, by the Constitution, by the Contract, which gave rise to the existence of Government, a contract which requires Government to operate legally and within the law.

I cite and incorporate for reference and submit as evidence the Judiciary is criminally corrupt all procedural records of filings, appeals, including the appeal to the supreme court, writs, the dockets, and all supporting documentation, including the actual dockets for the following cases.: 4:13-cv-0054, 1-15-1544C, and 3-16-cv-173

The courts are thus aware of the evidence against them and the allegations of the criminal enterprises as complained of in the aforementioned cases. They may not preside over nor dismiss a case against them without a proper and fair hearing. Since the complaint alleges criminal wrongdoing and conspiracy by the judiciary, including the willful intent to obstruct justice. The judiciary has neither the right nor the Authority to dismiss this case. Plaintiff demands the US Government including the Judiciary stand trial for TREASON! Before a Jury of American Citizens.

Failure of the Judiciary to defend itself before a Jury is admission this country is no longer founded or governed by the rule of law but is in fact under the rule of a Criminal enterprise of despots and traitors.

No one in a Republic is above the law, above the supreme law; not even the judiciary!

Sincerely,
Christopher B. Julian Pro Se.
980-254-1295

Advertisements
Let Me Show You Dodd-Frank Sucks!

Let Me Show You Dodd-Frank Sucks!

For years now I’ve been fighting for my life because of Dodd Frank legislation. Today I had a discussion about my issues with it on twitter, that along with many other impetus of the moment, bring me to wana share the lost opportunities Dodd Frank is currently causing my family and friends. The featured Image on this page is a graph of the Sub Prime bubble Wall Street created igniting Dodd Frank Legislation. Note: they grew sub-prime lending 600% and Securitization of them 900% leading up to the Financial Collapse.

First you need to know a little about who I am and what I’ve done in my life. At ten thousand feet look at my about cbjulian page, but, for this blog post, I want you to know these things.

First My mother was a construction bookkeeper I grew up working on construction sites. My brother is a builder, realtor, real estate broker. My brother in law is a builder. I grew up surrounded by construction. From 1972 to 1987 as I worked my way through college and an accounting degree. I worked all kinds of jobs mainly in construction, but also as a commercial fisherman in Alaska. I’ve worked on and run framing crews. Electrician crews, trim crews, done plumbing, hung sheet rock, painted, laid brick , hardwood floors, and tile,  installed cabinets and appliances and farmed an Apple Orchard.

Second I’m no dummy – I’d never, have survived more than 15 years in finance and finance technology services at Bank Of America from 1987 – 2004, if hadn’t some basic skills. In support of this below you’ll find a link to my resume  and two links to some of the recognition I received while working at Bank Of America. Please note my career progression at Bank of America.

Third From 1995 to 1996 I built the house pictured in this slide show with funding from  BB&T after I had purchased the lot. I worked my butt off that year every night, weekend and holiday on this house trying to do as much of the work as I possibly could myself. It liked to kill me.  As you look at the slides realize when I moved in in 1996 the house was just over 1900 square feet with a 900 square foot unfinished basement. It had two bedrooms 1 and half baths. While building it the city inspectors knew by the way it was being constructed I intended to add on.

Fourth From 1996 until 2006 when I sold the house I worked on improvements and additions  until I finished the vision I had for this house. When finished it was a little over 3800 square feet with a 900 square foot finished basement. It had 4 bedrooms 3 and half baths with a built in steam shower and a huge bonus room with giant walk in closet.

Fifth I won’t get into the numbers and I don’t consider my time cost working on this house but I made a very nice profit on it. While you look at the slide show I want you to know: I laid all of the hardwood floors in this house, My wife and I did all the wood work  and built  all the porches on this house. I personally finished 2 baths including the steam shower work all myself. I framed, wired, insulated, hung sheet rock, finished sheet rock, did all custom trim work, painted, and hung all the fixtures in every other addition in this house. I did all the work except where I had someone install carpet.

 

 

Sixth in 2007 I bought with proceeds from the sale of the house above an old 23 Acre Apple Orchard on the side of a mountain with some very nice Piedmont views. The Land was ideal for a vineyard, ideal for starting a hard apple cider business and has many profit opportunities,  I like to keep close to my vest although, your welcome some other time to look at the Business plan for this property.

Seven from 2007 until 2012 I spent my days on the development of this farm, putting life back into the Apples for future hard apple cider making, prepping the land and resources for a future vineyard and eventually wine production. Construction of a main residence designed to support numerous business potentials. Like a basement that would support being a small winery for start up and could and would later become a quest rental and even eventually our main living quarters. Below is a slide show on that property again keep in mind I ran the farming operation and I taught two farm hands everything they needed to know to help me with all the home construction you see done in these photos.

 

Eight in june of 2006 at the young age of 46 my wife and I became first time parents. While I’m usually behind the camera taking pictures here a few of me at work.

 

 

Nine in 1996 in addition to the house at 454 Hunter Lane, I also took an equity stake in a duplex, 8910 Sharonbrook drive. I took out a small private 10 year loan on this property for a 1/3 stake. I did this to help my mother have control over the property, as she bought the other side 8908 Sharonbrook drive for her personal residence.

Ten the five years I worked putting the Apple Orchard back in business and prepping the land for planting of a vineyard and construction on the house all got stopped when my personal funding ran out. Dodd Frank made it illegal for me to have a mortgage on that property without also having a full time job. I thought I had a full time job to farm the orchard, plant the vineyard, finish the house construction, and get the business operational.  However, Dodd Frank prevents an individual such as myself from using mortgage proceeds to pay myself to work while I make capital improvements to the assets I’m borrowing against. For numerous financial reasons and advantages this is pure financial ignorance on the part of Government. Or is it actually a Deep State effort to control land use? Think about it ; its like saying if you put money in this bank you can’t draw it out unless you have a job to make payments. Actually its worse cause the value of money in the bank is pure perception it could become worthless overnight as opposed to land, diamonds, gold or oil.

Think about it for a minute why do we have front yard mechanics? If you could frame your own house, plumb it, wire it, sheet rock it, trim it, paint it, why would you want to pay anyone other than yourself to do that work, especially if you needed the work? If you could plant a vineyard yourself why would you take a job so you could pay someone else twice what you’d pay yourself?  If in the end the asset is worth the same no matter who actually makes the capital improvements then you’re building sweat equity to do the job yourself. Dodd Frank wars against sweat equity! Thanks Dodd Frank!

Now lets look at that duplex and how Dodd Frank is killing opportunity for my family and friends and waring against my creation of sweat equity.

My mother passed away and now my brother and I are forced to sell the Duplex because I’m unable to find a good job. You can be sure my court battles against Wall Street, and the U.S Government are playing a major role in keeping me from gainful employment.

The Duplex is currently under contract for $237,000.00 and while I live in one side the other is rented to tenants who’ve lived there since 1996. When the contract closes we may all have to move disrupting all our lives which none of us want.

Since I have a significant equity stake in this property I could literally buy the duplex from my brother and mothers estate for $175,000.00.  I could, using equity pay myself $50,000.00 over the next year to rehab the duplex and with rent afford the loan payments. New siding, new heat and air, interior and exterior painting etc. Now at the end of another year you think I could get another contract on the duplex? One at least as much as the one it’s currently under, or maybe with these improvements even more? Wouldn’t that be a better outcome for the people who’s lives are about to be disrupted and uprooted? Remember the renters have lived here over 20 years, don’t want to move, or were they’ll go.  Thanks Dodd Frank!

In another year My wife or I might find good jobs, We might be able to sell the farm, we might win the lawsuit against Wall Street, although given Federal Court corruption thats not likely. We might move out and rent both sides to cover the mortgage payments. Can you be certain tomorrow you’ll have a job and be able to afford your mortgage payments. How long would your equity support you?

I’ve tried every way I know to secure financing to do just that, but Dodd Frank regulations prevent it. Hard Money lenders can’t help either because, Dodd Frank rules prevent investor properties from being owner occupied. Thats dumb too. If you’re a contractor its much easier to work on a place you’re living in. And an owner, tenet with equity at stake has a vested interest in improving the assets value as much as possible.

Below is a slide show of the Duplex. I leave you with the statement and the facts I’m happy to debate at anytime! Dodd Franks rules are stupid, inappropriate, a hinderance to capital appreciation, small business development, and personal wealth creation,

Dodd Frank Sucks!

Please any constructive comments are welcome leave some.

 

CBJulian

@brsinv.com

@blueridgespring

 

 

 

Character

Character

On the day of independence it seems appropriate to reflect on the battles we’ve dared to fight.  To recap the impetus of our pursuit of justice. To highlight for the American people what we do for our country and what our countries done for us.

We had years of sorted battles with government officials in Patrick County VA, as we began development of a business in a small rural community. There were many battles, most of them Government driven obstruction to progress, all leading to lengthy and costly delays. In 2012 we learned Governments implementation of Dodd Frank would again place a major obstacle in front of our efforts and force us to pursue funding from a USDA farm loan program.

The way we view what happened next goes like this.

The USDA raped my family.

Stole all be it a nominal amount of money from my family.

Committed fraud and mail fraud against my family.

Lied to my family.

Put my family through a process intentionally designed to deny fair procedures.

Lied about my family.

Illegally accessed our credit files committing fraud and mail fraud again in an attempt to cover up the fact they’d not pulled a credit report as procedurally required before denying the farm loan application. An intentional premeditated act of malice and forethought to deny access to a Government funded loan program with the intent to wipe out our business.

Denied fair procedures in a hearing on these matters including the direct denial of presenting evidence the credit report was never obtained as procedurally required.

Imposed post facto law against my family in violation of the procedural rules of retroactivity and in violation of the Constitution.

Operated a racket intentionally designed for the obstruction of justice.

Orchestrated a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Abused deference by design as part of their racket to write a law to justify the crimes they committed against us.

14 Felonies committed by Government personnel so stated the only lawyer ever to review the case assessed. A lawyer I might add who declined to take the case and was later appointed by Obama to U.S district Attorney for the jurisdiction in which the case was filed.

Federal District Court Judge Jackson L. Kiser violated his oath, the law, the constitution, the Federal rules of civil procedure to aid and abet this government agency in avoiding accountability for their crimes.

To avoid accountability for the Gross negligent mis management of a Government Agency by its management and Congress.

Fourth Circuit Court Judges Clyde H. Hamilton, Robert B. King and Barbara Milano Keenan, ignored the criminal acts of the USDA and Judge Jackson L. Kiser to protect the Governments criminal enterprise.

The Court of Federal Claims Judge Edward J. Damich who appears had a role in the creation of this criminal enterprise refused to acknowledge he had taken an oath of office or that he would abide by that oath during proceedings. He declined to hold judge Jackson L. Kiser accountable for violating the trust obligations of his official duties.

The Court of Appeals Federal Circuit Chief Justice Sharon Prost who was Judge Edward J. Damich likely boss at the time the enterprise was created and also would’ve played a role in the implementation of the laws which enabled the USDA’s criminal enterprise chose to circumvent a writ of mandamus seeking to ensure our case be heard by an unbiased judge. On appeal she and Judges Raymond T. Chen, and Kara F. Stoll  justified their opinion with precedent on the criminal RICO statute and not on the Civil Statute which provided the monetary damages the filling sought to obtain.  We view this as an intentional act to obstruct justice by forcing a plea to the Supreme Court rarely ever answered and we believe rarely answered often with specific intent to deny justice and protect the Governments criminal enterprises from the laws of the land.

The American people should realize this is Government operating a criminal enterprise in violation of federal laws, in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has telegraphed often its belief it operates unconstitutionally publicly and to Congress. Congress knows of the Supreme Courts views and while its made efforts to pass laws to stop the lawless abuses it has not gotten one signed into law.

The Supreme Court knowing this is unconstitutional and is being abused is guilty of treason on the Constitution and the American people by allowing it to continue even when challenged in appropriate courts and cases.

The American people need to understand the US Government is acting criminally and the Federal Judiciary is aiding and abetting them in crimes against the American People. These are acts of treason by traitors within our society. So Called Judges!

These crimes have gone on now for decades and destroyed the life, livelihood, liberty and happiness of hundreds of thousands of American people. Pointlessly, because, Government-Congress is grossly, negligently, incompetently, mismanaging the American peoples resources and unwilling to atone for their crimes and incompetence.

As simply and straight forward as I can say it:

The US Government committed numerous criminal and abusive acts against my family while the Federal Courts have gifted them unconstitutionally with the ability to create  new law to avoid being held accountable for the significant and atrocious damages they caused. Tyranny! which Thomas Jefferson defined as ” that which is legal for the government , but illegal for the citizenry”

The combination of the Governments actions with Dodd Frank and the specific intent to deny my family access to a Government funded Farm loan have caused untold financial and emotional damages to my family and posterity.

Whats the great American Lie?

No one is above the law! Because Government is above the law when judges with absolute immunity protect them. Judges with absolute immunity are above the law when they refuse to hold one another accountable to it.

Such is the impetus for a War on Government and the Federal Judiciary protecting it from the people their supposed to serve. Ask yourself if these judges are aiding, abetting, and protecting a Government Agency and its personnel engaged in a criminal enterprise should they not be removed from the bench for violating their oaths of office? For Treason?

I suggest the American people demand the Government face a Jury Trial!

I suggest the American people demand to know why Mainstream Media has not reported these facts?

I suggest the American people demand to know why these Judges where not held accountable by their Appellate courts?

I suggest if any American doubts the validity of these allegations they put up a jury trial to hear the unabridged evidence and lets have a public trial mock or otherwise to shine light on the criminal nature of our Government.  On the oppressive, despotic, ruling tyrant its become.

A criminal enterprise owned and operated by the Federal Government aided and abetted by the federal judiciary is treason on the people and the constitution and the reason America must demand an end to immunity protections Government and the Judiciary  have gifted themselves.

If my allegations are true these judges are protecting treason, protecting a criminal government enterprise, protecting criminals, and protecting the hundreds of legislators who signed off on establishing a criminal enterprise to hide their incompetence.

These so called judges have sided with the enemies of every fallen US solider and thus have blood on their hands; indelible stains on their integrity, their independence, their character.

These facts and those surrounding the precursor of Dodd Frank the sub prime financial collapse of 2009 are now before Federal District Court Judge Robert J. Conrad in the Federal District Court of North Carolina Western District case 3:16-cv-173. Judge Conrad has been almost totally silent since this case was filled April 15,2016, now fourteen months on the docket.

The Governments continued denial of fair hearings, of justice; The  continuous arbitrary rulings by Government officials “Traitors” is persistent and unrelenting psychological rape. It must be stopped and eliminating immunity protection is key. As Montesquieu said “there’s no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.”

They claim its unfair to attack a judge because they can’t defend themselves. In this case it doesn’t matter, there’s simply is no defense for treason, no defense of the Judiciary becoming a coconspirator with congress against We The People. We The People  should not blindly trust and accept the actions of any branch of Government because as Thomas Jefferson said “all history hath shown to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots”

Fourth of July 2017 and we have no independence from the despotism of our corrupted Government kings who’ve gifted themselves and each other to be above the law.

Chief Justice John Roberts on Character; on all the things the Federal Judiciary has given my family.

John Roberts.png

I look forward to the days of enjoying my BBQ.

CBJulian

@Blueridgespring

@blueridgesprings.brsinv.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petition for Rehearing Denied

Petition for Rehearing Denied

The Petition below to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals was Denied by Chief Justice Sharon Prost, and two new kids Judge Chen and Judge Stoll. See the Court order 13-petition-denied Note: denial of this petition effects the precise outcome predicted long before the complaint was ever filed see the blog post Any doesn’t Mean Any Anymore

Below is the petition as submitted and denied. Note: The Court has dismissed this case for failure to state a claim. No request, in this case was ever made to Amend the Complaint. Plaintiff’s do not believe the complaint is deficient but, rather the court simply wishes to impose the Governments will with false statements and reliance on assumption rather than fact.

The Federal Courts participate in these proceedings as if they were Counsel for the Defense of the U.S. Government. There is literally no appearance of impartiality by the Federal Judiciary.

***********************************************************************************************************

The Panels decision conflicts with decisions of the United States Supreme Court in:

United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009);

United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538, 100 S.Ct. 1349,63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980);

United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976);

Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 599, 607,372 F.2d 1002, 1009 (1967));

Compagnie General Transatlantique v. United States, D.C., 21 F.2d 465, 466.(1927);

The Court of Appeals for the Federal District Opinion relies on:

Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009);

Plaintiffs find no indication, other than the Courts reliance and citation; these cases are binding precedent in the Federal Court of Claims or in the Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. To the extent they are Plaintiffs seek to have them overruled.

  1. 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) is a money-mandating statute conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1) based on identifiable decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

 The Court of Appeals states at 5 ¶2 of their Opinion:

“to the extent that Plaintiffs now argue that the RICO Act is, itself, a money-mandating statute conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims,4 we hold that it is not.[1] See Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009).“ [2]

This statement of the Court presents numerous issues.

First the Court implies by this statement Plaintiffs had not previously argued RICO Act was a money-mandating statute, which is false, and evidenced by the Courts footnote 4 and fact it is specifically stated in the Complaint at Dkt item 1. p.14 ¶42(3) (Consideration)

“This statute providing a civil cause of action identifies a source of substantive law separate from the Tucker Act creating a right to monetary damages”

It was further discussed in Plaintiffs responsive reply brief Dkt. Item 7 (C) p. 20-23. Second by implication the Court appears to concede RICO is a money-mandating statute but contends its one that does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims.[3] The Court has then citied precedent Plaintiffs were not afforded opportunity to address. If it’s the Courts contention, the Federal Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to hear a criminal RICO case plaintiffs would agree that’s true, however, if it’s the courts contention the Federal Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction with regards to RICO’s civil cause of action as another separate source of law mandating compensation by the Federal Government when paired with the Tucker act; Plaintiffs would argue that’s not in accordance with the Court of Federal Claims mandated jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1), or with the Supreme Courts interpretations which Plaintiffs relied on in filing the complaint. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges Jurisdiction under the Tucker Act of 1887, codified at 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1), which allows the Court of Claims to entertain claims against the United States “founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress. 18 U.S.C §1964(c) is an act of Congress and a Federal statute. The Supreme Court stated: Justice Anton Scalia United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009);

““Neither the Tucker Act nor the Indian Tucker Act creates substantive rights; they are simply jurisdictional provisions that operate to waive sovereign immunity for claims premised on other sources of law (e.g., statutes or contracts).” Quoting United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538, 100 S.Ct. 1349, 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980) “The other source of law need not explicitly provide that the right or duty it creates is enforceable through a suit for damages, but it triggers liability only if it “`can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government.” (quoting Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 599, 607, 372 F.2d 1002, 1009 (1967)) [4]

The court must recognize that in District court case 4:13-cv-00054 JLK; while liability usually lies with a third party defendant in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), The liability in case 4:13-cv-00054 JLK and consequently this instant case lies with the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government was rightfully the defendant in the RICO civil suit filed in a Federal Court of appropriate jurisdiction. The court as agent / trustee for the U.S. Government and We The People, converted the terms of agreement to become judge, jury, and defendant, dismissing its own case without due process of law in violation of Plaintiffs procedural rights. The Government in this case is liable for damages as both Defendant and as agent / trustee, which breached its fiduciary duty of care with regards to the Plaintiffs procedural rights.[5]

Justice Blackmum United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976);

“The Tucker Act is merely jurisdictional, and grant of a right of action must be made with specificity. The respondents do not rest their claims upon a contract; neither do they seek the return of money paid by them to the Government. It follows that the asserted entitlement to money damages depends upon whether any federal statute “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained.[6]

In this instant case Plaintiffs have rested their claims upon a contract created with the grant of a private cause of action and although, they do not seek return of money paid by them to the Government, they have asserted entitlement to money damages based upon substantive rights conveyed to the plaintiffs by congressional grant with the evocation of federal statute 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) in case 4:15-cv-00054-JLK. When the Federal Government is defendant in a RICO case the money mandate of the statute is the liability of the Federal Government and the Federal Government is additionally liable as agent / trustee when breaching its duty of care.

Judge Davis Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 599, 607, 372 F.2d 1002, 1009 (1967));

“But it is not every claim involving or invoking the Constitution, a federal statute, or a regulation which is cognizable here. The claim must, of course, be for money.

“In the second group, where no such payment has been made, the allegation must be that the particular provision of law relied upon grants the claimant, expressly or by implication, a right to be paid a certain sum” [7]

Plaintiffs have from the beginning maintained the particular provision of law relied upon 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) expressly granted them the right to treble damages, attorney’s fees, and court cost i.e. to be paid, a certain sum of money-mandated compensatory damages, that the promise (Offer) of these substantive rights to property was conveyed by Congresses explicit grant of a civil cause of action with 18 U.S.C §1964, a grant, which conveyed the promises (offer)[8] of those damages by the filing of a complaint under 18 U.S.C. §1964(c). That this particular provision of law relied upon conveyed the promise an express written offer to Plaintiffs who met the stated terms of qualification, adhered to terms of performance, and anticipated assuming the position of a Private Attorney General for the prosecution of a US Government operated RICO enterprise. Justice Aufustus Hand Compagnie General Transatlantique v. United States, D.C., 21 F.2d 465, 466,(1927).

 “* * *. To limit the recovery in cases `founded’ upon a law of Congress to cases where the law provides in terms for a recovery would make that provision of the Tucker Act almost entirely unavailable, because it would allow recovery only in cases where laws other than the Tucker Act already created a right of recovery. `Founded’ must therefore mean reasonably involving the application of a law of Congress. * * *” [9]

 The courts findings the RICO Act does not confer jurisdiction is correct however, the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1) which says founded upon any Act of Congress and under the Supreme Courts interpretations of that Statute a RICO’s Civil Cause of Action filed against the U.S. Government creates a reasonable right of recovery from the Federal Government.

As Justice Scalia conveys other sources of law (e.g., statutes or contracts) triggering liability if it can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government. Justice Blackmum entitlement to money damages confers where “any” federal statute can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained. Judge Davis the allegation must be the particular provision of law relied upon grants the claimant, expressly or by implication, a right to be paid a certain sum. Justice Aufustus founded means reasonably involving the application of a law of Congress.

18 U.S.C. §1964(c) is a Federal statute (a law of Congress) granting to a private citizen, meeting stated requirements, the mandated promise of treble damages, attorney fees, and court cost, for accepting the Governments offer of compensation in exchange for prosecuting a criminal case in the publics interest. When the Federal Government is the defendant in a criminal RICO case its fair to interpret the statute as expressly mandating compensation of a certain sum from the Federal Government. Furthermore, as agent / trustee of the U.S. Government, which breached its duty of care in the prosecution of a Government Agency, the Federal Government becomes libel for the full potential benefit of a successful prosecution.

The Courts reliance on Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009).“ is Misapprehended; neither of these cases involved a breach of contract or takings claim, for a specific performance failure, where the RICO statue had been evoked in an appropriate jurisdiction. Neither of these cases looked at RICO as another source of law mandating compensation by the Federal Government on which a breach of contract or taking claim under the Tucker act was founded. Neither of these cases looked at a civil action under the RICO statute.

However, if its the courts contention 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) does not fall within the Courts jurisdiction Plaintiffs challenge such an interpretation as not in accordance with the jurisdictional mandate for 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1) nor in accordance with Supreme Court precedential interpretation of the jurisdiction conferred on the Court as discussed supra.

To the extent Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009) is precedential opinion in the Federal Circuit which was relied on in Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs would ask to have this precedent overruled by the Federal Circuit. The Court stated its justification in Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009) at p.5 B. “The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff’s Criminal Claims”

“This court has no jurisdiction over RICO claims, because RICO is a criminal statute.” And excluded 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) by specifically referencing “18 U.S.C. §§1961- 62”

In Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014) The Court stated:

“These claims do not fall within the court’s jurisdiction as defined by the Tucker Act because none of those statutes or constitutional provisions mandate the payment of money. See Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009) (holding that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over RICO claims).”

In Hufford v. United States the Court found it-lacked jurisdiction because RICO was a criminal statute and specified §§1961- 62, however, 18 U.S.C §1964(c) grants a “Civil” cause of action not “Criminal” a civil cause where the United States was defendant. The contention the Court lacks jurisdiction is inconsistent with Supreme Court interpretations of the court of Federal Claims jurisdictional mandate under 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1) as discussed supra. If the Federal Court of Appeals has found as Plaintiffs consistently argued 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) is a Federal Statute mandating compensatory damages for economic injuries i.e. a money-mandating statute see Dkt. Item 7 (C ) p. 20-23, and Plaintiffs maintain it is. Then it would fall within the Courts jurisdiction and the misapprehended conclusion of Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Statute does not “mandate the payment of money” is false.

  1. 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) Grants a Private cause of action a clear indication the legislature intended to create private Contractual or vested rights.

The Court of Appeals states at 6 ¶2 of their Opinion.

“Plaintiffs’ allegations do not establish that any contract existed between Plaintiffs and the government. Plaintiffs’ Characterization of §1964(c) as a contract “offer” is false.” “[A]bsent some clear indication that the legislature intends to bind itself contractually, the presumption is that a law is not intended to create private contractual or vested rights” “Nothing in RICO Act suggests it was intended to function as a contract offer to private citizens.[10]

The Court of Appeals states at 4 ¶5

“ Dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper only when a plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”

And at 5 ¶1.

“we must assume that all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint are true.”

However, the court has based its argument on reliance of an assumption, the presumption the legislature did not intend to bind itself contractually. The Court has assumed Plaintiffs could prove no set of facts to support the claim 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) constitutes a valid offer and that in fact the statute is intended to convey contractual private rights. Contrary to the Courts precedent in Hufford v. United States “RICO is a criminal statute.” 18 U.S.C. §1964 is the congressional “GRANT” for a “CIVIL” cause of action of criminal offenses, a clear indication Congress intended to convey to the private citizen the vested right to prosecute a criminal offense for compensation. [11]

Plaintiffs would ask the Court? How this statute conveys the right to prosecute and the compensatory damages to a private citizen if not by offering to do so? How does a Pro Se become a “Private Attorney General” for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate, a woefully painful, unusual, challenging and demanding position, without an offer from Government to do so? The term applies only to the exercise of one’s ability to pursue certain specific kinds of legal actions statutorily authorized (offered). It does not create the ability to call one’s self a “private attorney general”. Consequently, the term is only applicable to a private non-attorney citizen who has accepted the statutory offer to do so.[12]

The Senate reports on the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees award Act of 1976 S. Rep. 94-1011 p.6 (1976) The Committee acknowledged that,

“[i]f private citizens are to be able to assert their civil rights, and if those who violate the Nation’s fundamental laws are not to proceed with impunity, then citizens must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rights in court.”

The Senate obviously intended to offer citizens, the opportunity to recover what it cost them to vindicate their rights in Court. [13]

Whether it’s a Grant, cognizable as a taking or an offer as a contract [14]neither is applicable without the Plaintiffs acceptance of the rights and promises conveyed and a Plaintiff cannot assume private attorney general status without a valid acceptance of the authorization to do so. Furthermore, the statute provides, a promise of substantial and significant benefit to the American people, the potential demise of USDA’s RICO enterprise. This Court has balanced the scales of justice with assumptions rather than fact inconsistent with the Courts procedural rule FRCP 1. They should be construed and administered to secure the “just” determination of every action.

The Courts reliance on Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465–66 (1985) (quoting Dodge v. Bd. of Ed., 302 U.S. 74, 79 (1937)). ).“ Is a Misapprehended assumption for injustice and to the extent the Court relies on the case as precedential Plaintiffs seek to have it overruled in this instance.

  1. Plaintiff’s claims are at bottom a request the Court of Federal Claims review whether Government violated the Plaintiffs procedural due process rights and failed faithfully to perform its agency / trustee duties effecting a breach of contract or taking of personal property.

The Court of Appeals states at 5 ¶2 of their Opinion:

“Plaintiffs’ claims are, at bottom, requests that the Court of Federal Claims review the Western District of Virginia’s decision to dismiss Plaintiffs’ earlier action.”

This is false! Plaintiffs claims are at bottom a request the Court of Federal Claims review whether Government violated the Plaintiffs procedural due process rights and failed faithfully to perform its agency / trustee duties affecting a breach of contract or taking of personal property conveyed to Plaintiffs by an act of Congress. Rights granted with specific intent to grant Plaintiffs status as a prosecutor of Government corruption, in a Government violating the fundamental laws of this Nation, in a prosecutorial void, where the Governments action aided the Government in avoiding prosecution and effected the Governments will to unconstitutionally write new law preserving the Governments corrupt objectives. [15] To the extent the court relies on Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Regarding this matter Plaintiffs would seek to have the precedent overruled in this instance.

Submitted by,

Christopher B Julian Pro-Se

[1] Emphasis added.

[2] The court states “Plaintiffs now argue” yet its noted in footnote 4 that plaintiffs consistently argued this point throughout the proceedings. It was in fact the DOJ who argued the RICO’s damages were not money-mandating.

[3] In all prior argument the defense argued the statute was not money mandating and the Court did never clarify it.

[4] Emphasis Altered.

[5] That Judge Jackson L. Kiser chose to deny the Plaintiffs procedural rights to aid the Governments RICO enterprise is a matter between him and the Government.

[6] Emphasis altered.

[7] Emphasis Altered.

[8] To an agrieved farmer who’s business has been wipped out by government actions the prospect of being paid a reasonable attorneys fee to prosecute the offender is a very attractive offer.

[9] Emphasis added.

[10] Emphasis added.

[11] A Pro Se would be entitled to the same Attorneys fees as a Plaintiff represented by counsel

[12] The relationship might be different if an attorney prosecuted the case for a non-attorney client in anticipation of collecting an attorney’s fees.

[13] The burden of proof in a civil case is a preponderance of the evidence.

[14] How is it appropriate for the Court to presume the legislature did not intend to bind itself contractually without allowing for the presentation of evidence to the contrary?

[15] As an Article I court, the duty of Congresses separation of powers responsibility, to hold the Federal Judiciary accountable has been conveyed to the Court of Federal Claims. The Courts Duty is to render justice against the Government in favor of citizens just as it would administer between private individuals. It just takes one bad apple corp. to spoil the whole bushel.

Up-Date 10 -8- 2016 For benefit of readers you should know that every one of the courts prior arguments were shown to be based on incongruent premise. The court did not and could not provide any argument for  accepting as true their faulty unsupportable premises. So where this argument suggest a precedent be overruled it was not without significant prior support for doing so.  The very fact the this court supported their opinion with precedent on statutes which were different from the bases of the filing and arguments shows their specific intent was to deny justice. I.e. Criminal RICO and Civil RICO are different statutes!!

Judging the Judges of a Judge.

Judging the Judges of a Judge.

You should be paying attention. What’s presented in the Court of Appeals Federal District Case 16-1889 , is a case before the second highest court in America, where the questions are; whether the Federal Government is liable for criminal acts of a Federal Judge who’s violated a legislative promise to the American people to hold Government accountable to the law, and whether the Federal Judiciary will protect, hold accountable, or should judge, a Superior Federal District Court Judge for aiding and abetting the USDA ‘s criminal enterprise, protecting it from prosecution.

I say, If not, there’s no case in America where the judiciary will hold a member of the judicial corp. accountable, and the judicial system is quite simply corrupt and the rule of law in America meaningless. The results are in see: Petition for Rehearing Denied

Plaintiffs claims are a request the Court of Federal Claims review whether Governments employee “ Federal Superior District Judge Jackson L. Kiser violated the Plaintiffs procedural due process rights and failed faithfully to perform his duty as an agent / trustee affecting a breach of contract or taking of personal property conveyed to Plaintiffs by an act of Congress “Title 18 Chapter 96 §1964(c)”. Rights granted by legislation with the specific intent to appoint the plaintiff as a prosecutor for the express purpose of prosecuting Government corruption “the USDA’s RICO enterprise”, in a Government agency violating the fundamental laws of this Nation “ the due process and equal justice clauses of the constitution of the United States, in a prosecutorial void “ The DOJ defends Government Agencies even criminal ones”, where the Governments action “The Actions of Federal employee Superior Federal District Court Judge Jackson L. Kiser aided and abetted the Government “ The USDA’s RICO enterprise” in avoiding prosecution and effected the Governments “USDA’s” will to unconstitutionally write new law “ Usurping the legislators and the Judiciary” while preserving the Governments “USDA’S” criminal and corrupt objectives [1] as a criminal abusive tyrant.

Its all just one big  happy Government Criminal Racket however, the Legislative intent was to prevent judicial collusion by creating a civil cause of action for a criminal offense placing the verdict in the hands of a Jury and not the Judiciary.

Under the Tucker act the Supreme Court Stated in United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009). a Plaintiff  “must identify a substantive source of law that establishes specific fiduciary or other duties, and allege that the Government has failed faithfully to perform those duties.”  “If that threshold is passed, the court must then determine whether the relevant source of substantive law `can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation for damages sustained as a result of a breach of the duties [the governing law] impose[s].'”

Due Process and the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution are substantive sources of law, and impose a  agency / fiduciary duty on a Judge, to abide by the law, his oath of office, his judicial cannons, the federal rules of civil procedure, and in this instant case a fiduciary duty is imposed on him to protect the property rights, treble damages, attorney fees, and court cost that flow from the Plaintiffs economic damages and the restitution promised by statute  18 U.S.C.§1964(c) for bringing suit against the U.S. Government for racketeering.

  1. Judge Jackson L. Kiser breached his fiduciary duty by dismissing the charges for failure to state a claim while denying a single amendment to the Complaint  by a Pro -Se his court instructed not to make legal arguments, cite cases, or statutes. This in a case alleging a government conspiracy to deny due process and equal justice, A felony and when done as a racket an act of treason on the constitution and the American People. How serious did Judge Jackson L.Kiser take his oath to uphold the law and the constitution?
  2. The Statute promises treble damages, Attorney Fees, and court cost to the successful litigant. The supreme court has stated these are economic damages for economic injury see Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates][107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987)] : “RICO and the Clayton Act are designed to remedy economic injury by providing for the recovery of treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. Where the Federal government is the defendant it  can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government.”

There’s a solid  case Judge Jackson L. Kiser failed faithfully to perform his fiduciary and agency duties in the application of a federal statute which can fairly be interpreted as mandating treble damages, court cost, and attorney’s fees as compensation by the Federal Government.

So far the Court has not acted as a neutral adjudicator but as an attorney for the defense of the U.S Governments criminal operations like a Judiciary criminally protecting organized crime.

[1] As an Article I court, the duty of Congresses separation of powers responsibility, to hold the Federal Judiciary accountable has been conveyed to the Court of Federal Claims. The Courts Duty is to render justice against the Government in favor of citizens just as it would administer between private individuals. It just takes one bad apple corp. to spoil the whole bushel.

For more on this topic see:Federal Court Opinion Balances Scales of Justice With Lies. And Integrity & Independence in the Federal Judiciary.

 

CBJulian

@blueridgesprings

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Not a Pro Pro-Se Per Se.

Letter to Judge Robert J. Conrad August 29,2016.

Letter to Judge Robert J. Conrad August 29,2016.

Christopher B. Julian

474 Orchard View Drive

Ararat Virginia, 24053

980-254-1295

Christopher.b.julian@gmail.com

Pro Se   Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Christopher B. And Renee G.

 

Julian

Plaintiffs(s),

V,

Bank Of America N.A. Et Al

 

)

)

 

Case Number: 3:16-CV-173

Letter to the Honorable Judge Robert J. Conrad

Requesting the Courts ruling on the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis                             

Letter requesting the Courts ruling on the prior motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Plaintiffs Christopher B. and Renee G. Julian; here and after referred to as Plaintiffs, respectfully request the Honorable Judge Robert J. Conrad rule on the motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Docket item 2 based on the following justifications.

Justifications:

This Case 3:16-CV-00173 has been on the court’s docket four months.

 If the court finds Plaintiffs financially eligible and the complaint meritorious Plaintiffs believe they have a fundamental right under the 7th Amendment for the case to continue and the court should require issuance and service of process. If the court finds for any reason the complaint is deficient then the court should allow for amendment of the complaint unless its deficiencies cannot be cured. Plaintiffs would request if the court finds for any reason the complaint deficient Plaintiffs’ be granted a request for leave of Court to amend the complaint.

This Case has potential to assist Plaintiffs with legal aid in the Prosecution of another Federal case in the Publics interest.

 Plaintiffs informed the Court in the Complaint “C” Docket (DKT) Item # 1 at p.6 footnote 1. Plaintiffs would again bring Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) charges against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Additionally, in “C” p.41 footnote 17 RICO Provides for a civil cause of action and places the Plaintiff into the role of a prosecutor. And at “C” p.47 footnote 18 Defendants in this instant case may site the USDA for contributory negligence. Consequently, Plaintiffs believe Counsel for the Defense in this instant case would have compelling reason and standing to assist Plaintiffs, in the RICO prosecution of the USDA.

The Initial predicate acts of the RICO filing occurred in October of 2012 and as the Supreme Court has shortened the RICO statutes, statute of limitations, to four years. See Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000). Pro Se Plaintiffs have concerns about the Statute of Limitations for refiling of the RICO Complaint and effects of the RICO’S continued operation on others. True, Plaintiffs originally filed September 2013, and believe the Courts should grant equitable tolling for the statute of limitations but, that remains a concern and Plaintiffs believe the Defense Counsel in this instant case could provide significant legal expertise in the prosecution of the RICO case in the Publics interest.

Legal Expertise and the Poor’s need for assistance.

The importance of legal expertise in protecting civil rights laws and assistance with the Legal cost are detailed in the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976. Where legislators stated see: S. Rep. 94-1011 p.6 (1976).

“In many cases arising under our civil rights laws, the citizen who

must sue to enforce the law has little or no money with which to hire a lawyer. If private citizens are to be able to assert their civil rights, and if those who violate the Nation’s fundamental laws are not to proceed with impunity, then citizens must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rights in court.”

“Congress has instructed the courts to use the broadest and most effective remedies available to achieve the goals of our civil rights laws.”

“If the cost of private enforcement actions becomes too great, there will be no private enforcement. If our civil rights laws are not to become mere hollow pronouncements which the average citizen cannot enforce, we must maintain the traditionally effective remedy of fee shifting in these cases.”

As a Pro Se with little or no money, as the motion for IFP purported; Plaintiffs have found the cost of private enforcement actions too great, and the Civil rights laws protecting the peoples fundamental rights hollow. Taking on the U.S. Federal Government in legal action was of no interest to law firms who insisted on compensation rates from $200 to $800 dollars an hour to look at the cases potential. Consequently, Plaintiffs were and are monetarily prohibited at shopping the RICO case, and legal firms are not willing to review a cases potential, free of charge, nor were they interested in long term potential litigation efforts against the U.S. Government for potential future compensation. Consequently, Plaintiffs have handled all the legal efforts as Pro – Se now for more than 3 years against the largest law firm in the Nation. The benefit of legal assistance cannot be understated, which brought Plaintiffs to realize this instant case creates a common interest with Defendants legal counsel to pursue prosecution of a Government run criminal enterprise. The Courts delay in responding to the Motion to proceed IFP denies Plaintiffs potential access to much greatly desired legal assistance if the court finds the case meritorious.

Prompt litigation to combat racketeering is an obvious objective against the legitimate business activities of organized crime.

The Supreme Courts justification for the shortening of the Statute was because eliminating racketeering the sooner the better is a proper objective see Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549(2000) and Footnote 3 of ¶557

This objective of encouraging prompt litigation to combat racketeering is the most obvious answer to Rotella’s argument that the injury and pattern discovery rule should be adopted because “RICO is to be read broadly” and “ ‘liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes,’ ” Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 Pub. L. 91–452, § 904(a), 84 Stat. 947).”[1]

Furthermore, in the Supreme Court decision of Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates][107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987)] : The Supreme Court stated:

“The antitrust laws now provide a well established vehicle for attacking anticompetitive activity of all kinds. They contain broad discovery provisions as well as civil and criminal sanctions. These extraordinarily broad and flexible remedies ought to be used more extensively against the `legitimate’ business activities of organized crime.” 113 Cong. Rec. 17999 (1967).[2]

And of particular interest should be the citations of the congressional intent. “be used more extensively against the `legitimate’ business activities of organized crime.” And “Congress has instructed the courts to use the broadest and most effective remedies available to achieve the goals of our civil rights laws.”

Plaintiffs request the court rule on the Motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis, effecting process of service or alternatively, to dismiss the case for lack of merit, or identify the Complaints deficiencies and grant Plaintiffs leave to amend. Furthermore, Plaintiffs request the courts acknowledgement of the connection and intent for equitable tolling in the Plaintiffs RICO case. Continued delay, is a delay of fundamental rights, inflicting further emotional distress, continued financial distress, delaying potential access to legal aid, further potential harms to discovery, and prescribes to an appearance of prejudicial treatment. Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court realize, Plaintiffs assume, had the court found the complaint significantly lacking in merit the Court would have already dismissed the case.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Christopher.B.Julian Pro-Se

[1] Emphasis Added.

[2] Emphasis Added.

 

Up-Date 10-7-2016- On September 27th Judge Robert J. Conrad denied after more than 5 months on the docket, A friendly nudge of the court clerk at 3 months, and a month after receiving this letter the request to proceed in forma Pauperis. This is interesting for both its timing; the day after court of Appeals in the Federal Circuit made their lies final. see: federal-court-opinion-balances-scales-of-justice-with-lies & petition-for-rehearing-denied AND On three prior occasions the Federal Courts granted In Forma Pauperis status, the last one was granted 2 days prior to this filing, with the same financial information. Go Figure? Today the Court Fees were paid and the summons issued. Yesterday,  morning the court received via certified mail see USPS Confirmation a motion for the court to reconsider its ruling. It’s interesting and reeks of impropriety that the court docketed the motion as received on 10-7-2016 when USPS confirmed delivery on 10-6-2016. and the Signed receipt for delivery shows received 10-6-2016 Interesting, it was docketed and stamped received 10-7-2016 today after the court fees were paid . The facts unfolding in this court suggest we are once again destined to be treated with impropriety. This ruling while not what we would of liked does suggest three key things. Note: we paid the filing fee after submitting a motion to reconsider the IFP order because, we believe the IFP order to have been a function of will and not one of  judgement. A judge can never change his will only an inappropriate judgement. The Court for all the aforementioned events has forfeited rights to respect. 

  1. The judge must have found the case to have merit.
  2. The judge did not find the filing deficient but, we shall see the replies and how there handled.
  3. The Judge must have found the defendants owed plaintiffs the duty of care in the negligence allegations. We shall see.
Wanted Hard Money R/E secured loan 10% on 2 year commitment of 365,000

Wanted Hard Money R/E secured loan 10% on 2 year commitment of 365,000

4 Years of legal battles with the Federal Government when Dodd Frank locked Small Businesses out of the mortgage market followed by denial of a Farm Loan because, my house was not modest in size cost and design, leaves me unable to obtain a mortgage. The Death of my mother leaves me with her residence and her loan debt. I’m seeking private funding for a Real Estate secured loan. I will establish and place the property into an LLC

Property                                  Tax Value            Book Value        Rented   / Potential   /For Sale

474 Orchard View Drive

Ararat VA Land 23 Acres     113,900.00            176,000.00

Improvements                      113, 000.00          334,000.00

Total                                          226,900.00          510,000.00                                     FS 300,000.00

 

This is a 22.75 acre farm with great vineyard potential click for more photos.

8908 Sharonbrook Drive March 10 2017 Appraised value of 135,000.00 

Charlotte, NC 28210

Land                                         19,100.00

Building                                   56,100.00                                                                                N/A

Total                                       75,200.00           75,000.00          Rental Value                P 1,200 Mth

8910 Sharonbrook Drive

Charlotte, NC 28210

Land                                        19,100.00

Building                                   74,800.00                                                   R 750. + maint   P 1,200 Mth

Total                                        93,900.00          75,000.00                      750.00 mth

Total Total                              396,000.00          660,000.00                      750.00                 2,400.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is residential duplex 1/2 rented near light rail click for more photos

 

Use of Funds

Purchase Cost                           268,000.00

Rehab                                          97,000.00

Total Cost                                   365,000.00

ARV                                             565,000.00

Current Tax Valuations           396,000.00

Total Cost to Tax Value            268/396 = .67

Total Loan to ARV                     365/565 = .64

268,000.00 Purchases property, establishes LLC holding property, Borrower will then place 60,000.00 in cash/equity into the Company which will fund initial rehab expenditures.

See more specifics here. See the Funding Proposal worksheet here. You may need to download it.

Contact Me.

Chris Julian christopher.b.julian@gmail.com