Judge Jackson L. Kiser sends U.S. Marshall with comments on my Blog.

Judge Jackson L. Kiser sends U.S. Marshall with comments on my Blog.

Untitled 1

Untitled 2

Untitled 3

Untitled 4

Untitled 5

Read the filing Judge Kiser refers to on page 1 Here Reply to Response DeCoster Sanctions.. Pay careful attention to what the filing actually says.

Update 3-3-2016 I invite you to read the blog post to which Judge Jackson L. Kiser has referred in his show cause order. I believe you will find that contrary to his statement of being wholly unsubstantiated in each article the allegations are backed up by supporting documentation and evidence. Secondly, if you carefully read the statement made in the court filing you will see that Judge Jackson L. Kiser’s allegation I called him and his court criminal and corrupt is not accurate but, was as he runs his court based entirely on his personal assumption and bias. Nowhere in that statement was his name or any reference to his courtroom made. It’s a statement no different than one repeated countless ways throughout the ages on issues with court neutrality and objective application of the law by countless judges.

Update 5-3-2017 It should have been noted long ago. Held in front of the Marshall is a document showing that plaintiffs were already scheduled to appear in court on the date of the Show cause order the Marshall is serving. I.E. Judge Kiser sent the U.S. Marshall purely and solely for the purpose of intimidation. 

Really nice public / Government employee rare find in Virginia.

Really Nice U.S. Marshall

Really Nice U.S. Marshall

Everyone is free to believe what

Everyone is free to believe what he or she tells himself or herself to believe. But facts don’t lie. So be sure before you lie to yourself that you know the facts.

Federal Court is not what you would expect. Let’s take a look at a few prime examples provided by the U.S. Attorney General’s Office of Western Virginia represented by Kartic Padmanabhan in the Federal District Court of Virginia Danville Division. Mr. Padmanabhan recently represented the USDA defendants in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization RICO lawsuit. Mr. Padmanabhan made a number of statements, which were very interesting to a Pro-Se victim for the first time ever in a courtroom.

Is a lie, a lie if you don’t know it’s a lie? Is it a lie if you claim you did not know you were lying? Ask a Federal Court Judge but find one that’s not a liar. Don’t ask an attorney they have to be liars they never know which side of a case they’ll be representing.

Mr. Padmanabhan has a job with an interesting parody to it. On the one hand, the DOJ prosecutes civilian criminals and occasionally government employees when they come under the scrutiny of Congress or the Senate. However, on the other side of the coin, the DOJ defends civil servants and Government Agencies who commit crimes against the people.

Interesting parody prosecutes criminal civilians and defends civil servants for the same crimes.

So here are a few questions to consider? Is it a crime for an attorney from the DOJ to lie to a federal court judge in a hearing? Is it a lie if you really don’t know you lying? How about, is it a lie if you sure as hell; should have known the truth about a material fact in a case?

Interesting because I’m not sure whether Mr. Padmanabhan was just outright lying to a Federal Court judge, or he simply had done a criminal job of reviewing the case! Maybe he had a bad memory or perhaps that’s just the way the DOJ operates in protecting bad government actors. Here are a few examples of Mr. Padmanabhan’s performance.

Example 1.

Mr. Padmanabhan made the following statements to the judge you may review the court transcripts here. See the first one is on page 7 top of the last paragraph. The second is on Page 10 center paragraph.

Judicial Review

More Judicial Review

But let’s take a look at what the complaint actually said about judicial review. This is taken directly from the complaint you can view it here see pleading with cover sheer this excerpt is on page 15.  Just how could it be stated any more clearly? But the Government did me a favor by assuming that was the intention.

Complaint Judicial Review

Example 2.

Mr. Padmanabhan tells the Judge plaintiff argues the house is not on the farm property. And the Judge explains that’s a problem with the plaintiff’s argument. Excerpt from the court transcript page 8 last paragraph.  see it here in the Court Trans script Motion Hearing.

House is not on the Farm

House not on farm the court

Court 2 not on the farm

Apparently, more than 7 months after filing the complaint, Mr. Padmanabhan did not read the complaint documents and exhibits or listen to the hearing tapes. The Judge apparently did not read or listen to them either. Why else would they be wrong about a material fact of the case? Yes, this is a material argument falsely represented by the NAD Director Roger Klurfield.

Take a look at this issue in the complaint filing on page 15 item 21. See it Here in Pleading as filed with Coversheet. House is on the FArm

That the house is actually on the farm is documented no less than ten times in the complete filing with exhibits.

Perhaps they got it wrong because the USDA NAD director attempted to justify a major portion of his position with this lie or perhaps this is the lie the NAD director etc. wanted the public to see. After all, only his summary of events goes on the public record.

Example 3. I love this one most of all. “ They acted clearly within the scope of their employment” See it here in the court transcript page 6 center paragraph.

Acted within the scope of their jobs

They’re accused of multiple acts of negligence, fraud, perjury, illegally accessing a credit report, providing inaccurate FOIA responses, discrimination, and violating the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, orchestrating a conspiracy effort to cover it all up. and running a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization.  But “they acted clearly within the scope of their employment.”

The complaint details the date time and major events in order of occurrence. FRCP 9(f) States: “TIME AND PLACE An allegation of time or place is material when testing the sufficiency of a pleading” The pleading provided solid evidence of Fraud, Mail Fraud, and Perjury- Obstruction of justice with exhibits supporting the allegations. It detailed a multitude of other despicable acts involved in protecting the enterprise and the chronology is a pattern all in itself. It provided detail on the Predicate acts for a RICO filing and alleges a conspiracy to do so. It meets every requirement of a RICO filing although, it is not described as such because the court’s instructions were not to make legal arguments and cite cases or statutes. As a Pro-Se I don’t know how you meet the filing requirements of a RICO without making legal arguments and citing appropriate statutes? Can you?

Example 4.

The complaint has a one-line throwaway alleging a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization and no other allegations. See that here in the court transcripts. Page 10 near the bottom.

No mention of RICO

No allegation is other than Negligence, Fraud, Mail Fraud, Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, discrimination, denial of service, FCRA violation, and FOIA violations. A conspiracy and a scheme to still constitutional rights. Look again at the paragraph that states USDA is operating a RICO and keep in mind a RICO is defined by the prerequisite of certain crimes. Mail Fraud and obstruction of justice. That a sequence of events and recurring criminal acts make a pattern and a conspiracy is conducted. And as a matter of FACT, this suit was filed on the docket as a RICO charge on day one.

Pr 24 RICO no other Allegations

This is what the supreme court said was required to state a claim.

State A claim

Everyone is free to believe what he or she tells himself or herself to believe. But facts don’t lie. So be sure before you fool yourself you know the facts. Because this court and this Attorney do not show any evidence of grasping them.

Response to Reply for Sanctions




James Rigney, Et Al,









Case Number:             4:13CV00054






Comes now Plaintiff’s s Christopher B. and Renee G. Julian in opposition to Katherine DeCosters response to motions for sanctions. Rule 5(b)(2)(E) is very specific “If the person consented in writing” Plaintiffs never consented in writing to any electronic form of service. Plaintiffs simply did Ms DeCoster a favor letting her know of her errors. Plaintiffs had no reason to object to her email and a response was merely a common curtsey. It is plainly direct, obvious, and observable that plaintiffs were made aware of these motions only by the courts service of the Roseboro notice. Plaintiffs would not have had such a notice had they not been Pro-Se. Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to make any motion or any reply with regards to Ms DeCosters motion for an extension of time to respond as the Court granted the motion without Plaintiffs having any knowledge of its existence. There is no way now nor was there ever anyway for this error to be justly corrected. The Jonesboro notice was the one and only reason Plaintiffs responded to the Motion to dismiss and plea of immunity. This was for Plaintiffs a very serious issue. It put Plaintiffs case in a very precarious situation as the Defendants motion was for failure to state a claim and given the lenience gifted in the filing of the complaint Plaintiffs could not jeopardize the case with a motion for default judgment.


  1. Motion for extension of time to file a response. Dkt 14 & 15

The Court new Plaintiffs were Pro-Se. This is evidenced by the issuance of the roseboro notice. The Court Clerk had informed Plaintiffs on inquiry Judge Jackson L. Kiser never grants Pro-Se Plaintiffs access to electronic filing. The Court knew when the Defendant filed the motion for extension of time to respond that it had not been served for this reason. This is further evidenced by the time the Court allowed for Plaintiffs to file an opposition ref dkt 14 & 17 and dkt 21 & 23 as opposed to the length granted when the USAG made the same motion; and note the Holiday weekend in the filing of dkt 21. The Court approved this motion knowing it was not effective. Dkt 17 Since Plaintiffs had no knowledge this motion had been filed until after receiving the roseboro notice from the court dkt 18 Plaintiffs never had any opportunity at all to oppose this motion.

  1. Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim and plea for Sovereign and qualified immunity.

This Motion placed Plaintiff’s in a very precarious position jeopardizing elements of our case. Plaintiffs had to respond to countless issues Sovereign Immunity, Qualified Immunity, failure to state a claim, etc raised in defense of Ms Johnson that were by rule subject to summary judgment as they were issues raised outside of the complaint, hence the rosesboro notice. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were subjected to numerous allegations in the motion of faults in the filing directly attributable to the courts instructions not to make legal arguments or citations. Had plaintiffs motioned for default judgment, a viable motion in response to failure to effect service, however, the court could have, and, we now know, would have dismissed Ms Johnson on failure to state a claim. Was that the courts prime objective? Defeating the primary reason Ms Johnson was named in this suit, Ms Johnson’s participation in aiding and abetting RICO USDA in the Commission of the enterprises objectives, an argument that had been completely pulled from the original complaint to comply with the Courts instructions not to cite statues, cases or make legal arguments. A compliance with the courts instructions, which caused Plaintiffs serious undue and unnecessary complications, and has significantly, delayed the entire process while causing significant physical and mental stress to plaintiffs as well as stealing precious time from our lives.

The Courts actions with regard to these two motions together with the Courts action approving the USAG’s motion for extension without granting Plaintiffs a single day of the Clerks Office being open to file an opposition, when the court clerk had been informed plaintiffs were attempting to file a responsive motion Exhibit AT. Plaintiffs viewed these actions as biased and prejudicial treatment by this court which resulted in Plaintiffs contacting the 4CCA on 11/14/ 2013 Exhibit AU attempting to file a grievance for prejudicial treatment by this court. Additionally, two articles on the experience were published on the internet “Legal Conundrum by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b)2(e) on January 1, 2014 and “Op Ed for the Federal District Courts” on January 15th 2014 after being denied publication by the Wall Street Journal. One additional article “ The Weak” discussing the experience was published on January 7, 2014. It is further worth noting that after all the motions had been filed the Court did not act to make a ruling and the moving party never motioned for a hearing or advised the court as prescribed by local rule 11(b). Did the Court and the Defendants council wait intentionally? There is absolutely no way to prove these acts were not coordinated between the court and the Defense Councils. And there is evidence in the docket of ex parte communication. Everyone is welcome to read any of our articles at Blueridgesprings on wordpress.com There will be many more to come.

Up-Date 4-26-2017 these are all facts that demonstrate bias on the part of this court.


A Corrupt Federal Agency aided and abetted by a Corrupt Federal Court is a travesty of justice for American Democracy an Insult to the U.S. Judicial system, to the constitution of the United States of America, and to Life, Liberty, and Justice for all. It results in tyranny, oppression, and absolute despotism of the people, justifying completely and succinctly the second amendment to the constitution of the United States.  There is no greater criminal than the criminal that sits on the bench robbing America of its foundations.

            Respectfully Submitted,

                                                                                    Christopher B. and Renee G. Julian Pro-Se