A criminal enterprise curtesy of the ABA treason within the United States Government!
The Secretary of Agriculture is a member of the Presidents cabinet consequently; he’s a member of the Executive branch of Government. Note both were or are members of the ABA.
Congress unable to handle their duties allowed the establishment of Agencies with both Legislative and Judicial authority which established entities not contemplated by the constitution and usurping separation of constitutional powers. For more information on that See Thomas Jefferson Explains Path to Oligarchy William Jefferson Clinton Perfects It!
The USDA is an Agency reporting to the Secretary of Agriculture and it, and its subsidiaries like the Farm Service Agency (FSA) have authority to promulgate regulations interpreting congressional legislation and having the full force of federal law. These regulations are prescribed to the public in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
The Secretary of Agriculture by Executive authority promulgated into law the National Appeals Division (NAD) with authority to administer all administrative hearings of agencies under the Secretary of Agriculture. Subsequently, he promulgated into law the National Appeals Divison would not be required to adhere to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rules of Evidence derived from centuries of precedent defining Due Process. See Tom Vilsack Before Hispanic Caucus
A Summary of these facts shows the Secretary of Agriculture has Executive, legislative, and judicial power in direct contradiction to the constitutional intention for checks and balances in Government by maintaining separation of power.
- The Secretary of Agriculture utilizing this unconstitutional power is running an enterprise designed to deny individuals the constitutional guarantee of Due Process and Equal Justice under the law. This Enterprise is contrary to the Governments due process obligation under the Supreme Law, the constitution of the United States to operate legally and within the law.
- The Department of Agriculture uses this enterprise to avoid being held accountable or responsible for violations of Federal Law and Federal regulations they have promulgated into the code of Federal regulations. In other words they use the enterprise to protect themselves from being held accountable to Federal Law or responsible for violating Federal Law.
- The USDA/FSA has for decades used this criminal unconstitutional enterprise to inflict all manner of despotic tyranny, torture, and terrorism for all manner of destruction in the lives, livelihoods, health and causing all manner of family destruction in the lives of thousands including my family.
B. Federal Courts have aided and abetted this criminal enterprise by granting agencies like USDA, FSA, NAD the ability to interpret their regulations with any arguable interpretation, even interpretations contrary to the plain language of the regulation and it’s underlying statute as my case demonstrates and is discussed in Dumb and Dumber Judges Don’t Know English!
- Today the Federal Judiciary protects this criminal enterprise by granting them sovereign immunity protection from their constitutional obligation to operate legally. Additionally, they aid and abet this enterprise by freely granting Chevron deference.
- In this manner the Federal Judiciary has become a co conspirator with the Executive branch in a criminal enterprise granting them power above the law, the supreme law – The constitution of the United States, and in opposition to the true sovereign We The People.
- Effectively, the Executive and Judicial branches of Government are acting in their own interest above the law waging war on We The People. What are the United States, if not the embodied representation of We The People?
C. Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution – Treason.
- “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them“ (We The People ? ), “or in adhering to their Enemies.” Enemies of (We The People)
- “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason”
- Is the Court of Federal Claims the agent of Congress?
On the receiving end of numerous acts of negligence, fraud, discrimination, and other criminal acts meeting predicate requirements for a civil action against the USDA/FSA for racketeering under Title 18 Chapter 96 sections 1961 – 1968; I filed a civil suit against the responsible individuals and enterprises in Federal Court on September 16, 2013. Case #4:13-cv-00054 JLK RSB.
- I relied on the promise of congress in Title 18 Chapter 96 section 1964(c) as an individual with standing, I would for compensation of my time as an attorney and cost, assume the role of prosecutor to remove this criminal enterprise from the legitimate operations of Government. To which I was promised a reward of treble damages for the prosecution.
- Under the constitution Article III Clause III Federal Crimes must be tried before a jury. The Defendants right in this case.
- Under the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, Civil claims in Federal Court must be tried before a jury. The Plaintiffs right in this case.
I say Superior Federal District Court Judge Jackson l. Kiser violated his oath of office, my constitutional rights, federal laws and unconstitutionally converted the lawsuit in D for operation of the RICO enterprise described in A. to a cause of action for torts under the FTCA. Furthermore, he proceeded in violation of my constitutional and procedural rights into judicial review and decided for himself over valid objections to his jurisdiction and my constitutional rights to decide a material issue of law which had specifically been requested left to a juries purview as provided in D 2 & 3. May I have a day in court to put these issue before a jury? Because the puppet judges of Government serve only the corruption of their master. See We The People v. United States Government
- This case was filed with a RiCO civil cause of action.
- This case was not brought under FTCA or U.S.C 5 Section 702.
- If Judicial review were to be performed then it was inappropriate to proceed barring the same requirements as demanded under the FTCA because as USC 5 702 States “A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.”
- To quote Justice Scalia in National Law review 12-4-2014 “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 “the King cannot create any offence by his prohibition or proclamation, which was not an offence before.” James I, however, did not have the benefit of Chevron 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]. . . .”
- Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone said the juror “ is voting on the justice of the law according to his own conscience and convictions and not someone else’s. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided.”
- “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution,” a Virginia lawyer wrote around the same time. His name Thomas Jefferson.
- 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.
- And for the very reasons stated by Thomas Jefferson, Justice Harlan F. Stone, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas deference in civil and criminal trials is the jury’s purview and not the agencies or a judge.
Case #4:13-cv-00054 JLK RGB was upheld by the 4th Circuit court of appeals case 14=1480 and 14-1925 and denied cert by the Supreme court Petition 14-1051.
On April 14, 2015 I requested The President of the United States abide by his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and the Laws of this nation under the Take care Clause 5 of Article 2 and I submitted my form SF-95 under the requirements of the FTCA. See Mr. President all thats necessary for the triumph of Government evil is for those in power to do nothing
On November 9 2015 I filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims for breach of contract and a taking without just compensation. Because, Judge Jackson L. Kiser unlawfully converted the RICO cause of action and separated for his personal review the material question of law that belonged in the juries’ purview. Case # 1:15-cv-01344 EJD EGB See We The People v. United States Government
On January 19, 2016 Because numerous Federal & State judges had ignored federal laws and my constitutional rights on numerous occasions I motioned for Judge Edward J. Damich of the Court of Federal Claims to state in writing: 1 he had taken the judicial oath of office 2 would adhere to that oath during proceedings 3 abide by the Judicial cannons of his office.
- Why if you took an oath of office to uphold the law and the constitution might you hesitate even a minute to affirm it?
- Why if you took an oath of office to uphold the law and the constitution might you hesitate for even a minute to affirm your intent to abide by that oath?
- Why if you took the oath of a judge would you hesitate to affirm your intent to abide by the canons of that office?
Surely an honest judge would have no problem with any of that?
Canon 1: A Judicial Employee Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary and of the Judicial Employee’s Office
A Federal Judge must honor an offer as an official of the United States Government he cannot decline acceptance by a private citizen the offer of Constitutional rights. Denying a request to affirm his oath, intent to adhere to it, and his judicial canons, Judge Edward J.Damich declined acceptance of the Governments offer to a private citizen. Common law says once an offer is accepted a contract is binding. “Contracts make the law – all law is contract.” Declining to attest, is breach of contract under common law and constitutional intent of the United States.
The reason for asking judge Edward J. Damich to attest he took an oath of office and intends to abide by that oath of office and his judicial canons, is to ascertain beforehand, the honesty, fairness and integrity this total stranger “intends” to display during the course of the hearing.
Remember, this stranger holds enough power over Plaintiffs and has the potential to disrupt Plaintiffs life and remove their liberties. Which numerous Judges have already done to Plaintiff(s) Furthermore, and of great importance is the role prior judicial breaches of the laws, the oaths, and canons played in the proximate cause of the complaint at issue.
Plaintiffs had a due process right to know their going to be treated in the prescribed manner by this unknown stranger and getting access to the law, Plaintiffs are entitled haven given up some natural freedoms? Plaintiffs opted into being subject to the Constitution and allowing the Supreme Law to have [legitimate] control over them. “Contracts make the law – all law is contract.
“The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature: being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will. But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish.” – William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.
“The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court to decide according to law. Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirements or to undermine public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court” – Lord Diplock in Att-Gen v. Times Newspapers Ltd. 
Once laws are made it’s the job of the judge to listen to and make judgments when there are disputes and allegations of wrong doings. This position as you would expect requires the holder to be of impeccable character and hold the highest moral standards and unshakeable integrity. There can be no lesser qualifications for a position in society of such great importance and power.
You should ALWAYS get a positive answer from an honest judge, how could you not? What do you think?
In an ideal world no one would even dream of questioning a judges integrity. It would go without saying that if that man or woman took a solemn oath to perform and act in a certain way, there would be no way on Earth that that solemn vow would be welched on or forgotten when suited. Men and women who are honest develop a reputation for that honesty and so there is very little if any natural motivation to question that honesty.
For Judge Edward J. Damich to confirm his intention gives the people and Plaintiffs confidence in this complete stranger to act fairly, honestly and with integrity and to be TOTALLY IMPARTIAL His denial of the motion for said relief the antithesis.
This is a NORMAL request for someone to ask in a situation as alien to him as this and having a case based largely on Federal Judges failure to observe the same.
For judge Edward J. Damich to decline a request to confirm being bound by his oath did not foster confidence, judge Edward J. Damich would act as professional as one would expect, and so there was no trust in judge Edward J. Damich judicial abilities and integrity when the responsive pleading was written.
Plaintiffs have found judges lacking in honesty, fairness and integrity, a requirement demanded by their “noble” profession. It’s these judges that appear to have abandoned their oath and honor, and it’s these judges’ prior actions that demanded Plaintiffs ask Judge Edward J. Damich if he would be bound by the principles of his oath with the intention of getting a positive answer.
Consider the Words of Thomas Jefferson: “judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps, Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.” SeeThomas Jefferson Explains Path to Oligarchy! William Jefferson Clinton Perfects It!
If I was appointed to be a Justice by President William Jefferson Clinton and later was assigned a case accusing President William Jefferson Clinton of establishing and operating a criminal unconstitutional enterprise waring against We The People I should I recuse myself on the grounds presiding over such a case might appear to lack independence or worse an intent to protect a criminal enterprise involved in treason. An enterprise accused of denying individuals the constitutional rights a judge has a sworn oath to uphold? See Thomas Jefferson Explains Path to Oligarchy! William Jefferson Clinton Perfects It!
Canon 2: A Judicial Employee Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
Presiding over a case in which President William Jefferson Clinton who appointed you to the bench as a judge with a 15 year plus appointment is accused of establishing a criminal unconstitutional enterprise and you do not recuse yourself. I state for me unequivocally presents the significant appearance of impropriety. What do you think ?
February 4, 2016 Judge Edward J. Damich Denied a request to attest:
- he had taken the judicial oath of office,
- would adhere to that oath during proceedings,
- would abide by the Judicial cannons of his office.
Judge Edward J. Damich denial of attestation of is calculated obstruction of justice 18 U.S.C 1505 and so, a common law contempt of court, a broken oath 28 U.S.C. 453 and, a common law breach of contract, a violation of 28 U.S.C 455(a) and 18 U.S.C. 242! And quite plausibly 18 U.S.C. 1621 & 18 U.S.C 2382 42 U.S.C 1986
If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution, and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Furthermore, since this Plaintiffs case involves treason judge Damich has chosen to War against We The People and to adhere to the enemies of We The People.
If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.
These are hardly what can be characterized as Judicial functions or the expectations society has on such a high office and an officer sworn to uphold the constitution under 28 U.S.C 453.
Judge Damich the Constitution of these united States of America is the supreme law of the land. No other law, rule, regulation or code including contract can supersede it, nor can your authority as a judge, or an imposter acting as a judge. You did not confirm your oath you violated it and you have violated 28 U.S.C. 455(a) you are an imposter, you are unlawful in the office, in violation of 18 U.S.C 912. You should have recused yourself and you should step down. You sir I contend are a traitor and should be tried for treason.
Failure to confirm your oath of office suggest judge Edward J. Damich does indeed intend to prejudice your the Plaintiffs rights to equal access to justice. Consequently, I will no longer consider myself bound by the social contracts of law because, the U.S. Government is in breach of its agency duties and has become a law breaker. I denounce as valid any control local, state, and federal governments have over my personal sovereignty. I no longer under my free will grant you any power and will resist with full and uninhibited force any attempt at control over my person in any manner whatsoever. Until such time as my constitutional rights are observed and justice served on the traitors.”
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 punishment set for breaking the law. Prior to this controversy the rules were set in : Anatomy of a Criminal Threat Absent Malace
January 27, 2016 I contacted my congressional representative because the judge had not only not responded but several items I believed should be on the courts docket had not been docketed. I requested, since the court of federal claims was an agent for congress my case become a petition for a congressional hearing on my allegations. See item C(2).
February 4, 2016 The response brief to the DOJ’s motion to dismiss under 12(b) was filed with the Court and at the same time the motion of January 19, 2016, appeared on the docket followed February 10, 2016, by other items the court should have long ago docketed.
February 11, 2016 I had a personal come to Jesus discussion with the office of my worthless congressional representative Moron Griffith. I believe as the Executive and Judicial branches of Government are co conspirators in this treason on We The People it is Congresses duty to bring the traitors to justice. See C(2) & C(3).
February 13. 2016 News of this case was just to much for Antonin Scalia to bear!
A(3) The USDA/FSA has for decades used this criminal unconstitutional enterprise to inflict all manner of despotic tyranny, torture, and terrorism for all manner of destruction in the lives, livelihoods, health and causing all manner of family destruction in the lives of thousands of We The People.
B (3) Effectively, the Executive and Judicial branches of Government are acting in their own interest above the law waging war on We The People. What are the United States if not the embodied representation of We The People?
C. (1) “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them“ (We The People ? ), “or in adhering to their Enemies.” Enemies of (We The People)?
C. (2) “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason” Is this then not the responsibility of the Court of Federal Claims? They don’t think so. They have responded to this law suit precisely as predicted in.Any doesn’t mean Any Anymore!
March 10, 2016 in a perfect example of a reasonless summary order Judge Edward J. Damich denied the Government, We The People had any intention in legislating this law to contract with a Plaintiff for the prosecution of these criminals and denied the promise presented in title 18 Chapter 96 Section 1964(c) entitled plaintiffs to the compensatory damages the U.S Government promised. Attorney fees for my time and effort, Cost of brining the suit, and treble damages as incentive in contrast see the intent of this law as stated by the Supreme Court in:
Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates][107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987)] : “RICO and the Clayton Act are designed to remedy economic injury by providing for the recovery of treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. Both statutes bring to bear the pressure of “private attorneys general” on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate; the mechanism chosen to reach the objective in both the Clayton Act and RICO is the carrot of treble damages. Moreover, both statutes aim to compensate the same type of injury; each requires that a plaintiff show injury “in his business or property by reason of” a violation” ”
It’s astonishing to discover the Federal Courts do not find a RICO enterprise operating from the Office of the President a serious national problem. But they’re going to do everything in their power to protect it from a jury. I can tell you from experience and I suspect the tens of thousands of farmers before me believe congress had every intent to contract with a private individuals to rid our Government of the Mafia style corruption it operates under.
While the court labeled the Opinion not for publication you can read it here as Item 13 opinion.Please feel free to review any of the other court filing documents you like. The Key Documents Chronologically
America where should we go from here?
The Executive Branch of Government is operating criminally aided and abetted by the Federal Judiciary and the Court of Federal Claims as agent of Congress claims to have no authority to review the actions of the Judiciary as it conspires with an Executive office against We The People.
Yes America the Treason within is perpetrated by members of the judiciary and the ABA of Liars.
Update 4-9-2016 Every American has a civic duty to watch this film: WHO STOLE THE AMERICAN DREAM I challenge you to discredit its facts. After you watch this film answer the questions. Who Started, What Professional/Organization were they in, When did it start, and Where did the war on the American dream began. Who’s running and controlling the war on the American Dream? Lawyers working with Bankers? You should also watch this film as well The American Dream What Happened
If Congress refuses to assume power to hold these branches accountable for treason; they too, join in tyranny and oppression of We The People and We The People have a duty to freedom and our fore fathers to see the traitors, and those who aid and protect them hang in the fires of hell.
America should understand, I write this blog as a record for the world to see, just what a hypocritical nation the American Government has become. A nation touting its respect for justice, the rule of law, and for democracy while itself being a serious oligarchy run by the ABA engaged in despotic, tyranny, oppression and extortion of We The People!
The US Government is completely responsible for the consequences of their criminal actors
Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se.