Month: August 2016

Wanted Hard Money R/E secured loan 10% on 2 year commitment of 365,000
by

Wanted Hard Money R/E secured loan 10% on 2 year commitment of 365,000

4 Years of legal battles with the Federal Government when Dodd Frank locked Small Businesses out of the mortgage market followed by denial of a Farm Loan because, my house was not modest in size cost and design, leaves me unable to obtain a mortgage. The Death of my mother leaves me with her residence and her loan debt. I’m seeking private funding for a Real Estate secured loan. I will establish and place the property into an LLC

Property                                  Tax Value            Book Value        Rented   / Potential   /For Sale

474 Orchard View Drive

Ararat VA Land 23 Acres     113,900.00            176,000.00

Improvements                      113, 000.00          334,000.00

Total                                          226,900.00          510,000.00                                     FS 300,000.00

 

This is a 22.75 acre farm with great vineyard potential click for more photos.

8908 Sharonbrook Drive March 10 2017 Appraised value of 135,000.00 

Charlotte, NC 28210

Land                                         19,100.00

Building                                   56,100.00                                                                                N/A

Total                                       75,200.00           75,000.00          Rental Value                P 1,200 Mth

8910 Sharonbrook Drive

Charlotte, NC 28210

Land                                        19,100.00

Building                                   74,800.00                                                   R 750. + maint   P 1,200 Mth

Total                                        93,900.00          75,000.00                      750.00 mth

Total Total                              396,000.00          660,000.00                      750.00                 2,400.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is residential duplex 1/2 rented near light rail click for more photos

 

Use of Funds

Purchase Cost                           268,000.00

Rehab                                          97,000.00

Total Cost                                   365,000.00

ARV                                             565,000.00

Current Tax Valuations           396,000.00

Total Cost to Tax Value            268/396 = .67

Total Loan to ARV                     365/565 = .64

268,000.00 Purchases property, establishes LLC holding property, Borrower will then place 60,000.00 in cash/equity into the Company which will fund initial rehab expenditures.

See more specifics here. See the Funding Proposal worksheet here. You may need to download it.

Contact Me.

Chris Julian christopher.b.julian@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

First Appellate Court of Appeals Balances Scales of Justice With Lies!
by

First Appellate Court of Appeals Balances Scales of Justice With Lies!

Below is the expressed opinion of the Federal Court of Appeals Federal District. It proclaims to be the  Opinion of Federal appellate Judges including that of Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Sharon Prost. I have critiqued this opinion with my own statements like this in red.  A linked Copy of the actual opinion can be seen with a click of the blue link > Document – 11 16-1889_Documents

***********************************************************************

Case: 16-1889 Document: 13-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/04/2016 (2 of 10)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________ CHRISTOPHER B. JULIAN, RENEE G. JULIAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

                ______________________

2016-1889

                ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:15-cv-01344-EJD, Senior Judge Edward

                ______________________

Decided: August 4, 2016

                ______________________

CHRISTOPHER B. JULIAN, Ararat, VA, pro se.

RENEE G. JULIAN, Ararat, VA, pro se.

MELISSA BAKER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., ALLISON KIDD-MILLER.

J. Damich.

Case: 16-1889 Document: 13-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/04/2016 (3 of 10)

2

JULIAN v. US

______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs Christopher B. Julian and Renee G. Julian filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging that the government breached an implied contract and/or violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause when the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed an earlier suit filed by Plaintiffs under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). In an order issued on March 10, 2016, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Julian v. United States, No. 15-1344C, 2016 WL 929219, at *2–3 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 10, 2016) (Order). In that same order, the court denied the Plaintiffs’ request that the assigned judge—Senior Judge Edward J. Damich—recuse himself from the case. Id. at *3. We find no error in the court’s analysis and agree that the dismissal was proper. We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs’ claims, in this case, arise from the dismissal of an earlier case they filed in the Western District of Virginia. On September 16, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed suit against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), seven federal employees, and one Virginia state employee requesting judicial review of the USDA’s decision to deny the Plaintiffs a Farm Ownership Loan and alleging a variety of due process and other tort claims.  (See Foot Note 1)  Julian v. Rigney, No. 4:13-cv-00054, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38311, at *13 (W.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2014).1. (See My Foot note)  The district court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims, with the exception of the request for a review of the USDA’s decision to deny the loan. Id. at *83. The district court subsequently granted the USDA’s motion for summary judgment that it acted within its authority when it denied the Plaintiffs’ loan request.2. Julian v. Rigney, No. 4:13-cv-00054, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113190, at *18 (W.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2014). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions, Julian v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 585 F. App’x. 850, 850–51 (4th Cor. 2014), and the Supreme Court denied the Plaintiffs’ cert petition, Julian v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 135 S. Ct. 1901, 1902 (2015).

1. This is not the truth, note the court’s footnote. The suit was filed specifically for Racketeering per the civil cover sheet and alleged numerous crimes. (See actual Civil filing cover Sheet 4-13-cv-00054). People deserve and Expect the highest Courts in the land to be fact-based and accurate with those facts. This is not! And it appears to be intentionally not! 

2. The Courts move to perform Judicial review was actually challenged. The plaintiffs objected profoundly and insisted the judge lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the conversion of a civil case filing to one for judicial review. This is a coverup of corruption in the Government and the Federal Judiciary washing its dirty laundry.

Foot Note 1 – Specifically, the Plaintiffs lodged allegations of negligence, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, racketeering, and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Julian v. Rigney, No. 4:13-cv-00054, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38311, at *13 (W.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2014). They left out multiple counts of Mail fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice,  conspiracy to deny due process, conspiracy to deny substantive due process rights regarding retroactivity, and what amounted to stealing of money. Interestingly they left out the predicate acts of the RICO filing.

The plaintiffs then filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims seeking damages of $42 million. They alleged that the United States government breached an implied contract when the Western District of Virginia dismissed their earlier case. The plaintiffs reason as follows: (1) the government offered to enter into a contract with private citizens through the codification of § 1964(c) of the RICO Act, which allows persons who suffer injuries to their business or property through a violation of the RICO Act to serve as “private attorneys general” and sue for damages in federal district court, see Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assoc., Inc., 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987); (2) Plaintiffs accepted this offer by filing their complaint in the Western District of Virginia; and (3) the government breached the implied contract when the district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs alleged that the district court’s dismissal effectuated an unlawful “taking” of the Plaintiffs’ personal property (i.e., the implied contract) under the Fifth Amendment.3.

3. We’ll give them this as a semi-fair assessment in a limited space. 

On March 10, 2016, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the Plaintiffs’ action. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Western District of Virginia’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ earlier case and that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of contract or unlawful taking. Order, 2016 WL 929219, at *2–3. As part of the order, Judge Damich denied the Plaintiffs’ request that he recuse himself because he refused to attest to the Plaintiffs that he had taken his statutory oath to perform his duties under the Constitution. (Foot Note 2) Id. at *3. 4.

(Foot Note 2) Plaintiffs included this request in a footnote in their opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss. Judge Damich treated the request as a motion for recusal. Id. at *3.

4. This is not honest. There’s a great deal more to the request for recusal and this assessment ignores all the major issues raised with Judge Damages presiding in this case.  See  Writ of Mandamus

In response to the Court of Federal Claims’ order, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to this court. We converted the Plaintiffs’ petition to a notice of appeal on April 19, 2016. We have jurisdiction to address the Plaintiffs’ appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

5. The Court completely ignored the rejection of the appearance that this was inappropriate and that its inappropriateness was based on a significant appearance of perceived Biases. It is completely inconsistent with the judiciary’s stated intent to maintain an appearance of independence and integrity. See Integrity & Independence in the Federal Judiciary?

DISCUSSION

We review whether the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed a complaint for either a lack of jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted de novo. Boyle v. United States, 200 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We “uphold[] the Court of Federal Claims’ evidentiary rulings absent an abuse of discretion.” Id.6.

6. Honestly I do not know what this means. I presume they found no abuse of discretion? It’s simply not clear to me. But in my book, it was a significant abuse of discretion as this opinion ignored the Supreme Courts’ guidance on jurisdiction sees the petition for rehearing linked below.

Dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper only when a plaintiff “can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Leider v. United States, 301 F.3d 1290, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “In reviewing the Court of Federal Claims’ grant of Rule 12(b)(6) motion, we must assume that all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint are true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant.” Adams v. United States, 391 F.3d 1212, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The Court of Federal Claims properly found that it lacked jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims. While styled as a breach of contract and takings claims, the Plaintiffs’ claims are, at the bottom, requests that the Court of Federal Claims review the Western District of Virginia’s decision to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ earlier action. (Foot Note 3) 7. “The Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts . . . relating to proceedings before those courts.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiffs now argue that the RICO Act is, itself, a money-mandating statute conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims, (Foot Note 4)  we hold that it is not. See Treviño v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009). 8.

7. This is not a review of the lower court’s RICO decision. It is a review of the lower court’s actions in the violation of the Plaintiff’s procedural rights breaching the Government Agency’s responsibility to provide Due Process. Effectively the Judge criminally joined in as a participant in the RICO operation to effect the Government’s criminal and unconstitutional objectives.

8. This is where the court has gone way astray. This implies “Plaintiffs Now Argue” as if it was not argued in the Complaint from the start. That would be a LIE! Not only is it the Contention of the original complaint it was argued at length in subsequent replies. Furthermore, if the statute is money mandating and Supreme Court precedent says it is. Then it is within the court’s jurisdiction according to all current Supreme Court precedents. Additionally, the court has cited two cases that did not address the civil Rico statute at all. The Court must have known if they truly reviewed the case of De Novo that this is a LIE. The case specifically identifies the Civil Statute. Additionally, The only justification for acknowledging this lie is because they know the ruling is contrary to Supreme Court Precedent. So the Court knows based on Supreme Court Precedent and interpretations of the Statute it is within the court’s jurisdiction. That is the Supreme Court has stated any statute. So it does not matter whether it’s a criminal statute if it can reasonably be construed as placing liability on the Government. They are looking to railroad this case! Or did they LIE to use the case to set a Precedent, after all, they did actually express an opinion?  We shall see! If I were a traitor I would not find comfort in the Court’s misrepresentations. They are basically lies of obscurity. See the Courts Footnote 4. below. 

Also, the Court is implying the argument is new and it was not its specifically stated in the original complaint. So does that mean that the Court failed to provide a fair hearing to start with? 

Foot Note 3  The Court of Federal Claims also dismissed claims it understood Plaintiffs to raise under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Order, 2016 WL 929219, at *2. In their opening brief, the Plaintiffs make clear that none of their claims “w[ere], or [are], based on violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Appellant’s Opening Br. 38. “[T]he party who brings a suit is master to decide what law he will rely upon.” The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 228 U.S.22, 25 (1913). Therefore, we do not address this portion of the court’s opinion.

9. Yes it says based but, it was and is specifically and intentionally identified as a causation for the Breach of Contract or a taking. Here’s the direct and complete quote from the appeal. ” Emphasis added.

“No claim was, or is, based on violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Although, such criminal acts contributed to the denial of Due Process and the Duty owed Appellants in obtaining their due process property interest as expressed under terms of the contract.” 

Foot Note 4 See Appellants’ Opening Br. 39 (“As has been consistently argued by Appellants throughout these proceedings 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) is absolutely [a] money mandating statute, which provides substantive property rights in money damages.”).

The Court of Federal Claims’ alternative analysis— i.e., that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted—was likewise correct. The plaintiffs’ allegations do not establish that any contract existed between the Plaintiffs and the government. The plaintiffs’ characterization of § 1964(c) of the RICO Act as a contract “offer” is false. “[A]bsent some clear indication that the legislature intends to bind itself contractually, the presumption 10. is that a law is not intended to create private contractual or vested rights.’” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465–66 (1985) (quoting Dodge v. Bd. of Ed., 302 U.S. 74, 79 (1937)). Nothing in the RICO Act suggests it was intended to function as a contract offer to private citizens.

10. Note the Court says it is presumed. i.e they assumed absent some clear indication, however, the filing of a complaint does not require the presentation of evidence and the court offered no opportunity to present any. How appropriate is it for a Federal Court in a case against the U.S. Government to balance the scales of justice with assumptions? Keep in mind any normal individual would call having your attorney fees paid in the event of a successful prosecution and offer. The burden of proof in a civil case is a preponderance of the evidence. Evidence the court never heard. And the Federal Rules of Evidence specifically address the opportunity to address presumptions. 

The plaintiffs also failed to allege an unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs contend that their RICO Act claim in the Western District of Virginia represented a property right that was taken by the government when the district court dismissed the claim. We have held that frustration of a legal claim, like that alleged by the Plaintiffs, is not a compensable taking. See Belk v. United States, 858 F.2d 706, 709 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (holding that international agreement that barred Iranian hostages from bringing legal action could not form the basis of a takings claim). 11.

11. Well I won’t touch this again it’s a joke. The case cited was based on liabilities that properly lay in a foreign country. Not with the U.S. Government. More obfuscation intended to protect the King. 

Finally, we hold that Judge Damich did not abuse his discretion when he denied the Plaintiffs’ motion that he recuse himself from the case. See Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1283, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Consistent with the vast majority of courts to consider this issue, we review a judge’s failure to recuse for an abuse of discretion.”). By statute, all federal judges must swear or affirm to perform their duties under the Constitution before taking office. See 28 U.S.C. § 453. There is no requirement that a federal judge later establishes that he took that oath or affirmation to the satisfaction of any particular party.12.

11. Judge Damich Connection as well as that of Chief Justice Sharon Prost to the design, and implementation of the RICO enterprise which was the subject of the original suit is a story and a half all its own. See Integrity & Independence in the Federal Judiciary?

If you find this interesting, I hope you read more of the blog. It’s really all about  TREASON within the U.S. Government and Federal Judiciary. It’s very clear that the Federal Judiciary is utterly biased and determined to protect the U.S. Governments’ criminal operations with any, and all means of deceit, and avoidance of the law available to them.

AFFIRMED

Below is a link to the Petition filed in response to this continued corruption in the Federal Courts. I would appreciate anyone reviewing the arguments against this opinion by the second highest court in the land of traitors. You will need to review the court’s citations and the objections to the ones presented in the lower court ruling in case 1:15-cv-01344 dkt 7.  7-main

Petition for Rehearing Final 

Read the blog post on the petition for rehearing here: Petition for Rehearing Denied

Please feel free to leave a comments below.

Integrity & Independence in the Federal Judiciary ?
by

Integrity & Independence in the Federal Judiciary ?

Federal Courts claim a desire to maintain an appearance of integrity and independence. From judicial Cannon number 1. But do they really? Read this brief history and let me know if you think they’re failing. Please leave your thoughts in a reply at the end; your input would be greatly appreciated.

“A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards , so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved”

You will find on this blog numerous posts supporting the belief, the Agricultural reorganization act of 1994, signed into law by William Jefferson Clinton, was done to establish a criminal racketeering (RICO) enterprise within the Secretary of Agricultures Office; An office reporting directly to the President of the United States. See i.e In The War On You And Me

According to Congressional records, George H. W. Bush nominated Judge Edward J. Damich for an appointment to the Copyright Royalty Tribunal (CRT) on March 13, 1992, and on October 8, 1992, the nomination was returned to the President. The nomination was resubmitted on September 9,1992.  I can find no government record that Judge Edward J.Damich was ever confirmed by the Senate for a position on the CRT. See. Nominations of Edward J. Damich

On March 9, 1993, Judge Edward J. Damich’s nomination to the CRT was withdrawn by the newly elected President William Jefferson Clinton. Two weeks to the day after a final decision in the Coleman v. Espy class action lawsuit against the USDA.

Judge Edward J. Damich CV has had a mysterious employment gap from March 1993 until 1995 when he became employed as Chief Intellectual Property Counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. See Edward J. Damich US Court of Federal Claims

Chief Justice Sharon Prost was Chief Counsel of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate from 1993 to 2001. See. Sharon Prost, Chief Judge US Court of Appeals. Wouldn’t the Chief counsel on the judiciary had a say in the hiring of new counsel like Edward J. Damich? 

Current Vice President Joe Biden was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Kika de la Garza Texas Democrat and environmental advocate was Chairman of the Agricultural committee. John Conyers a Democrat and founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, of which Mike Epsy was a member was ranking member on the Congressional Judiciary Committee, and the Chairman was Texas Democrat Jack Brooks.

The Congressional and Senate Judiciary committees would have played major roles in the passage of the Agricultural Reorganization Act of 1994.  Or should we say the Agricultural RICO Act of 1994?

I sued the USDA for the operation of this RICO enterprise in 2013. To this day I seek the opportunity to present evidence of these allegations to a Jury of civilians.  I allege that from 2013 to 2014 Senior  Federal district court Judge Jackson L. Kiser railroaded my RICO filing with the specific intent to protect the USDA’s RICO enterprise from prosecution. See case 4:13-cv-00054-JLK CA4 14-1480, 14-1925, and Supreme Court Writ of Certiorari petition 14-1051. I call this case the Northfolk Southern Rico express. A judge has only to pen his name, to one major lie, to destroy the appearance of having any integrity. Judge Kiser’s Memorandum opinion is full of lies, denials of the law, and due process.

In November of 2015, I filed suit against the United States Government, precisely because, I believe Judge Jackson L. Kiser acted with the specific intent to aid and abet the USDA’s RICO enterprise in the commission of the racketeering operations objectives. See 1:15-cv-1344

The Judge assigned to this case was Judge Edward J. Damich, appointed to the court by William Jefferson Clinton, who again I allege railroaded this case, consequently, a writ of mandamus was filed with the Court of Appeals for the Federal District see CA1 16-122. See Mandamus Usurped Justice Usurped Impartial Hearing Denied

The Court of Appeals Federal District converted the writ of mandamus, to a request for appeal. See Mandamus Usurped Justice Usurped Impartial Hearing Denied. The appeal was assigned to  Chief Justice Sharon Prost who was accompanied, by two new judges and again railroaded the case see CA1 16-1889. See Treason & The Good Ole Boy Network The ABA Within!  and Federal Court Opinion Balances Scales of Justice With Lies I call this one The Pennsylvania Railroad express. 

In response to the railroad of Case 16-1889, a petition for rehearing was submitted which  I believe shows the ruling was not in accordance with Supreme Court precedent on the case. If the Court denies the petition or rules against it, the only remaining option is an expensive and highly unlikely appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. One they would likely never grant, as the ruling would clearly not be in accordance with established law. See blog post  Petition for Rehearing Denied.

Understand that it’s my firm belief,  the Agricultural Reorganization Act of 1994 was the foundation for an Act of Treason against the American Farmer, the Constitution, and We The People. That the Senate and Congressional Judiciary committees would have been involved in the legislation passage. And Chief Justice Sharon Prost and Judge Edward J. Damich would likely have worked with the Senate Judiciary on the passage of this criminal, unconstitutional act of treason.

Do you believe for 1 second Judge Edward J. Damich and Chief  Justice Sharon Prost can legitimately claim to have independence in these court proceedings? Does their involvement and participation in the implementation of the legislation alleged to be an act of treason not put the court’s integrity in question, by having them preside over proceedings?

A Railroad of criminal injustice never to see the light of media exposure. A railroad where the tracks of judicial integrity and independence of the judiciary are a train wreck and there’s no judicial accountability for criminal injustice. Today the judiciary continues to allow this criminal unconstitutional legislation to cause all manner of destruction to the life, livelihood, and property of America’s Farmers, the constitution, and  “WE THE PEOPLE”. Most disturbing of all is the fact numerous members of the Supreme Court including Chief Justice John Roberts have expressed the opinion that a key component of the RICO’s racket; a reliance on judicial deference is unconstitutional.

As a patriot traitors and their families are the enemies, as are all those who aid and defend them.

Look for  the Tweetsie Railroad already on the tracks See Wall of Injustice Street and Letter to Judge Robert J. Conrad August 29, 2016

Please note the court may not like my commentary as Judge Jackson L. Kiser made so clear, However, I do not have the power to change the law and nothing I say should have any bearing on its just administration!

CB Julian

Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se

Blue Ridge Springs,

Patriot Soldier of Misfortune.

@blueridgespring

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Blueridgesprings.com

Morgan Griffith The Tree of Liberty
by

Morgan Griffith The Tree of Liberty

August 9, 2016

Congressmen Morgan Griffith,

RE: The tree of liberty.

Congressman on April 9,2016 I wrote to you regarding the tree of liberty. This letter was one of numerous communications between your office and me over the last 4 years. In that letter, I told you

“You are responsible and accountable. I will not tolerate my family being victims of government tyranny and oppression. I will not tolerate a Government warring against the people and the people’s constitution.”

The United States is supposed to be a republic based on the rule of law. The Constitution of the United States is the law. It proclaims itself as such, in Article V. clause II. “The Supremacy Clause is “the Supreme Law of the Land”. There is no Law without a sovereign, and the Sovereign, the supreme lawgiver is “We The People” collectively through our state representative. That would be you!

The constitution of the United States mentions only one law twice the Due Process clause. Due Process is the requirement that Government operates legally and within the law. Due process commands that no man be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

I have for many years now followed proper procedures in Federal Courts of Law to have justice served for my family under the law and to pursue putting an end to the USDA’s criminal enterprise which is specifically and intentionally designed to deny the people their constitutional rights to due process.

Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution Treason. The Supreme law defines it as “ Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them”(Them would be We The People!) “or in adhering to their enemies” ( Enemies of We The People).

The USDA’s enterprise designed to deny the people’s rights to due process is an act of treason, which wars against the constitution of the United States.
The Federal Courts have been aiding and abetting the USDA’s act of treason for decades with the unconstitutional doctrine of deference. I applaud congress in its recent action H.R.4768 to eliminate this unconstitutional usurpation of judicial authority. I sincerely hope this legislation will be signed into law.

However, when I filed charges against the USDA for Racketeering the Federal Judiciary aided and abetted the USDA in protecting its criminal enterprise from prosecution. The court’s rulings were filled with deceit, deception, misrepresentation, and outright lies, the actions were biased, arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law. This was woefully inconsistent with the judicial oath of office, judicial cannons, the law, and an act of treason in adhering to the enemies of We The People. A Government enemy turned tyrant actively warring against the constitution to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights and now protected from prosecution by a Federal judiciary charged with protecting the rights of We The People. That is the essence of a traitor; another act of treason! And was the impetus for my second major contact with your office.

I sued the U.S. Government in the Federal Court of claims because the U.S. Federal Judiciary violated the performance terms of the contract as defined in the RICO statute and the Federal Rules of Civil procedure, which defines the terms for the prosecution of all federal statutes. Once again the Federal Court has intentionally subverted and denied justice with deceit, deception, misrepresentation, and again with outright lies. The fact judge Edward J. Damich an individual who appears to have played a major role in the design and implementation of the USDA’s criminal enterprise was assigned to this case seems highly unlikely to have been a mere coincidence. Having Chief Justice Sharon Prost a collogue of Judge Damich at the time of the enterprise’s creation and implementation drawn for appellate review of Judge Damich’s 12b(6) dismissal is also a highly unlikely coincidence. I previously discussed her involvement in the creation of the enterprise with you in my letter of March 21, 2016.

This letter will be published on my blog at blueridgesprings.wordpress.com followed later by the opinion of the appellate court in case 16-1889 which will be critiqued for its obfuscation and lies. I sincerely hope you will review in detail the factual allegation of the court’s lies and deceit on my blog.

The Federal Court of Appeals’ biggest lie; I contend is this. The Treble damages, attorneys fees, and court costs defined in Federal Statute 18 U.S.C §1964(c) which the Supreme Court stated in numerous opinions are mandated compensatory damages and the carrot of incentives. The Federal Court of Appeals ruled is not a money-mandating statute, which confers jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims. The Court justified this by arguing for the first time ever in the final opinion ” is that a fair procedure? not that it’s not money mandating as previously, but that the court lacks jurisdiction because it’s a criminal statute. Dismissing this case without allowing the opportunity for any argument to this pure BS finding.

Jurisdiction under the tucker act only requires that a contract be paired with a money-mandating statute (any Statute) not that the statute also must also be within the court’s jurisdiction. The precedent cited by the court is from two prior cases where the court stated it lacked jurisdiction to hear criminal RICO cases. This case is based on a breach of contract by judicial personnel, in an appropriate court, in the application of a money-mandating criminal statute, where a Government agency was the defendant. The Government is liable for those damages and the Courts Breach of fiduciary duty.

“Section 1491 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows the Court of Claims to entertain claims against the United States “founded either upon the Constitution or “ANY” Act of Congress”

18 U.S.C. §1964(c) is a Federal Statute and an act of Congress.

All the current supreme court precedent on this issue reflects the Tucker Act can be paired with “ANY” statute that specifies a money mandate.
See Justice Anton Scalia United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009);

“The other source of law need not explicitly provide that the right or duty it creates is enforceable through a suit for damages, but it triggers liability only if it “`can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government.” And the Government was the defendant in the RICO case.

See Justice Blackmum United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976);

“It follows that the asserted entitlement to money damages depends upon whether “ANY” any federal statute “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained.”

Please take the time to look at this railroading by a chief Federal Court judge who should know they supported this decision with a lie. It’s simply despotic for the courts to take 8 months on a case to dismiss it with an outright lie!

When Federal Judges intentionally balance the scales of justice with deceit, deception, misrepresentation, and outright lies. They become the greatest, thieves, rapists, murderers, and criminals known to man, and yet even when it’s done with obvious intent and malice they’re protected by absolute immunity while they leave their victims for dead. The Judicial system in the United States is an absolute mockery of justice. One only needs to Google “Judicial Abuse” to see the large number of institutions focused on corruption in America’s Courts. If not addressed this cancer of corruption will inevitably lead to terminal anarchy? I’m sick and tired of a Federal Judiciary, which acts with malice and specific intent to corruptly protect Government criminals and incompetence.

On April 15, 2016, I filed suit against Wall Street in this matter case 3:16-cv-173. It was after all their negligence and fraud, which forced me into the lair of the USDA’s criminal enterprise. This suit too, the Federal Court is handling with judicial abuse, failing for more than a hundred days to rule on a simple motion to proceed in forma paupris.

You cannot win in any court of law that does not adhere to the law or its fair and proper administration. The Federal Courts are corrupted and in bed with protecting a Government turned tyrant. They are in fact adhering to an enemy of We The People – A Government operating in its own interest and against that of the people it’s designed to serve. They are protecting a despotic tyrant King.

I have previously informed you of my laws regarding this matter. I intend to die a man of my word. I intend to die with honor. You must see that justice prevails in these matters or accept that I will. The Governments actions and those of the Federal Courts in these matters have granted numerous licenses for a patriot to take action against tyrants. The People need to know; I’m a patriot, not a terrorist. I’m a patriot pursuing traitors. I gave the system numerous opportunities and years of my life to do right and repeatedly and consistently encountered a government corrupted in all its branches and my every petition was answered only by repeated injury leaving me to serve my own justice. My personal resources, time, money, and patience with a corrupted system are all but gone and once again my family is facing homelessness again as a direct result of Government corruption. Trust me this makes a man very unstable.

Congressmen Griffith, I have discussed this journey with your office almost since the time it began, at least since my first pleas to the Senate to address the issue of Dodd-Frank; which forced us to seek assistance from the USDA. Passage of H.R 4768 while nice does nothing to relieve the pain and suffering my family continues to endure at the hands of a corrupt and despotic Government. The Government is not listening nor appropriately responding; nor following the laws of this nation. The world needs to know I did all I could to be heard, by Congress, the Senate, The Federal Courts, the President, and the media to no avail. Any and all consequences are the responsibility of the U.S. Government, which should be held accountable and liable for damages.

UpDate 8-20-2016  Wall Street Law Suit has been on the Federal Court Docket for 126 Days and they have not allowed it to move forward? See Wall of Injustice Street

UpDate 8-22-2016 Today the Clerk of Court replied in the Case filed against the Too Big To Fail Banks of Wall Street
” Mr. Julian,
upon review of your case, it appears that the motion is still pending at this time and is still waiting on a decision from the Judge. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office at 704-350-7400, thank you.”

Just a note: on this Court clerk, When I filed this case he had me escorted from the building by 6 Federal Marshalls for raising my voice to him after he butted into a conversation I’ll inform you.

UpDate 8-20-2016 – A petition for Rehearing was filed with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit exposing the courts lies see related post-Treason & The Good Ole Boy Network; The ABA Within Read the Petition: Petition for Rehearing Final. 

UpDate 8-29-2016 – I have not written the President in some time. He has not responded to my prior letters see. Mr. President, You Are an Imposter & Mr. President All that’s necessary for the triumph of Government evil is for those in power to do nothing! But I receive a letter from the White House and I don’t know to what they are replying. Perhaps Morgan Griffith shared this letter to him with the White House. In any event, what the White House letter is referring to is unidentifiable. See the letter at this link. Mr. President