Christopher B. Julian

474 Orchard View Drive

Ararat Virginia, 24053

980-254-1295

Christopher.b.julian@gmail.com

Pro Se   Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Christopher B. And Renee G. Julian Plaintiffs(s), V, Bank Of America N.A. Et Al

) )

Case Number: 3:16-CV-173 Letter to the Honorable Judge Robert J. Conrad Requesting the Court ruling on the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Letter requesting the Courts ruling on the prior motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Plaintiffs Christopher B. and Renee G. Julian; here and after referred to as Plaintiffs, respectfully request the Honorable Judge Robert J. Conrad rule on the motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Docket item 2 based on the following justifications.

Justifications:

Case 3:16-CV-00173 has been on the court’s docket for four months.

 If the court finds the Plaintiffs financially eligible and the complaint meritorious Plaintiffs believe they have a fundamental right under the 7^th Amendment for the case to continue and the court should require issuance and service of process. If the court finds for any reason the complaint is deficient then the court should allow for amendment of the complaint unless its deficiencies cannot be cured. Plaintiffs would request if the court finds for any reason the complaint deficient Plaintiffs be granted a request for leave of Court to amend the complaint.

This Case has the potential to assist Plaintiffs with legal aid in the Prosecution of another Federal case in the Publics interest.

 Plaintiffs informed the Court in the Complaint “C” Docket (DKT) Item # 1 at p.6 footnote 1. Plaintiffs would again bring Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) charges against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Additionally, in “C” p.41 footnote 17 RICO Provides for a civil cause of action and places the Plaintiff into the role of a prosecutor. And at “C” p.47 footnote 18 Defendants in this instant case may site the USDA for contributory negligence. Consequently, the Plaintiffs believe Counsel for the Defense in this instant case would have a compelling reason and standing to assist the Plaintiffs, in the RICO prosecution of the USDA.

The Initial predicate acts of the RICO filing occurred in October of 2012 and the Supreme Court has shortened the RICO statutes, the statute of limitations, to four years. See Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000). Pro Se Plaintiffs have concerns about the Statute of Limitations for refiling the RICO Complaint and the effects of the RICO’S continued operation on others. True, the Plaintiffs originally filed in September 2013, and believe the Courts should grant equitable tolling for the statute of limitations but, that remains a concern, and Plaintiffs believe the Defense Counsel in this instant case could provide significant legal expertise in the prosecution of the RICO case in the Publics interest.

Legal Expertise and the Poor’s need for assistance.

The importance of legal expertise in protecting civil rights laws and assistance with the Legal cost is detailed in the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976. Where legislators stated see: S. Rep. 94-1011 p.6 (1976).

“In many cases arising under our civil rights laws, the citizen who

must sue to enforce the law and has little or no money with which to hire a lawyer. If private citizens are to be able to assert their civil rights, and if those who violate the Nation’s fundamental laws are not to proceed with impunity, then citizens must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rights in court.”

“Congress has instructed the courts to use the broadest and most effective remedies available to achieve the goals of our civil rights laws.”

“If the cost of private enforcement actions becomes too great, there will be no private enforcement. If our civil rights laws are not to become mere hollow pronouncements which the average citizen cannot enforce, we must maintain the traditionally effective remedy of fee-shifting in these cases.”

As a Pro Se with little or no money, as the motion for IFP purported; Plaintiffs have found the cost of private enforcement actions too great, and the Civil rights laws protecting the people’s fundamental rights hollow. Taking on the U.S. Federal Government in legal action was of no interest to law firms who insisted on compensation rates from $200 to $800 dollars an hour to look at the case’s potential. Consequently, Plaintiffs were and are monetarily prohibited from shopping the RICO case, and legal firms are not willing to review a case’s potential, free of charge, nor were they interested in long-term potential litigation efforts against the U.S. Government for potential future compensation. Consequently, Plaintiffs have handled all the legal efforts as Pro – Se now for more than 3 years against the largest law firm in the Nation. The benefit of legal assistance cannot be understated, which brought the Plaintiffs to realize this instant case creates a common interest with the Defendants’ legal counsel to pursue prosecution of a Government-run criminal enterprise. The Court’s delay in responding to the Motion to proceed IFP denies Plaintiffs potential access to much greatly desired legal assistance if the court finds the case meritorious.

Prompt litigation to combat racketeering is an obvious objective against the legitimate business activities of organized crime.

The Supreme Court’s justification for the shortening of the Statute was that eliminating racketeering the sooner the better is a proper objective see Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549(2000) and Footnote 3 of ¶557

“This objective of encouraging prompt litigation to combat racketeering is the most obvious answer to Rotella’s argument that the injury and pattern discovery rule should be adopted because “RICO is to be read broadly” and “ ‘liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes,’ ” Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Impex Co., 473 Pub. L. 91–452, § 904(a), 84 Stat. 947).”[1]

Furthermore, in the Supreme Court decision of Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates][107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987)]: The Supreme Court stated:

“The antitrust laws now provide a well-established vehicle for attacking anticompetitive activity of all kinds. They contain broad discovery provisions as well as civil and criminal sanctions. These extraordinarily broad and flexible remedies ought to be used more extensively against the `legitimate’ business activities of organized crime.” 113 Cong. Rec. 17999 (1967).[2]

And of particular interest should be the citations of the congressional intent. “be used more extensively against the `legitimate’ business activities of organized crime.” And “Congress has instructed the courts to use the broadest and most effective remedies available to achieve the goals of our civil rights laws.”

The plaintiffs request the court rule on the Motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis, effecting the process of service or alternatively, to dismiss the case for lack of merit, or identify the Complaint’s deficiencies and grant the Plaintiffs leave to amend. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs request the court’s acknowledgment of the connection and intent for equitable tolling in the Plaintiff’s RICO case. The continued delay, is a delay of fundamental rights, inflicting further emotional distress, continued financial distress, delaying potential access to legal aid, further potential harms to discovery, and prescribing an appearance of prejudicial treatment. Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court realize, Plaintiffs assume, had the court found the complaint significantly lacking in merit the Court would have already dismissed the case.

Respectfully Submitted,

Christopher.B.Julian Pro-Se

[1] Emphasis Added.

[2] Emphasis Added.

Up-Date 10-7-2016- On September 27th Judge Robert J. Conrad denied after more than 5 months on the docket, A friendly nudge of the court clerk at 3 months, and a month after receiving this letter the request to proceed in forma Pauperis. This is interesting for both its timing; the day after the court of Appeals in the Federal Circuit made their lies final. see federal-court-opinion-balances-scales-of-justice-with-lies & petition-for-rehearing-denied AND On three prior occasions the Federal Courts granted In Forma Pauperis status, the last one was granted 2 days prior to this filing, with the same financial information. Go Figure? Today the Court Fees were paid and the summons issued. Yesterday,  morning the court received via certified mail see USPS Confirmation a motion for the court to reconsider its ruling. It’s interesting and reeks of impropriety that the court docketed the motion as received on 10-7-2016 when USPS confirmed delivery on 10-6-2016. and the Signed receipt for delivery shows received 10-6-2016 Interesting, it was docketed and stamped received 10-7-2016 today after the court fees were paid. The facts unfolding in this court suggest we are once again destined to be treated with impropriety. This ruling while not what we would have liked does suggest three key things. Note: we paid the filing fee after submitting a motion to reconsider the IFP order because we believe the IFP order to have been a function of the will and not one of judgment. A judge can never change his will only an inappropriate judgment. The Court for all the aforementioned events has forfeited rights to respect. 

1. The judge must have found the case to have merit.
2. The judge did not find the filing deficient but, we shall see the replies and how they’re handled.
3. The Judge must have found the defendants owed the plaintiffs the duty of care in the negligence allegations. We shall see.