AMERICA COME ON!
What about it America? Should you be required to get permission from a ”corrupt racketeering operation” PERMISSION to sue a racketeer for being a “corrupt racketeering organization”? Is that any kind of logical?
Is the USDA free to run a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization with impunity protected by sovereign immunity? Should we as American citizens not be outraged if that’s the case?
Can you believe the Federal District Court Dismissed 90% of the charges in our case based on a lack of Jurisdiction. Which they grant for failing to request permission from the USDA to file suit against them. From the courts memorandum
of opinion page 15 see Memorandum Of Opinion here.
- BUT We filed this suit not for Negligence, Fraud, Perjury, Discrimination, Denial of Service, Obstruction of Justice, Illegal access of our credit files, or taking money for services never provided.
- But, for Racketeering under Chapter, 18 U.S. Code § 1961 The court acknowledges reading this. IT IS ALSO ON THE CIVIL COVER SHEET AND HOW THE CASE IS DOCKETED ON PACER.GOV. Venue is defined for 18 U.S. Code §1961 in 18 U.S. Code §1965
The US Courts have consistently held that 18 U.S. Code § 1964(c) Applies to Government entities. From the Memorandum to which the court refers above. See it in entirety here
Congress has given Chapter 18 1961 private attorney general status by specifying the payment of attorney’s fees and providing incentive in the form of Treble Damages to private parties in pursuing a suit under this statue. A status vindicating a policy Congress considered of the highest priority.”
Again under 1964(C) Venue is appropriate in any United States District court.
America Come On! If a Federal Statue is viewed by the courts to unambiguously encompass governmental units and the provisions demonstrate a clear congressional intent that RICO be interpreted to apply to the activities that corrupt public or governmental entities. Surely they had no intention that a RICO enterprise inside the US Government would be protected by sovereign immunity. Does the court contend this Federal law does not apply to the USDA or U.S. Government agencies and its personnel? Is the USDA free to run a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization with impunity protected by sovereign immunity? Should we as American citizens not be outraged if that’s the case?
Update 4-24-2017 Yes we should due process requires the government to operate legally and within the law. Running a RICO is in violation of Federal Law. Thomas Jefferson himself described Tyranny as “that which is legal for the government, but illegal for the citizenry”
As to providing the court an argument for an alternative waiver of immunity. They have not allowed a single amendment to the complaint although they instructed us not to make legal arguments, cite statues, or cases in the original complaint. See our blog post on Manifest injustice.
Furthermore as to other crimes “TORTS’ not considered predicates under Rico the courts have held the commission of other crimes are evidentiary in the establishment of a pattern of activity for the furtherance of a RICO’s operations. As to protection from suit for the crimes committed by USDA personnel we have challenged the constitutionality of the FTCA provision requiring permission to sue when the suit is for racketeering.
It is unconstitutional to require a plaintiff to get permission from a ”corrupt racketeering operation” PERMISSION to sue this racketeer for being a “corrupt racketeering organization”? It simply shocks the American conscious to require that we ask a corrupt USDA for permission to sue them for being corrupt. Its manifest injustice.
While the Federal Court references information from the same page in their memorandum “they say” they never saw the constitutional challenge. Furthermore, they ignored all the other challenges to the FTCA found on page 17 (Mem Of Law in Opp to Def Mot to dismiss 17 [ECF 38] ) Under the heading FTCA . Note the reference in the first excerpt above. See it in entirety here Please feel free to read the entire memorandum.
But They never saw it.
They never saw it ?; even though the challenge is under the Heading FTCA and the court cited other statements from the same section. Corrupt Federal Court protecting a corrupt Federal Agency? Who pays the Judges salary?
This court also denies Attorney’s Fees are a valid request although they cite a different statue again not the statue charged in this case.
Come On America Really? No Attorneys don’t get paid for taking a private attorney general role but, I’m not an Attorney I’m a Pro-Se and the Court knows that. Are you going to stand up and help fight this corruption or continue to allow the USDA to run a racketeering operation detrimental to the farming operations of this nation? They have already ruined hundreds of thousands of poor farmers. Tell congress to stop the madness. Read more on USDA civil rights abuse history here.
Find more articles on the USDA’s Civil rights history on our website blueridgesprings.com
- This Court has Created it’s own defense in direct conflict with the evidence. See our Blog Corrupt Federal Court
- Denied the application of Federal Statues for Obstruction of Justice regarding Perjury by a USDA employee. See our Blog Lies, Lying, liar.
- Ignored the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by not allowing a single amendment to a complaint. See our Blog Manifest Injustice.
- Should this Court and this Judge be added as Defendants for Aiding and Abetting the commission of USDA’s RICO enterprise. By allowing Enterprise personnel to avoid accountability or responsibility for criminal acts? For Aiding the Enterprise in denying our right to present evidence and have a fair unbiased hearing. For Violating our civil right to a fair grievance process?
Federal Rules of Civil procedure say a plaintiffs complaint is to be interpreted in a light most favorable to the plaintiff but, this courts memorandum is written completely in a light most favorable to the defense, almost, as though the defense had written it themselves. On other items reflecting the courts lack of neutrality see our blog “Legal Conundrum Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” More to come on the lack of neutrality in this courts opinion.
The Judge told us in the hearing we needed and attorney. What we really needed was an Honest Judge!
Next post to cover the beginning of our FSA story !