There’s a long story on how and why I came to apply for a Farm loan with the Farms Services Agency (FSA) / USDA and I’ll leave that for another post. It was the only financing option available as a result of the mortgage crisis when the application was made. Important to note, in addition to three years of farming experience, it’s also a condition of eligibility for an FSA Farm loan to be unable to obtain credit financing elsewhere.

Two and half years later and still not able to secure financing to finish a half-built house on 24 acres of land, that’s debt free. All the work that went into six years of business development, is all but lost. It would take a minimum of three years to restore the lost effort although it can now never be recovered. There’s simply no way to ever recoup the lost opportunity

I allege that in the processing of the loan application FSA/ USDA personnel were negligent. That they failed completely to follow their required procedures. That they attempted with fraud and mail fraud to have the application dropped for compliance issues and when that failed they drafted a declination letter with fraudulent explanations expecting they would never be questioned. However, they were mistaken and I will not stop my pursuit to hold them accountable and responsible until I have justice and vengeance.

Just about everything that’s occurred after that’s been a conspiracy of the USDA’s racketeering enterprise “by design” to cover up the agency’s negligence and the criminal acts of Farm Service loan officer James Rigney and Farm Service Loan Manager Ronald Kraszewski. Herein after referred to as dumb and dumber. This conspiracy and cover-up are to avoid accountability and responsibility and financial damages caused by the criminal acts of these two individuals and the extraordinary negligent mismanagement of FSA personnel by USDA management.

I read all the loan requirements I was aware of, and as an accountant, the explanations being given for the denial of the application were highly dubious, and suspicious. Basically, the three reasons given for denial were:

1. I wanted to pay myself to work on capital improvements, which dumb and dumber termed as a request for living expenses.
2. My house was not modest is size cost and design ”i.e. too big”.
3. I was trying to refinance debt I did not have.

Basically, this is how the denial explanations of Dumb and Dumber have been justified through mediation, pre-administrative hearing, administrative hearing, director review, federal district court, the fourth circuit court of Appeals, and denial of certiorari by the supreme court of the United states.

The first reason was found to be erroneous by the hearing officer in the administrative hearing, although, we’re certain that the determination occurred even before the hearing. We pointed out to Dumb and Dumber at mediation the farm service loan handbook covered a loan recipient paying himself to work on capital improvements and the agency referred to it as the borrower method. Dumb and Dumber at the time appeared completely caught off guard by that fact. Interesting. it’s a reference line in the handbook directing the loan officer to refer to another handbook.

The third reason was dropped in the administrative pre-hearing. Dumb and Dumber believed if I paid myself to work on capital improvements, I was paying myself living expenses, and somehow that was refinancing debt. The accountant in me found this extremely laughable but, also incredibly ignorant and negligent of the agency and the loan officer; negligent of the agency for putting individuals in the position of loan review without proper training. Ignorant of the loan officer because he had never obtained the credit report which I paid an upfront fee for the agency to acquire and which showed I had no outstanding loans.

From these items, the fact these individuals had not been properly trained, the fraudulent nature of the declination letter, the prior attempt to fraudulently dismiss the loan application, the failure to follow their prescribed procedures, the specifics around the logic for item two which I researched. It seemed apparent it was just a point-blank effort to find fraudulent justification for denying the loan.

The handbook reference dumb relied on for reason two is badly written, technically based on the English language incomprehensible, furthermore, it was taken out of context and simply does not say what the enterprise says it does. The enterprise has conspired in order to protect itself from monetary damages for all the torts committed by Dumb, dumber, the USDA, and others.

So when it comes right down to it in a court of law. What should really matter is what the law say that would be Title 7 section 1923 and how the Agency interpreted the law with their promulgated regulation which is 7 CFR 764.151. With regard to my house not being modest in size cost and design there is nothing in the law or the regulation stating that. The administrative hearing officer, the National Appeals Division (NAD) director, and four Federal judges[1] have relied on the agencies interpretation of the law, which is promulgated for public reference and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as 7 CFR 764.151 which states as follows:

• 764.151   Farm Ownership loan uses.

 FO loan funds may only be used to:

(a) Acquire or enlarge a farm or make a down payment on a farm;

(b) Make capital improvements to a farm owned by the applicant, for construction, purchase or improvement of farm dwellings, service buildings or other facilities and improvements essential to the farming operation. In the case of leased property, the applicant must have a lease to ensure use of the improvement over its useful life or to ensure that the applicant receives compensation for any remaining economic life upon termination of the lease;

(c) Promote soil and water conservation and protection;

(d) Pay loan closing costs;

(e) Refinance a bridge loan if the following conditions are met:

(1) The applicant obtained the loan to be refinanced to purchase a farm after a direct FO was approved;

(2) Direct FO funds were not available to fund the loan at the time of approval;

(3) The loan to be refinanced is temporary financing; and

(4) The loan was made by a commercial or cooperative lender.

Here is a link to this government regulation on the ecfr.gov site.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=038c46f00a6aab43f60688a7f2625bfd&mc=true&node=se7.7.764_1151&rgn=div8

Specifically, as it relates to my case the hearing officer, director, and four federal judges have upheld that the USDA is entitled to “deference” to interpret the regulation at 7 CFR 764.151(b) to say making capital improvements to my house with farm loan proceeds is not allowed because the size of my house makes the improvement not essential to the farming operation. In the words of Superior Federal district court judge Jackson L. Kiser in his memorandum opinion docket # 78 08/15/2015 on the bottom of page 7. Judge Jackson L. Kiser justifies his opinion and grants the USDA deference in the interpretation of this promulgated regulation as follows:

“The applicable regulations state that FO funds may only be used on “improvements essential to the farming operation.” 7 C.F.R. § 764.151(b) (emphasis added).”

This interpretation was upheld by the 4^th circuit court of Appeals!

I state for the record unequivocally and given a trial by jury will defend the allegation this is nothing short of an intentional lie to protect the criminal acts of Government employees and to protect the racketeering enterprise operated by the USDA. Understand folks the financial and personal losses caused by this are equivalent to terrorism, torture, and rape.

I contend the Federal Judiciary has criminally and unconstitutionally aided and abetted the USDA’s racketeering enterprise with the use of unconstitutional deference as in this case for decades. [2]

I further contend this goes beyond deference it’s an intentional misrepresentation and false statement of the plain language of the regulation and the relevant statute it represents.

The regulation plainly says “OR” here it is again abbreviated

“Make capital improvements to a farm owned by the applicant, for construction, purchase or
improvement of farm dwellings, service buildings or other facilities and improvements essential to the farming operation.”

For the enlightenment of these criminal federal judges, the definition of the term “OR” by Merriam Webster online dictionary is:

“ 1 —used as a function word to indicate an alternative , the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases , or approximation or uncertainty 2 archaic : either.”

It means you can do this or that, not this is dependent on that.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/or

Let’s try a little substitution shall we:

“Make capital improvements to a farm owned by the applicant, for construction, purchase alternatively improvement of farm dwellings, service buildings alternatively other facilities and improvements essential to the farming operation.”

When I first looked at this regulation, I did not believe it meant all capital improvements, construction, purchases, or improvements to farm dwellings needed to be essential to the farming operation. I consulted with numerous individuals prior even to requesting mediation and starting with ask.com. Ask a lawyer. Here is the actual text of that conversation and I will add that two more lawyers, an English major with a master’s in English, and two farmer advocates, all affirmed this interpretation before we had ever attended meditation.

“JACUSTOMER-ec2m6j9z- :

Does 151b indicate that if the FO is for a farm already owned it can be used for basically any capital improvements?

ScottyMacEsq :

Yes. One of the rules of statutory construction is to look for “and” and “or” signifiers. “Make [capital improvements to a farm owned by the applicant], for [construction], [[purchase] or [improvement] of farm dwellings, service buildings or other facilities] and [improvements essential to the farming operation].” Basically, any of these can be the basis for Farm Ownership Loan

ScottyMacEsq :

So capital improvements to a farm owned by the applicant are one such possibility, as is the construction of farm dwellings, as is the construction of service buildings, as is the construction of other facilities… and so on and so forth.

JACUSTOMER-ec2m6j9z- :

Do the last statement and improvements essential to the farming operation mean that all of the above must be essential or that those of premise must be?

JACUSTOMER-ec2m6j9z- :

off-premise

ScottyMacEsq :

No. It’s more of a “catch-all” provision, that “improvements essential to the farming operation” is an additional category that can have an FO loan. That is, there could be improvements that are not farm dwellings, service buildings or “facilities” that could still be “improvements” essential to the farming operation.

ScottyMacEsq :

So the FO loan can still be used for improvements that might not fall under a dwelling, service building, or another facility…

ScottyMacEsq :

For instance, farm dwellings are not “essential” to farming operations, as farming operations don’t require anyone to live on the premises.

ScottyMacEsq :

So an alternate reading would not make any sense.

JACUSTOMER-ec2m6j9z- :

That was my interpretation as well thank you for your confirmation.”

End

So you tell me why did the USDA personnel and four Federal judges come to a different conclusion? Who benefits from their false and erroneous interpretations? Government?

Tell me America which interpretation do you believe is correct?

PLEASE  Leave a comment in the reply box at the bottom of the blog and Vote: For ask .com or For Federal Government employees. Which source do you believe? 

As you consider this question America keep in mind that failure to follow the law, and failure to provide due process are a violation of Federal Law. Yes, a felony and so would be aiding and abetting a criminal racketeering enterprise in the commission of its stated objectives.

I say Indeed, Anti-Federalists who sought limits on Article III for much the same reason they sought a bill of rights (especially those protections relating to judicial procedures) were right when they feared that courts—especially courts of the new and powerful national government—could become instruments of tyranny. Elbridge Gerry, who refused to sign the Constitution, said that his principal objection was “that the judicial department will be oppressive.”[3]

In further support of my argument it’s well-established law that provided a promulgated regulation is ambiguous the Federal Courts are to place reliance on the plain language of the relevant statute as written by the legislature. Here is the plain language statute that 7 CFR 764.151 is designed to interpret codified in Title 7 Section 1923.

• 1923. Purposes of loans

 (a) Allowed purposes 

(1) Direct loans

A farmer or rancher may use a direct loan made under this subchapter only for-

(A) acquiring or enlarging a farm or ranch;

(B) making capital improvements to a farm or ranch;

(C) paying loan closing costs related to acquiring, enlarging, or  improving a farm or ranch;

(D) paying for activities to promote soil and water conservation and protection described in section 1924 of this title on a farm or ranch; or

(E) refinancing a temporary bridge loan made by a commercial or cooperative lender to a farmer or rancher for the acquisition of land for a farm or ranch, if-

(i) the Secretary approved an application for a direct farm ownership loan to the farmer or rancher for acquisition of the land; and

(ii) funds for direct farm ownership loans under section 1994(b) of this title were not available at the time at which the application was approved.

Please make note this statute as written makes absolutely no mention of any requirement that any use of funds is essential to farming. Nor does it suggest a use for “other facilities and improvements essential to the farming operation”!

Here is a Link to this title and section: http://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title7/chapter50/subchapter1&edition=prelim

Yes, I allege that these four Federal Judges are corrupt and have committed a crime of injustice. I have asked the President to perform his duty under the Take Care clause as the only way to hold Federal Judges accountable to the law. Why would they do this? To protect their own? To protect the Judiciary which has been granting this type of deference without allowing for jury review as the Constitution requires? Because the DOJ aided this enterprise as well? Because this enterprise includes NAD another bunch of lawyers. Or was it simply because they know who pays their salary?

Corrupt Federal Agencies aided by Corrupt Federal courts. This is not Constitutional not Democracy! Not American!

I’ll have Justice and Vengeance “or” Justice or Vengeance but according to these four federal judges there really isn’t “Any” deference oh and “Any doesn’t mean “Any” Anymore! See my blog posts for clarification on that and more.

Chris Julian – Pro-Se

[1] Hearing Officer Jerry L. King, NAD director Roger Klurfeld, Superior Federal Judge Jackson L. Kiser, 4^th CA Senior Judge Clyde H. Hamilton, 4^th CA Judge Robert B. King, and 4^th CA Judge Barbara Milano Keenan

[2] See the recent blog post-blueridgesprings.wordpress.com Supreme Court sells out a constitutional obligation to the American People. Also see SCOTUS comments on deference in Whitman v. United States, 574 U.S. (November 10, 2014), Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (March 9, 2015), and United States V. Kwai Fun Wong (April 22, 2015)

[3] Quoted in Charles Warren, New Light on the History of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, 37 Harv. L. Rev. 49, 54 (1923).