Petition for Rehearing Denied

Petition for Rehearing Denied

The Petition below to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals was Denied by Chief Justice Sharon Prost, and two new kids Judge Chen and Judge Stoll. See the Court order 13-petition-denied Note: denial of this petition effects the precise outcome predicted long before the complaint was ever filed see the blog post Any doesn’t Mean Any Anymore

Below is the petition as submitted and denied. Note: The Court has dismissed this case for failure to state a claim. No request, in this case was ever made to Amend the Complaint. Plaintiff’s do not believe the complaint is deficient but, rather the court simply wishes to impose the Governments will with false statements and reliance on assumption rather than fact.

The Federal Courts participate in these proceedings as if they were Counsel for the Defense of the U.S. Government. There is literally no appearance of impartiality by the Federal Judiciary.

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

The Panels decision conflicts with decisions of the United States Supreme Court in:

United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009);

United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538, 100 S.Ct. 1349,63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980);

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

Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 599, 607,372 F.2d 1002, 1009 (1967));

Compagnie General Transatlantique v. United States, D.C., 21 F.2d 465, 466.(1927);

The Court of Appeals for the Federal District Opinion relies on:

Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009);

Plaintiffs find no indication, other than the Courts reliance and citation; these cases are binding precedent in the Federal Court of Claims or in the Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. To the extent they are Plaintiffs seek to have them overruled.

  1. 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) is a money-mandating statute conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1) based on identifiable decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

 The Court of Appeals states at 5 ¶2 of their Opinion:

“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,4 we hold that it is not.[1] See Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009).“ [2]

This statement of the Court presents numerous issues.

First the Court implies by this statement Plaintiffs had not previously argued RICO Act was a money-mandating statute, which is false, and evidenced by the Courts footnote 4 and fact it is specifically stated in the Complaint at Dkt item 1. p.14 ¶42(3) (Consideration)

“This statute providing a civil cause of action identifies a source of substantive law separate from the Tucker Act creating a right to monetary damages”

It was further discussed in Plaintiffs responsive reply brief Dkt. Item 7 (C) p. 20-23. Second by implication the Court appears to concede RICO is a money-mandating statute but contends its one that does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims.[3] The Court has then citied precedent Plaintiffs were not afforded opportunity to address. If it’s the Courts contention, the Federal Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to hear a criminal RICO case plaintiffs would agree that’s true, however, if it’s the courts contention the Federal Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction with regards to RICO’s civil cause of action as another separate source of law mandating compensation by the Federal Government when paired with the Tucker act; Plaintiffs would argue that’s not in accordance with the Court of Federal Claims mandated jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1), or with the Supreme Courts interpretations which Plaintiffs relied on in filing the complaint. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges Jurisdiction under the Tucker Act of 1887, codified at 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1), which 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 an act of Congress and a Federal statute. The Supreme Court stated: Justice Anton Scalia United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009);

““Neither the Tucker Act nor the Indian Tucker Act creates substantive rights; they are simply jurisdictional provisions that operate to waive sovereign immunity for claims premised on other sources of law (e.g., statutes or contracts).” Quoting United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538, 100 S.Ct. 1349, 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980) “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.” (quoting Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 599, 607, 372 F.2d 1002, 1009 (1967)) [4]

The court must recognize that in District court case 4:13-cv-00054 JLK; while liability usually lies with a third party defendant in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), The liability in case 4:13-cv-00054 JLK and consequently this instant case lies with the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government was rightfully the defendant in the RICO civil suit filed in a Federal Court of appropriate jurisdiction. The court as agent / trustee for the U.S. Government and We The People, converted the terms of agreement to become judge, jury, and defendant, dismissing its own case without due process of law in violation of Plaintiffs procedural rights. The Government in this case is liable for damages as both Defendant and as agent / trustee, which breached its fiduciary duty of care with regards to the Plaintiffs procedural rights.[5]

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

“The Tucker Act is merely jurisdictional, and grant of a right of action must be made with specificity. The respondents do not rest their claims upon a contract; neither do they seek the return of money paid by them to the Government. It follows that the asserted entitlement to money damages depends upon whether any federal statute “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained.[6]

In this instant case Plaintiffs have rested their claims upon a contract created with the grant of a private cause of action and although, they do not seek return of money paid by them to the Government, they have asserted entitlement to money damages based upon substantive rights conveyed to the plaintiffs by congressional grant with the evocation of federal statute 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) in case 4:15-cv-00054-JLK. When the Federal Government is defendant in a RICO case the money mandate of the statute is the liability of the Federal Government and the Federal Government is additionally liable as agent / trustee when breaching its duty of care.

Judge Davis Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 599, 607, 372 F.2d 1002, 1009 (1967));

“But it is not every claim involving or invoking the Constitution, a federal statute, or a regulation which is cognizable here. The claim must, of course, be for money.

“In the second group, where no such payment has been made, the allegation must be that the particular provision of law relied upon grants the claimant, expressly or by implication, a right to be paid a certain sum” [7]

Plaintiffs have from the beginning maintained the particular provision of law relied upon 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) expressly granted them the right to treble damages, attorney’s fees, and court cost i.e. to be paid, a certain sum of money-mandated compensatory damages, that the promise (Offer) of these substantive rights to property was conveyed by Congresses explicit grant of a civil cause of action with 18 U.S.C §1964, a grant, which conveyed the promises (offer)[8] of those damages by the filing of a complaint under 18 U.S.C. §1964(c). That this particular provision of law relied upon conveyed the promise an express written offer to Plaintiffs who met the stated terms of qualification, adhered to terms of performance, and anticipated assuming the position of a Private Attorney General for the prosecution of a US Government operated RICO enterprise. Justice Aufustus Hand Compagnie General Transatlantique v. United States, D.C., 21 F.2d 465, 466,(1927).

 “* * *. To limit the recovery in cases `founded’ upon a law of Congress to cases where the law provides in terms for a recovery would make that provision of the Tucker Act almost entirely unavailable, because it would allow recovery only in cases where laws other than the Tucker Act already created a right of recovery. `Founded’ must therefore mean reasonably involving the application of a law of Congress. * * *” [9]

 The courts findings the RICO Act does not confer jurisdiction is correct however, the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1) which says founded upon any Act of Congress and under the Supreme Courts interpretations of that Statute a RICO’s Civil Cause of Action filed against the U.S. Government creates a reasonable right of recovery from the Federal Government.

As Justice Scalia conveys other sources of law (e.g., statutes or contracts) triggering liability if it can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government. Justice Blackmum entitlement to money damages confers where “any” federal statute can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained. Judge Davis the allegation must be the particular provision of law relied upon grants the claimant, expressly or by implication, a right to be paid a certain sum. Justice Aufustus founded means reasonably involving the application of a law of Congress.

18 U.S.C. §1964(c) is a Federal statute (a law of Congress) granting to a private citizen, meeting stated requirements, the mandated promise of treble damages, attorney fees, and court cost, for accepting the Governments offer of compensation in exchange for prosecuting a criminal case in the publics interest. When the Federal Government is the defendant in a criminal RICO case its fair to interpret the statute as expressly mandating compensation of a certain sum from the Federal Government. Furthermore, as agent / trustee of the U.S. Government, which breached its duty of care in the prosecution of a Government Agency, the Federal Government becomes libel for the full potential benefit of a successful prosecution.

The Courts reliance on Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009).“ is Misapprehended; neither of these cases involved a breach of contract or takings claim, for a specific performance failure, where the RICO statue had been evoked in an appropriate jurisdiction. Neither of these cases looked at RICO as another source of law mandating compensation by the Federal Government on which a breach of contract or taking claim under the Tucker act was founded. Neither of these cases looked at a civil action under the RICO statute.

However, if its the courts contention 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) does not fall within the Courts jurisdiction Plaintiffs challenge such an interpretation as not in accordance with the jurisdictional mandate for 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1) nor in accordance with Supreme Court precedential interpretation of the jurisdiction conferred on the Court as discussed supra.

To the extent Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009) is precedential opinion in the Federal Circuit which was relied on in Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs would ask to have this precedent overruled by the Federal Circuit. The Court stated its justification in Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009) at p.5 B. “The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff’s Criminal Claims”

“This court has no jurisdiction over RICO claims, because RICO is a criminal statute.” And excluded 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) by specifically referencing “18 U.S.C. §§1961- 62”

In Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014) The Court stated:

“These claims do not fall within the court’s jurisdiction as defined by the Tucker Act because none of those statutes or constitutional provisions mandate the payment of money. See Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009) (holding that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over RICO claims).”

In Hufford v. United States the Court found it-lacked jurisdiction because RICO was a criminal statute and specified §§1961- 62, however, 18 U.S.C §1964(c) grants a “Civil” cause of action not “Criminal” a civil cause where the United States was defendant. The contention the Court lacks jurisdiction is inconsistent with Supreme Court interpretations of the court of Federal Claims jurisdictional mandate under 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1) as discussed supra. If the Federal Court of Appeals has found as Plaintiffs consistently argued 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) is a Federal Statute mandating compensatory damages for economic injuries i.e. a money-mandating statute see Dkt. Item 7 (C ) p. 20-23, and Plaintiffs maintain it is. Then it would fall within the Courts jurisdiction and the misapprehended conclusion of Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Statute does not “mandate the payment of money” is false.

  1. 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) Grants a Private cause of action a clear indication the legislature intended to create private Contractual or vested rights.

The Court of Appeals states at 6 ¶2 of their Opinion.

“Plaintiffs’ allegations do not establish that any contract existed between Plaintiffs and the government. Plaintiffs’ Characterization of §1964(c) as a contract “offer” is false.” “[A]bsent some clear indication that the legislature intends to bind itself contractually, the presumption is that a law is not intended to create private contractual or vested rights” “Nothing in RICO Act suggests it was intended to function as a contract offer to private citizens.[10]

The Court of Appeals states at 4 ¶5

“ 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.”

And at 5 ¶1.

“we must assume that all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint are true.”

However, the court has based its argument on reliance of an assumption, the presumption the legislature did not intend to bind itself contractually. The Court has assumed Plaintiffs could prove no set of facts to support the claim 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) constitutes a valid offer and that in fact the statute is intended to convey contractual private rights. Contrary to the Courts precedent in Hufford v. United States “RICO is a criminal statute.” 18 U.S.C. §1964 is the congressional “GRANT” for a “CIVIL” cause of action of criminal offenses, a clear indication Congress intended to convey to the private citizen the vested right to prosecute a criminal offense for compensation. [11]

Plaintiffs would ask the Court? How this statute conveys the right to prosecute and the compensatory damages to a private citizen if not by offering to do so? How does a Pro Se become a “Private Attorney General” for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate, a woefully painful, unusual, challenging and demanding position, without an offer from Government to do so? The term applies only to the exercise of one’s ability to pursue certain specific kinds of legal actions statutorily authorized (offered). It does not create the ability to call one’s self a “private attorney general”. Consequently, the term is only applicable to a private non-attorney citizen who has accepted the statutory offer to do so.[12]

The Senate reports on the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees award Act of 1976 S. Rep. 94-1011 p.6 (1976) The Committee acknowledged that,

“[i]f 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.”

The Senate obviously intended to offer citizens, the opportunity to recover what it cost them to vindicate their rights in Court. [13]

Whether it’s a Grant, cognizable as a taking or an offer as a contract [14]neither is applicable without the Plaintiffs acceptance of the rights and promises conveyed and a Plaintiff cannot assume private attorney general status without a valid acceptance of the authorization to do so. Furthermore, the statute provides, a promise of substantial and significant benefit to the American people, the potential demise of USDA’s RICO enterprise. This Court has balanced the scales of justice with assumptions rather than fact inconsistent with the Courts procedural rule FRCP 1. They should be construed and administered to secure the “just” determination of every action.

The Courts reliance on 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)). ).“ Is a Misapprehended assumption for injustice and to the extent the Court relies on the case as precedential Plaintiffs seek to have it overruled in this instance.

  1. Plaintiff’s claims are at bottom a request the Court of Federal Claims review whether Government violated the Plaintiffs procedural due process rights and failed faithfully to perform its agency / trustee duties effecting a breach of contract or taking of personal property.

The Court of Appeals states at 5 ¶2 of their Opinion:

“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.”

This is false! Plaintiffs claims are at bottom a request the Court of Federal Claims review whether Government violated the Plaintiffs procedural due process rights and failed faithfully to perform its agency / trustee duties affecting a breach of contract or taking of personal property conveyed to Plaintiffs by an act of Congress. Rights granted with specific intent to grant Plaintiffs status as a prosecutor of Government corruption, in a Government violating the fundamental laws of this Nation, in a prosecutorial void, where the Governments action aided the Government in avoiding prosecution and effected the Governments will to unconstitutionally write new law preserving the Governments corrupt objectives. [15] To the extent the court relies on Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Regarding this matter Plaintiffs would seek to have the precedent overruled in this instance.

Submitted by,

Christopher B Julian Pro-Se

[1] Emphasis added.

[2] The court states “Plaintiffs now argue” yet its noted in footnote 4 that plaintiffs consistently argued this point throughout the proceedings. It was in fact the DOJ who argued the RICO’s damages were not money-mandating.

[3] In all prior argument the defense argued the statute was not money mandating and the Court did never clarify it.

[4] Emphasis Altered.

[5] That Judge Jackson L. Kiser chose to deny the Plaintiffs procedural rights to aid the Governments RICO enterprise is a matter between him and the Government.

[6] Emphasis altered.

[7] Emphasis Altered.

[8] To an agrieved farmer who’s business has been wipped out by government actions the prospect of being paid a reasonable attorneys fee to prosecute the offender is a very attractive offer.

[9] Emphasis added.

[10] Emphasis added.

[11] A Pro Se would be entitled to the same Attorneys fees as a Plaintiff represented by counsel

[12] The relationship might be different if an attorney prosecuted the case for a non-attorney client in anticipation of collecting an attorney’s fees.

[13] The burden of proof in a civil case is a preponderance of the evidence.

[14] How is it appropriate for the Court to presume the legislature did not intend to bind itself contractually without allowing for the presentation of evidence to the contrary?

[15] As an Article I court, the duty of Congresses separation of powers responsibility, to hold the Federal Judiciary accountable has been conveyed to the Court of Federal Claims. The Courts Duty is to render justice against the Government in favor of citizens just as it would administer between private individuals. It just takes one bad apple corp. to spoil the whole bushel.

Up-Date 10 -8- 2016 For benefit of readers you should know that every one of the courts prior arguments were shown to be based on incongruent premise. The court did not and could not provide any argument for  accepting as true their faulty unsupportable premises. So where this argument suggest a precedent be overruled it was not without significant prior support for doing so.  The very fact the this court supported their opinion with precedent on statutes which were different from the bases of the filing and arguments shows their specific intent was to deny justice. I.e. Criminal RICO and Civil RICO are different statutes!!

Advertisements
Judging the Judges of a Judge.

Judging the Judges of a Judge.

You should be paying attention. What’s presented in the Court of Appeals Federal District Case 16-1889 , is a case before the second highest court in America, where the questions are; whether the Federal Government is liable for criminal acts of a Federal Judge who’s violated a legislative promise to the American people to hold Government accountable to the law, and whether the Federal Judiciary will protect, hold accountable, or should judge, a Superior Federal District Court Judge for aiding and abetting the USDA ‘s criminal enterprise, protecting it from prosecution.

I say, If not, there’s no case in America where the judiciary will hold a member of the judicial corp. accountable, and the judicial system is quite simply corrupt and the rule of law in America meaningless. The results are in see: Petition for Rehearing Denied

Plaintiffs claims are a request the Court of Federal Claims review whether Governments employee “ Federal Superior District Judge Jackson L. Kiser violated the Plaintiffs procedural due process rights and failed faithfully to perform his duty as an agent / trustee affecting a breach of contract or taking of personal property conveyed to Plaintiffs by an act of Congress “Title 18 Chapter 96 §1964(c)”. Rights granted by legislation with the specific intent to appoint the plaintiff as a prosecutor for the express purpose of prosecuting Government corruption “the USDA’s RICO enterprise”, in a Government agency violating the fundamental laws of this Nation “ the due process and equal justice clauses of the constitution of the United States, in a prosecutorial void “ The DOJ defends Government Agencies even criminal ones”, where the Governments action “The Actions of Federal employee Superior Federal District Court Judge Jackson L. Kiser aided and abetted the Government “ The USDA’s RICO enterprise” in avoiding prosecution and effected the Governments “USDA’s” will to unconstitutionally write new law “ Usurping the legislators and the Judiciary” while preserving the Governments “USDA’S” criminal and corrupt objectives [1] as a criminal abusive tyrant.

Its all just one big  happy Government Criminal Racket however, the Legislative intent was to prevent judicial collusion by creating a civil cause of action for a criminal offense placing the verdict in the hands of a Jury and not the Judiciary.

Under the Tucker act the Supreme Court Stated in United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009). a Plaintiff  “must identify a substantive source of law that establishes specific fiduciary or other duties, and allege that the Government has failed faithfully to perform those duties.”  “If that threshold is passed, the court must then determine whether the relevant source of substantive law `can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation for damages sustained as a result of a breach of the duties [the governing law] impose[s].'”

Due Process and the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution are substantive sources of law, and impose a  agency / fiduciary duty on a Judge, to abide by the law, his oath of office, his judicial cannons, the federal rules of civil procedure, and in this instant case a fiduciary duty is imposed on him to protect the property rights, treble damages, attorney fees, and court cost that flow from the Plaintiffs economic damages and the restitution promised by statute  18 U.S.C.§1964(c) for bringing suit against the U.S. Government for racketeering.

  1. Judge Jackson L. Kiser breached his fiduciary duty by dismissing the charges for failure to state a claim while denying a single amendment to the Complaint  by a Pro -Se his court instructed not to make legal arguments, cite cases, or statutes. This in a case alleging a government conspiracy to deny due process and equal justice, A felony and when done as a racket an act of treason on the constitution and the American People. How serious did Judge Jackson L.Kiser take his oath to uphold the law and the constitution?
  2. The Statute promises treble damages, Attorney Fees, and court cost to the successful litigant. The supreme court has stated these are economic damages for economic injury see 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. Where the Federal government is the defendant it  can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government.”

There’s a solid  case Judge Jackson L. Kiser failed faithfully to perform his fiduciary and agency duties in the application of a federal statute which can fairly be interpreted as mandating treble damages, court cost, and attorney’s fees as compensation by the Federal Government.

So far the Court has not acted as a neutral adjudicator but as an attorney for the defense of the U.S Governments criminal operations like a Judiciary criminally protecting organized crime.

[1] As an Article I court, the duty of Congresses separation of powers responsibility, to hold the Federal Judiciary accountable has been conveyed to the Court of Federal Claims. The Courts Duty is to render justice against the Government in favor of citizens just as it would administer between private individuals. It just takes one bad apple corp. to spoil the whole bushel.

For more on this topic see:Federal Court Opinion Balances Scales of Justice With Lies. And Integrity & Independence in the Federal Judiciary.

 

CBJulian

@blueridgesprings

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Not a Pro Pro-Se Per Se.

Letter to Judge Robert J. Conrad August 29,2016.

Letter to Judge Robert J. Conrad August 29,2016.

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 Courts 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:

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

 If the court finds Plaintiffs financially eligible and the complaint meritorious Plaintiffs believe they have a fundamental right under the 7th 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 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, Plaintiffs believe Counsel for the Defense in this instant case would have compelling reason and standing to assist Plaintiffs, in the RICO prosecution of the USDA.

The Initial predicate acts of the RICO filing occurred in October of 2012 and as the Supreme Court has shortened the RICO statutes, 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 of the RICO Complaint and effects of the RICO’S continued operation on others. True, Plaintiffs originally filed 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 are 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 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 peoples 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 cases potential. Consequently, Plaintiffs were and are monetarily prohibited at shopping the RICO case, and legal firms are not willing to review a cases 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 Plaintiffs to realize this instant case creates a common interest with Defendants legal counsel to pursue prosecution of a Government run criminal enterprise. The Courts 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 Courts justification for the shortening of the Statute was because 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. Imrex 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.”

Plaintiffs request the court rule on the Motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis, effecting process of service or alternatively, to dismiss the case for lack of merit, or identify the Complaints deficiencies and grant Plaintiffs leave to amend. Furthermore, Plaintiffs request the courts acknowledgement of the connection and intent for equitable tolling in the Plaintiffs RICO case. 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 prescribes to 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 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 of 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 will and not one of  judgement. A judge can never change his will only an inappropriate judgement. 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 there handled.
  3. The Judge must have found the defendants owed plaintiffs the duty of care in the negligence allegations. We shall see.
Wanted Hard Money R/E secured loan 10% on 2 year commitment of 365,000

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Federal Court Opinion Balances Scales of Justice With Lies!

Federal Court Opinion 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 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.

BACKGROUND

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 ?

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 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.

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 courts citations and the objections to the ones presented in lower courts ruling in case 1:15-cv-01344 dkt 7.  7-main

Petition for Rehearing Final

Please feel free to leave a comments below.

Integrity & Independence in the Federal Judiciary ?

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 post 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 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 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 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 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, 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 a 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 filling with 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 filled suit against the United States Government, precisely because, I believe Judge Jackson L. Kiser acted with 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 believe,  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 legislations 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 courts 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 Americas 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 there family are the enemy, 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 power to change the law and nothing I say should have any bearing on its just administration!

CBJulian

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

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 I 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 peoples constitution.”

The United States is supposed to be a republic based on the rule of law. The Constitution of the United States is law. It proclaims itself as such, in Article V. clause II. “The Supremacy Clause as “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 operate 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 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 peoples 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 protecting its criminal enterprise from prosecution. The courts rulings were filled with deceit, deception, misrepresentation, and out right 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 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 enterprises 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 courts lies and deceit on my blog.

The Federal Court of Appeals biggest lie; I contend is this. The Treble damages, attorneys fees, and court cost 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 its not money mandating as previously, but that the court lacks jurisdiction because it’s a criminal statute. Dismissing this case without allowing 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 courts 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, were 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 no 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, rapist, murders and criminals known to man and yet even when its 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 to justice. One only needs to Google “Judicial Abuse” to see the large number of institutions focused on corruption in Americas Courts. If not addressed this cancer of corruption will inevitability 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 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, and 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 Wtreet
” 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 informed.

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 thats 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