Month: January 2014

by

Op Ed for the Federal Courts

I am not a lawyer. I have a formal education and decades of experience as an accountant / analyst. I trained and became a computer programmer and managed financial technical teams and business analyst teams for some of the largest financial consolidations in US history. Although, I’m not a lawyer I’m now representing myself against the largest most funded legal council arguably on the planet.

Although, this is my first, hopefully only legal escapade of my life, I spent most of my career analyzing rules. True they were not the law necessarily but they always involved seeking the truth. Rules for the, Financial Accounting Standards Board FASB. Internal Revenue Service IRS,  Federal Regulatory Reporting for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency OCC, Programming rules requiring that no application of logic ever abended. Consequently, I have a great deal of experience reading, comprehending, and applying rules for truth, presentation and understanding, that had to balance.

However, I find myself having issues with the application of Federal Rules of civil procedure in the Fourth District Federal Court System. I contacted the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This court promptly directed me to the Judicial Conduct & Disability page of their web site. While I did not find my complaint apropos to the application of these rules. I would like to aver arguendo the rules obfuscate the requirements for a legitimate complaint to be usurpation with despotic and haughtier transgression of the common man.  The sites assertion “Almost all complaints in recent years have been dismissed because they do not follow the law about such complaints” is preponderantly unassailable axiomatic evidence that the obfuscation of the enigmatic rules serves  as usurpation of Due Process making the court Un reproachable. In my humble opinion a Sine Qua Non obligation to reform the rules to clarity, a constitutional right of due process.

UpDate 4-21-2017 – I want it understood, the rules referred to in this post were at some point in time after its posting changed and are far more comprehendible today. Although, I suspect few can follow them to satisfy the court still. The Court will dismiss any criticism of any judge or court to defend the integrity the court does not really have.

The Weak
by

The Weak

We’re a week away from the due date set by the court for the U.S. Attorney General to reply to the complaint as representation for the USDA. Unlike previously they’ve not called indicating their intent to request a further extension. Therefore, we anticipate some sort of response. None too soon after four months of waiting for a response our mental health grows weak.

The court did not and has not ruled on the Virginia State Attorney Generals’ offices Motion to dismiss and claim of Sovereign immunity. Given our conundrum explained in the last post. “A Legal Conundrum by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(e)”  we’re just not sure really what to make of their silence. I considered a motion for summary judgment but, that would negate a gross negligence charge, and eliminate the potential for discovery. We’d like to know Who, What, When, and especially Why?  By not providing a ruling the court is effectively delaying any requirement for a response. If the court considers the point mute, then we should expect default judgment for failure to respond to the complaint, and failure to set a hearing on the motion which is also not effective for failure to serve. Court Bias, Was all of the State’s move just a red herring to avoid responding to the complaint? Does that not deserve sanctions?  Did the court knowingly aid the State? Court Biased? 

It’s 19 degrees outside. The only heat we have is the fireplace. The temperature dropped to 2 last night. My daughter is complaining of being cold. No wonder in a house without, windows and doors, a finished roof, or insulation. A government agency, grossly negligent, incompetent personnel, fraudulent and criminal behaviors. People lost their jobs, businesses, and lives were destroyed; my daughter froze all because a Government agency wanted to deny a loan application because this unfinished self-built self-funded home is large.

What we allege are grossly negligent, fraudulent, criminal acts by Government employees and racketeering by Government agencies. The Government wants to claim sovereign immunity. We can’t be held responsible or accountable for breaches of the laws we enacted because we’re the sovereign we’re beyond reproach. The land of freedom and democracy with rights protected under the constitution unless, of course, the Government steals them?  Yes, America what a wonderful country, or is it one of tyranny and oppression?  Just what kind of response will the Department of Justice offer. What will the court do?  Regardless we will fight! For truth, honor, and justice – may the unbending sword of truth prevail.

by

Legal Conundrum by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(e)

September 16,2013, A lawsuit was filed in which a defendant is the Project Director for the Virginia State Agricultural Mediation Program. Mrs. Wanda Johnson Consequently, this individual is represented by the Virginia State Attorney Generals Office by Katherine DeCoster.

October 15, 2013, The Virginia State Assistant Attorney General filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file an answer.

October 15, 2013, The Virginia State Assistant Attorney General filed a Notice of appearance.

October 18, 2013 The Virginia State Assistant Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

October 21, 2013, Court Granted the motion of time to answer the complaint.

October 22.2013, Court posted and sent Plaintiffs a Roseboro Notice.

October 28, 2013 After receiving the Rosboro Notice Plaintiffs informed the Virginia State Attorney General that the motions filed from October 15 – 18 had not been served.

November 8, 2013 Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim by the deadline presented on the Roseboro Notice.

November 15, 2013 Virginia State Attorney General filed a reply to the plaintiffs response.

Since November 15, 2013 theres been no activity recorded on the docket. The court has not posted any ruling on the motion.

Here is this Pro-Se Civil procedure conundrum. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b) Service How Made (2) Service in General. A paper is served under this rule by: (e)  sending it by electronic means if the person consented in writing—in which event service is complete upon transmission, but is not effective if the serving party learns that it did not reach the person to be served;

Plaintiffs never consented in writing to electronic service, The court told Plaintiffs  they would not be allowed access for electronic filings. The clerk of court stated that Pro-Se litigants were never given electronic filing access. We were however, informed we could make a motion to the court for access to electronic filing.

Since plaintiffs notified the Virginia State Attorney General on October, 28, 2013 of the failure to properly serve. Does that mean that none of the motions filed by the State Attorney General are effective and therefore, none of the courts rulings on those motions including the Roseboro Notice was valid?

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been no help in understanding the impact of these facts. The Plaintiffs are left currently wondering if the court with knowledge of these facts is simply ignoring the motions for failure to properly serve? Should the plaintiffs motion for judgment for failure to respond to the complaint. Should the Virginia State Attorney General  have resubmitted the motions to the court. Should the State Attorney General be subject to sanctions. Should the Federal District Court Sanction itself?

We have no desire to see this case turn in any direction on some procedural technicality.  As Pro-Se Plaintiffs we hope the court will be lenient with us on procedural matters. We only want to see Justice, Honor, and Ethical behavior and application of the Law within accordance of statues and the constitution.   Lets hope we don’t try to find the depth of a rabbit hole.

Up-Date 4-21-2017 There is no end to the depth of this rabbit hole!