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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
This is what the supreme court said was required to 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.