In September 2013 a Civil Lawsuit was filed alleging Racketeering by the USDA and seven affiliated defendants. The court granted the Government a lengthy extension of time to respond. No evidentiary hearing was ever held. No discovery was ever allowed. No Amendment to the complaint was ever allowed.
A hearing of approximately 30 minutes was held in late February 2014 and a ruling claiming the court-lacked jurisdiction on 90% of the cause of action was published in late March 2013. For all intense purposes, this ruling reflects the court’s opinion that Federal Agencies are protected by sovereign immunity for racketeering.
It requires a plaintiff first to request permission from a corrupt government agency permission to sue them for being corrupt. It grants them the opportunity to simply pay you to avoid court. I contended this itself was a violation of Due process beyond common right and reason. A constitutional challenge to the FTCA in the matter was presented and completely ignored.
In all prior precedent rulings on Governors, judges, legislators, and even the State of Illinois the courts found racketeering enterprises are not protected by Sovereign immunity. See United States of America v. Lawrence E. Warner and George H. Ryan, Sr. (2007) p 74-75 . Perhaps this is a Supreme Court Question but, they denied answering it and neither the Federal court nor the appellate court properly addressed it.
An Interlocutory appeal was filed in June requesting an appellate review of the court’s ruling. The district court continued to delay and ruled in favor of the defendants granting them deference to actually change the wording of their own regulations as well as extraordinary deference in changing their interpretative rules and applying those changes long after the rules as written had been relied on.
The District Courts rulings by the dishonorable Judge Jackson L. Kiser are fascinating not for the countless acts of deceit, deception, obfuscation, intentional acts of misdirection, or even the outright lies. But for the absolute disregard for the rules of civil procedure, blatant disregard for all judicial precedence, and the absolute intense and malicious degree with which they are written to exonerate the Government and their criminal employees.
The ruling was issued in August 2014. The appellate court had not given a response to the first appeal and joined it with an appeal of the second decision in October 2014. On November 24 2014 the appellate court rendered an opinion with a simple statement upholding the lower court’s findings. They completely ignored constitutional challenges or any acknowledgment of criminal behavior by the district court judge. In my opinion, they simply aided and abetted the railroading of this case right to the Supreme Court ignoring numerous Federal laws, Federal Rules of Procedure, and their Judicial Oaths of Office. This is an outright criminal act by Federal appellate Judges.
Note it was long suspected the court was intentionally delaying at every opportunity to run down the FTCA statute of limitations clicking clock.. Over a year to get two 30-minute hearings and three corrupt opinions from the Federal Court system.
On December 4 2014 National Law Review published an article “Justices Scalia and Thomas Amenable to Reexamining Deference to SEC Statutory interpretations. “ on the comments of Justices Scalia and Thomas in the Supreme Court Ruling for Whitman v. United States, 574 U.S. (November 10, 2014). Justice Scalia is quoted
“ I doubt the Government’s pretensions to deference. They collide with the norm that legislatures, not executive officers, define crimes. When King James I tried to create new crimes by royal command, the judges responded that “the King cannot create any offense by his prohibition or proclamation, which was not an offense before.” James I, however, did not have the benefit of Chevron’s deference. With deference to agency interpretations of statutory provisions to which criminal prohibitions are attached, federal administrators can in effect create (and uncreate) new crimes at will, so long as they do not roam beyond ambiguities that the laws contain [internal citations omitted]. . . .”
“Justice Scalia nevertheless agreed that certiorari should be denied because the defendant did not seek review on the issue of deference, and the procedural history of the case made it a poor vehicle for the Court to address the issue. “
On February 27, 2015, I filed a petition with the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in our Racketeering case against the USDA. The most significant challenge to the rulings was the Federal Courts granting and the Agency’s use of extraordinarily broad deference to their own promulgated rules and literally incomprehensible interpretation which had been altered after it had been relied on. Deference the Agency was abusing to avoid the attachment of monetary damages for countless torts. The constitutional right to have a jury decide whether the agency had followed its own rules or whether their interpretations were just. Petition 14-1051 asking questions the court had stated it wanted to address was denied. For those without access to SCOTUS petitions: Petition 14-1051 can be read in the blog on our website. blueridgesprings.com
Petition 14-1051 questions presented.
On March 10, 2015, SCOTUSBLOG.com rendered an article by Brian Wolfman and Bradley Girard titled Opinion analysis: The Court slays the D.C. Circuit’s Paralyzed Veterans doctrine, leaving bigger issues for another day
There are countless issues discussed and raised by this case and the Justice’s decisions with extreme correlations to the specifics of our racketeering case against the USDA Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas wrote separate concurrences, speaking for themselves alone. Both argued that judicial deference to an agency’s interpretive rule is impermissible. Three important related points in this discussion to the specifics in our case were.
“ in what may prove to be an important footnote, the Court noted the acknowledgment at oral argument by Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler that, apart from any statutory safe harbor, “principles of retroactivity” (or perhaps, more precisely put, anti-retroactivity) may limit an agency’s ability to enforce a new interpretation against a private party whose conduct conformed with an agency’s earlier interpretation.” Emphasis added. In other words, changing the interpretation of the rule after we had relied on it was inappropriate.
Scalia on the issue of deference “
“By giving … interpretive rules [that interpret agency regulations] Auer deference, we do more than allow the agency to make binding regulations without notice and comment. Because the agency (not Congress) drafts the substantive rules that are the object of those interpretations, giving them deference allows the agency to control the extent of its notice-and-comment-free domain. To expand this domain, the agency needs only write substantive rules more broadly and vaguely, leaving plenty of gaps to be filled in later, using interpretive rules unchecked by notice and comment. The APA does not remotely contemplate this regime.” emphasis added
” The solution, he maintained, was not to “rewrite” the APA “to make up for Auer,” as the MBA had urged in its oblique defense of Paralyzed Veterans, but to “abandon Auer and apply the Act as written.” Agencies can interpret their own regulations, with or without notice and comment, to their hearts’ content, “but courts [should] decide – with no deference to the agency – whether that interpretation is correct.” Emphasis added.
Where do we go from here? Stated the article.
“Let’s count the votes. Justices Scalia and Thomas want to jettison Auer’s deference (at least). In Decker, the Chief Justice and Justice Alito said that reconsideration of Auer may be appropriate when the issue is properly presented.”
Also on March 10, 2015, in comments on this same case, the Liberty Blog posted an article on the decisions titled: Supreme Court justices issue call to rein in judicial deference to executive agencies
Notable comments include these:
“The action in this decision is in three separate concurrences, by Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. These justices lay out in detail why the Court should abandon its rule of judicial deference to agency interpretive rules when an appropriate case presents the opportunity.” Emphasis added
Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas write, in their concurrences in Perez, that judicial deference to agency interpretive rules cannot be squared with the constitutional structures of separation of powers, and checks and balances. Justice Thomas in particular provides a thorough and compelling review of the reasons why the Constitution separates state powers between the three branches and the evils that come from undivided government power. Emphasis added.
Justice Thomas’s lengthy dissertation is complete support and justification for granting Petition 14-1051 and contained the following excerpts. Or read the Opinions of Thomas and Scalia here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf
“I write separately because these cases call into question the legitimacy of our precedents requiring deference to administrative interpretations of regulations. That line of precedents, beginning with Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410 (1945), requires judges to defer to agency interpretations of regulations, thus, as happened in these cases, giving legal effect to the interpretations rather than the regulations themselves. Because this doctrine affects a transfer of judicial power to an executive agency, it raises constitutional concerns. This line of precedents undermines our obligation to provide a judicial check on the other branches, and it subjects regulated parties to precisely the abuses that the Framers sought to prevent.”
“Seminole Rock raises two related constitutional concerns. It represents a transfer of judicial power to the Executive Branch, and it amounts to an erosion of the judicial obligation to serve as a “check” on the political branches. ”
“(“It is not for us to determine, and we have never presumed to determine, how much of the purely executive powers of government must be within the full control of the President. The Constitution prescribes that they all are”).
“Seminole Rock is constitutionally questionable for an additional reason: It undermines the judicial “check” on the political branches. Unlike the Legislative and Executive Branches, each of which possesses several political checks on the other, the Judiciary has one primary check on the excesses of political branches. That check is the enforcement of the rule of law through the exercise of judicial power Judges have.”
While a very different approach to support of the same subjects with total relevance to petition 14-1051 I find the following highly supportive of petition 14-1051. I am quite hypocritical of its denial. America should be questioning seriously why the Supreme Court choose to deny this petition and grant the USDA a pass on a racketeering operation that has subjected often poor and struggling farmers and folks like m just trying to create jobs and a future to absolute tyranny and oppression?
“The Judicial Branch is separate from the political branches for a reason: It has the obligation to apply the law to cases and controversies that come before it, and concerns about the popular esteem of individual judges—or even the Judiciary as a whole—have no place in that analysis. Our system of Government could not long survive absent adherence to the written Constitution that formed it.”
“I have “acknowledge[d] the importance of stare decisis to the stability of our Nation’s legal system.” “But stare decisis is only an ‘adjunct’ of our duty as judges to decide by our best lights what the Constitution means.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 812 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (citation omitted). My best lights, the entire line of precedent beginning with Seminole Rock raises serious constitutional questions and should be reconsidered in an appropriate case. “
For reasons not quite understood by me the petition for certiorari through procedurally completed on March 31, 2015, and was not scheduled for the conference until April 24th, 2015 which was precisely 2 years and 1 week past the acts of perjury by USDA personnel which fully completed the requisite predicate acts for a charge of racketeering under RICO by my best Pro-Se assessment. Although, it is not what I consider the last felony act by USDA personnel. Given the extraordinarily biased, discriminatory, and hostile way in which I had been treated by the Federal Courts, I felt it prudent on April 13, 2015, to file a motion with the Supreme Court seeking equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing under the FTCA. This Motion was denied for not following the court’s rules although they did not explain how I had failed to do that.
While waiting for an answer on the motion for equitable tolling I felt it prudent to file form SF-95 requesting the Corrupt Agency’s permission to sue them for being corrupt before they might challenge on the grounds the statute of limitations had expired. Even though supposedly RICO has no limitations. See the letter to the President in the blog blueridgesprings.wordpress.com titled: Mr. President the only thing necessary for the triumph of Government evil is for those in power to do nothing!
On April 22, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in United States V. Kwai Fun Wong this close split decision of 5 to 4 found the statute of limitations on the FTCA subject to equitable tolling. See the “Opinion analysis: Clear statements, sovereign immunity, and timeliness” @ the SCOTUSblog
Every aspect of these cases is intricately tied to the constitutional challenges presented in petition 14-1051 and the facts in the case. The core issue in our racketeering charges revolves around an agency’s use of deference on interpretive rules, changed after they were relied on, extraordinary deference to interpret a regulation outside the clear and plain text of the promulgated rule, deference to literally interpret a regulation “the Law” to say “and” where it, in fact, it says “or” deference to expand terms beyond there clear meanings. Demand for the constitutional right in civil and criminal actions to have a jury trial and a jury interpret and review the agency’s application of the law. This case is about the unconstitutional powers wielded by a despotic, tyrannous bunch of criminals running a racketeering operation against “We The People” using government funding from The United States Department of Agriculture owned and operated by the Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. I call him Tom the mob boss Villiansack of S___.
Is the Supreme Court Corrupted in denying a petition which incorporated the very essence of many of the most recent cases involving the Administrative Procedures Act, Auer deference, The Federal Tort Claims Act, and Separation of powers as defined by the United States Constitution? A case that presented them with the very questions they telegraphed a desire to have presented. The one and only opportunity I’m aware of ever presented to the court giving them the constitutional right to put an end to this illegal unconstitutional operation of despotic oppression.
I leave the American Public with these questions to consider:
One should ask was it denied to protect the criminal racketeering operations of the USDA?
Was it denied to protect the Judges who committed felonies in railroading this case to the Supreme Court?
Was it denied because it posed a question of precedent, which no appellate court I found has ever encountered?
Was it denied because the Department of Justice is implicated in the conspiracy to cover up and defend the USDA’s criminal acts?
Was it denied because it shows involvement by one of the largest legal firms in the world the DOJ?
Was it denied because it would destroy the operations of NAD the national appeals division, and another protected group of lawyers?
Was it denied because there are multiple states involved in the illegal operation?
Was it denied because as Scalia telegraphed the petition challenged deference but failed to do it appropriately? How much more connected to recent cases could it have possibly been or involve the issues of separation of powers anymore or the court’s constitutional obligation to protect “We the People” from tyranny? You can find a good bit of the USDA’s more than 3-decade history of this in the links on the left side of this web page on my website. http://www.blueridgesprings.com/yourusda.html
Was it denied because a loss in court would open the USDA to countless other suits for the 10,s of thousands who were victimized by this operation before me?
On March 23, 2015 Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, and Stephen G. Breyer gave testimony before Congress on the court’s annual budget.
Justice Beyer testified:
“ I THINK OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM IS NOT NECESSARILY THE BUDGET, IT’S RIGHT SIMILAR TO YOURS, WHICH IS HOW DO YOU GET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR INSTITUTIONS ARE ABOUT? IN OUR CASE, WE’RE NOT UP IN SOME HEAVEN SOMEWHERE WHERE WE DECREE THINGS FROM ON HIGH, COMMUNICATING DIRECTLY WITH SOME MYSTERIOUS SOURCE. THAT WE’RE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.”
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy testified:
“WE TAKE THE CASES WHERE WE THINK OUR GUIDANCE IS NEEDED.”
“THE 78 CASES WE HAD THE LAST YEAR EXHAUSTED US. BUT OPTIMALLY I THINK WE COULD HANDLE ABOUT 100. BUT WE WAIT BECAUSE WE WAIT UNTIL OUR GUIDANCE IS NEEDED.”
Was it denied because the court did not feel their guidance was needed in a case where the pivotal question, was one the court telegraphed a desire to address?
Was it denied because the court’s guidance was not needed, where a question asked had no precedent, and only the Supreme Court could answer it?
Was it denied because of the very issue they found unconstitutional they found appropriate to let pass in our case?
Was it denied because the entire case was bought by homeless farmer prose?
Perhaps they just have to many cases on their plate for Justice? But Scotusblog shows them behind on their Grants for the year.
Or was it simply denied for the basic old saying never bite the hand that feeds you?
In other words, if the other branches of Government tell Justice Scalia to sit on a Flag Pole, he’s going to sit on a flag pole!
Justice is damned! Separation of powers is damned! The constitution is damned. A jury trial is damned! Criminal Government operations operating against the people no problem! We are the 1% and the rest of “We the People” are to just be slaves to tyrannous despotic government extorting your tax dollars to use against you.
I said it once I say it again:
A Corrupt Federal Agency aided and abetted by Corrupt Federal Courts 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 are no more significant criminals than the Judges sitting on the bench robbing America of its constitutional foundations. We the People need the power to hold them responsible and accountable for their actions. Perhaps this small exposure to the truth can spark change.
I will back up everything I’ve said with evidence but, I want to court with a jury and the world watching!
God help this Country when the Government is overrun with criminals and the Federal Judicial system is determined to protect their corruption.
The Federal Judicial System has a pretty good racket of its own going they can simply illegally, corruptly, railroad a case through the Federal Court System with complete impunity right to the Supreme Court where a plaintiff has no further rights. And the Supreme Court can simply deny the petition with the thousands of others. Right nice situation for Government Criminals aided and abetted by a corrupt Federal Judicial system.
That’s the nature and evil the founding fathers called tyranny! The one our forefathers gave their lives to overcome!
Count me in I may be next.
Christopher B. Julian
Pro Se Petition 14-1051 Denied.