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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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,
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.
Case: 16-1889 Document: 13-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/04/2016 (3 of 10)
JULIAN v. US
Before PROST, Chief Judge, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
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 March 10, 2016, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed 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 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 dismissal was proper. We therefore affirm.
Plaintiffs’ claims in this case arise from dismissal of an earlier case they filed in the Western District of Vir ginia. On September 16, 2013, 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 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 Plaintiffs’ claims, with the exception of the request for 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 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 Cir. 2014), and the Supreme Court denied 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 courts 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 preform Judicial review was actually challenged. Plaintiffs objected profoundly and insisted the judge lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the conversion of a civil case filling 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, 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. Interesting they left out the predicate acts of the RICO filing.
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. 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, Plaintiffs alleged that the district court’s dismissal effectuated an unlawful “taking” of 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 limited space.
On March 10, 2016, the Court of Federal Claims dis missed Plaintiffs’ action. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Western District of Virginia’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ earlier case and that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of contract or an unlawful taking. Order, 2016 WL 929219, at *2–3. As part of the order, Judge Damich denied Plaintiffs’ request that he recuse himself because he refused to attest to 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. Their’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, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus to this court. We converted Plaintiffs’ petition to a notice of appeal on April 19, 2016. We have jurisdiction to address Plaintiffs’ appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
5. The Court completely ignored rejection of the appearance this was inappropriate and that its inappropriateness was based on a significant appearance of perceived Biases.It is completely inconsistent with the judiciaries stated intent to maintain an appearance of independence and integrity. See Integrity & Independence in the Federal Judiciary ?
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 was this opinion ignoring the Supreme Courts guidance on jurisdiction see the petition for re hearing 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 a 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 Plaintiffs’ claims. While styled as breach of contract and takings claims, Plaintiffs’ claims are, at bottom, requests that the Court of Federal Claims review the Western District of Virginia’s decision to dismiss 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 courts RICO decision. It is a review of the lower courts actions in the violation of the Plaintiffs procedural rights breaching the Government Agency responsibility to provide Due Process. Effectively the Judge criminally joined in as a participant in the RICO operation to effect the Governments 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 courts jurisdiction according to all current Supreme Court precedent. Additionally, the court has cited two cases which did not address civil Rico statute at all. The Court must have known if they truly reviewed the case 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 courts jurisdiction. That is the Supreme Court has stated any statute. So it does not matter whether its 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 Precedent, after all they did actually express an opinion? We shall see! If I were a traitor I would not find comfort in the Courts misrepresnetations. They are basically lies of obscurity. See the Courts Footnote 4. below.
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, Plaintiffs make clear that none of their claims “w[ere], or [are], based on violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Appellants’ 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 Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted—was likewise correct. Plaintiffs’ allegations do not establish that any contract existed between Plaintiffs and the government. 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 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 an 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.
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 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 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 establish 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.
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 courts citations and the objections to the ones presented in lower courts ruling in case 1:15-cv-01344 dkt 7. 7-main
Please feel free to leave a comments below.