Recently, I mailed a lawsuit against the United States to the Court of federal claims for breach of contract and taking without just compensation. That suit should arrive at the court today. I filed this suit as a pro se however; This stands as an open offer to any legal firm that wishes to handle the case on a percentage basis. The entire complaint can be read at this link: Breach of Contract as Mailed
For those few who have followed my story and those who are aware of the significance, the complaint is 39 pages long and this post serves as an attempt to provide a brief overview.
While this suit is filed on my behalf, it’s also on behalf of We The People. Government agencies should not be protected from suit for the operation of a criminal enterprise designed to steal We The Peoples’ constitutional right to due process in violation of the government and its officer’s sworn duty to operate legally. The rule of law requires that no one be above the law, not even the king, that the law has been defined before a controversy exists, and that the rights of minorities are protected.
The U.S. Constitution is a law. It proclaims itself as such, in Article V. Clause II. “The Supremacy Clause as “the Supreme Law of the Land” The Supreme Law of the Land states only one law twice called due process. Due process dates back to the Magna Carta and the thirteenth-century promise of Great Britain’s King John that he would act only in accordance with law and all would receive the ordinary processes of law.
Racketeering is a federal crime as defined by Title 18 Chapter 96 §§1961 – 1968. For a government agency to operate a racketeering enterprise as defined by this federal law is in violation of its constitutional obligation to due process.
Title 18 Chapter 96 in essence provides that “Any” individual whose business or property was harmed by a pattern of racketeering activity by “Any” individual participating in “Any” enterprise in a manner forbidden by §1962 is entitled to bring a civil cause of action in “Any” appropriate United States district court in “Any” district court of the United States for “Any” district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.” And such an individual is entitled to the recovery of treble damages, costs, attorney’s fees and bringing to bear the pressure of “private attorneys general” on the defendants.
In regards to this Federal Law the United States Supreme Court and US appellate courts have held the following as precedent: 1. A Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) enterprise animated by an illicit common purpose can be composed of an association-in-fact of government entities and human members when the latter exploits the former to carry out that purpose. 2. The language of §1961(4) unambiguously encompasses governmental units. 3. The substance of RICO’S provisions demonstrates a clear congressional intent that RICO is interpreted to apply to the activities that corrupt public or governmental entities. 4. Congress intended as inducements to achieve the objectives in both the Clayton and Rico Acts the provision for the recovery of treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees and bringing to bear the pressure of “private attorneys general” 5. The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, “private attorneys general,” dedicated to eliminating racketeering and further purpose of encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate.
A Congressional committee, the Mayor of Road Island, and the State of Illinois have all been found guilty under RICO of participating in or of being the enterprise through which a RICO enterprise operated. Why would the USDA, NAD, FSA, and affiliated State Mediation programs be protected by immunity when these public entities were not?
When the Federal District Court of Virginia Judge Jackson L. Kiser dismissed my RICO allegations against these entities and, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld them, it did so under the rubric of sovereign immunity and FTCA. However, 28 U.S.C. §2680(a) Specifies a prohibition against using the FTCA to challenge the validity of a statute or regulation. This ruling effectively granted the USDA an opportunity to settle out of court these charges for a sum certain. However, while the law is not a contract, every law is an offer to those aggrieved, to redress the civil wrong, and a notice to the people, certain actions have consequences.
A contract, in the modern sense of the word, has been defined as an agreement containing a promise enforceable in law. The term “agreement” implies that there are at least two parties involved since one party cannot agree to a proposition unless another party makes it to him. The term further implies that one party proposed a promise or offer to which the other party agreed or accepted. Thus, an agreement is the result of an offer by one party and an acceptance by the other party, which creates a binding contract.
Title 18 Chapter 96 §§1961-1968 establishes the terms of an offer. Section 1964(c) extends this offer to any private citizen granting them a private cause of action with very specific monetary rewards. The Federal District Court of Virginia converted the terms of the offer after its acceptance and reliance on Supreme Court rulings and prior precedent.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) has specific terms for the acceptance of an offer made under Federal Law. FRCP 8(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
“Allegations of the existence of a RICO enterprise must meet only the ‘notice pleading’ requirements of ” Rule 8(a) see https://blueridgesprings.wordpress.com/2015/06/14/dumb-and-dumber-judges-dont-know-english/ for specifics on these quotes by the Government’s expert G. Robert Blakey ” RICO’s important role in combating political corruption effectively ends when the court chooses to narrow the broad definition of “enterprise”.
The Federal Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction because the King is immune from suit unless he gives his permission. However, the King cannot knowingly violate federal law, nor can he war against the will of the people as expressed by congressional legislation and legal precedent. To operate within the law, the King must abide by the supreme law.
The Tucker Act of 1887 waives sovereign immunity regarding express or implied contracts with the United States. The posting of an offer explicitly stated with terms in Federal Law and the acceptance of that offer providing monetary relief defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure creates a binding contract from a statute specifying monetary compensation.
Conversion is the unlawful and inequitable alteration of a contract term once an offer has been accepted. Conversion is any unauthorized act that deprives an owner of personal property without his or her consent. I went all the way to the Supreme Court with my dissent of this unlawful conversion.
There is no language in this federal law or prior precedent of the Supreme Court to suggest this law would not apply to government agencies and their employees. Keep in mind, the operation of a RICO enterprise is a federal crime and in violation of the Supreme Law the constitution, and the people’s power over Government. Furthermore, the requirements of evoking the Federal Tort Claims Act convert the terms of the agreement not only by eliminating the express congressional intent for treble damages, cost, and attorney fees as inducement but, also by providing these criminals an opportunity to continue their illegal operation.
The Supreme Court has reiterated countless times, the RICO statute is to be interpreted broadly, and liberally and has no stated boundaries. The Government’s expert, G. Robert Blakey a contributing author of the statute argued on the government’s behalf “ RICO’s important role in combating political corruption effectively ends when the court chooses to narrow the broad definition of “enterprise”. How then does the Federal Court justify granting this government entity sovereign immunity protection from its contractual obligation to operate legally, within the law, and in violation of the Fifth Amendment take the personal property legally conveyed by an offer explicitly stated in federal law and officially accepted in accordance with the Federal rules of civil procedure? A valid offer, a valid acceptance, a valid contract, and a Government Breach!
Today the Court of Federal Claims should receive a complaint filing suit against the United States Government because the U.S. Federal judiciary breached the explicit and implied offer of Federal Law between the Government and We The People.
Corruption in the U.S. Government is terminal cancer and it’s being aided and abetted by same cancer in the Judicial branches fueled by money and graft.
Elbridge Gerry refused to sign the U.S. Constitution objecting to the judiciary would be oppressive.
He was right!
Wake up America the U.S. Government has become an entity of its own, criminally operating in its own self-interest with the aid of a judicial branch refusing to hold the Government accountable to the law, its constitutional obligation to keep Government actions in check for the protection of We The People. RICO’s important role in combating political corruption effectively ended when the court chose to narrow the broad definition of “enterprise” in my suit against the USDA granting them sovereign immunity protection from this law in direct conflict with its stare decisis and congressional intent.
CB Julian – Pro Se
Update – Interesting perspective on this case. Constitution as Power of Attorney
Watch this Video and then read more of my blog.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8YBXrxgOpo … Andrew Breitbart died of a heart attack at the age of 43? Read the article on it:
Update- Case docketed Federal district court of Claims Washington D.C. Case # 1:15-cv-01344 EJD
Update: 1-14-2016 Given this case should be of immense public interest I have started a Google folder where the fillings can be obtained free of charge by all who wish. Link to Google Drive Folder with court filings and responses on this case.
Assigned Superior Judge Edward J. Damich – ADR Superior Judge Eric G. Bruggink
Update- 1-8-2016 DOJ files motion to dismiss 12b1 and 12b6 and pleading judicial immunity. My questions are. How do you grant immunity to a Federal Judge who aids and abets a Federal Agency in a racketeering operation to steal constitutional rights? With an oath of office to uphold the Constitution it seems more like treason. Here is a link to court documents in this case. The Key Documents Chronologically.
Update 1-24-2016 To date the Clerk has not docketed the notice of appearance filed by the attorney for the defense on November 23, 2015. Prior experience tells me that based on the defense motion to dismiss under 12b & my Pro-Se status the court should have issued a Roseboro notice but did not. Two Motions filed by the Plaintiffs on January 14 2016 also have not appeared on the docket and while the Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is docketed no ruling on it has been issued. It’s beginning to look a lot like the Federal District Court of Claims intends to intentionally deny a private citizen Due Process. Perfect fit with the court’s Mandate. “It is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against itself, in favor of citizens, as it is to administer the same, between private individuals.” Abraham Lincoln.
Update -1-26-2016 There has been no change from the update above. Today I sent a letter via email to my congressional representative petitioning for a congressional hearing. I believe since the Federal Court of Claims was created under Article 1 authority and is, therefore, an agent of Congress performing congressional duties they are not providing due process and therefore I’m entitled to petition Congress for a hearing. Gmail – Responding to your message