Federal District Court

Justice; Chief Justice John Roberts!
by

Justice; Chief Justice John Roberts!

Chief Justice John Roberts,

Justice Louis Brandeis known as the people’s judge said “Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that command to the citizen” No man is above the law so the confirmation hearings say.

Today Executive branches of the U.S. government are running criminal enterprises in violation of Federal laws, federal antitrust laws, and the Constitution. Three times I previously brought this matter to the attention of then-President Barack Obama. Please refer to the correspondence which can be found on this blog. None of the communications was ever addressed.

Congress approved the implementation of these enterprises in violation of the Constitution and their oaths of office. Consequently, they do not want their despicable deeds exposed. I have multiple times by mail and phone requested Congressman Morgan Griffth the opportunity to address Congress regarding this matter.  No request was ever acknowledged. You may also refer to the written correspondence evidenced in this blog.

These enterprises are specifically designed for the obstruction of justice, denying due process, denying equal protection, and denying fair hearings. These procedures are an absolute abysmal affront to Due Process, American values, and the Constitution.

Three times I’ve brought these allegations into Federal Courts with the filing of Civil Lawsuits. For Five years Government has refused to allow a fair hearing on these matters. Each is dismissed by corrupt federal officials who’ve used lies, deceit, deception, and downright criminal acts to subvert these allegations. Enough is Enough as Clarence Thomas Said When Anita Hill lied, I purpose to aid the treason afoot.

If anyone has any doubts Federal Judges lied about material evidence against the USDA’s racketeering enterprise to aid, abet, and protect the Governments treason, I respectfully request you look at the evidence presented in another post on this blog, Here is a list of post to start with: Please leave your opinion in the comments.

Corrupt Federal District Court Of Federal District Judge Jackson L. Kiser – Traitor

Dumb and Dumber, Judges Don’t Know English!

Federal Court Opinion Balances Scales of Justice With Lies!

If you want to know about the implementation of this criminal enterprise and the treason that created it. You can read about that here.

https://brsinv.com/the-goss-conspiracy-undue-process-to-treason/

And don’t forget to check out other links to evidence.

The Federal Judiciary is aiding, abetting, and protecting these criminal enterprises and even gifting them with the ability to write new laws at will avoiding accountability for criminal and civil violations of Federal law against the people they’re supposed to serve. See the Statements of the Supreme Court on deference made over the last five years in the Court’s rulings. See the Separation of powers Restoration Act which implements the recommendations Justice Antonin Scalia made to congress to eliminate the treason afoot by Government Agencies many years ago.

These acts Sir are in violation of the government’s contractual obligation to operate legally and within the law. These acts are a complete and utterly criminal violation of the Constitution’s intent for the separation of powers. These acts Sir have the Government warring against the Constitution and against the American people. These acts Sir, are acts of treason as defined by the Constitution of the United States.

As you should now beware, Sir, these criminals, unAmerican, and unconstitutional allegations, allege a criminal conspiracy of wrongdoing by every branch of the US Government. It’s a tenant of the rule of law that no man may preside over his own case. I, therefore, submit that this case must be heard against the US Government by a Jury of the American people and its criminal operations must be stopped.

The rule of law states: The Law should govern a nation as opposed to being governed by the arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. The Judiciary has repeatedly corruptly, and maliciously, relied solely on arbitrary decisions of corrupt Government officials in the judiciary aiding, abetting, and protecting the Government’s criminal and unconstitutional RICO enterprises. They’re guilty of Treason by conspiring, aiding, and abetting domestic enemies of the Constitution and the American people.

This country is founded on the rule of law. If it’s to be governed by the rule of law then All branches of Government must stand trial as defendants and defend themselves before a jury of unbiased civilian jurists.

To Quote Thomas Jefferson:

“Trial by jury is the only anchor yet ever imagined by man, which can hold a government accountable to the principles of its constitution.”

John Adams called trial by Jury:

“the heart of liberty.”

James Madison said:

“Trial by jury in civil cases is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature”

As Justice Brandeis said:

“A government of laws will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. If a government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy.”

The prophecy of Elbridge Gerry declining to sign the Constitution and the warnings of Thomas Jefferson in 1820 are proven accurate.

How Sir can I, can any of us, have anything but contempt for a judiciary that’s aiding, abetting, and protecting illegal and unconstitutional operations of the people’s government? How should I, or any of us, not have contempt for a Government operating above the law and against justice for its people? The American people cannot address Government Corruption in Corrupted Courts under their control. The people should awaken to the fact corruption permeates the  Judiciary and it should no longer be allowed to Judge itself by dismissing facts.

This petition is made pursuant to the First Amendment to the Constitution the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Government is not entitled to immunity in this matter because its sovereignty cannot supersede the Government’s agency requirements as defined, by the Constitution, by the Contract, which gave rise to the existence of the Government, a contract that requires Government to operate legally and within the law.

I cite and incorporate for reference and submit as evidence the Judiciary is criminally corrupting all procedural records of filings, and appeals, including the appeal to the supreme court, writs, the dockets, and all supporting documentation, including the actual dockets for the following cases.: 4:13-cv-0054, 1-15-1544C, and 3-16-cv-173. That is, an honest factual assessment of all filings in these cases will suffice to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the Government is guilty of treason.

The courts are thus aware of the evidence against them and the allegations of the criminal enterprises as complained of in the aforementioned cases. They may not preside over nor dismiss a case against them without a proper and fair hearing. Since the complaint alleges criminal wrongdoing and conspiracy by the judiciary, including the willful intent to obstruct justice. The judiciary has neither the right nor the Authority to dismiss this case. Plaintiff demands the US Government including the Judiciary stand trial for TREASON! Before a Jury of American Citizens.

Failure of the Judiciary to defend itself before a Jury is an admission this country is no longer founded or governed by the rule of law but is in fact under the rule of a Criminal enterprise of despots and traitors.

Please readers watch this Facebook post it’s all related to the Treason I’ve been fighting.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fjlecenarro%2Fvideos%2F1538558802878659%2F&show_text=0&width=560

The Traitor Federal District Court Judge Jackson L. Kiser is now railroading another case. This one is a young man who’s fighting to prove his innocence and having his every effort to gain access to the evidence to exonerate him criminally obstructed. See:

The Case of Brian Hill

No one in a Republic is above the law, above the supreme law; not even the judiciary!

Sincerely,
Christopher B. Julian Pro Se.
980-254-1295

Petition for Rehearing Denied
by

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 affects 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. Plaintiffs do not believe the complaint is deficient but, rather the court simply wishes to impose the Government’s 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.

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

1 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 Court’s 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 the 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 Plaintiff’s 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 cited precedent that Plaintiffs were not afforded the 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 court’s 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. The plaintiff’s 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 the agreement to become judge, jury, and defendant, dismissing its own case without due process of law in violation of the 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 Plaintiff’s procedural rights.[5]

Justice Blackmun 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 the return of money paid by them to the Government, they have asserted entitlement to monetary 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 the 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 court’s 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 Blackmun’s 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 public interest. When the Federal Government is the defendant in a criminal RICO case it’s fair to interpret the statute as expressly mandating compensation of a certain sum from the Federal Government. Furthermore, as an 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 Court’s 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 statute 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 the court’s 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 a 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 case where the United States was the 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 the 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 Court’s jurisdiction and the misapprehended conclusion of Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Statute that 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 the reliance on 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 Court’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 facts inconsistent with the Court’s procedural rule FRCP 1. They should be construed and administered to secure the “just” determination of every action.

The Court’s 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 the bottom a request the Court of Federal Claims review whether the 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 the bottom, requests that the Court of Federal Claims review the Western District of Virginia’s decision to dismiss Plaintiffs’ earlier action.”

This is false! Plaintiff’s claims are at the bottom a request the Court of Federal Claims review whether the 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 the Plaintiffs by an act of Congress. Rights granted with the 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 Government’s action aided the Government in avoiding prosecution and affected the Government 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 it’s 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 arguments, 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 Government’s RICO enterprise is a matter between him and the Government.

[6] Emphasis altered.

[7] Emphasis Altered.

[8] To an aggrieved farmer whose business has been wiped out by government actions the prospect of being paid a reasonable attorney’s 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 court’s prior arguments was shown to be based on the incongruent premise. The court did not and could not provide any argument for accepting as true their faulty unsupportable premises. So where this argument suggests a precedent be overruled it was not without significant prior support for doing so.  The very fact that this court supported their opinion with precedent on statutes that 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!!

Judging the Judges of a Judge.
by

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

The plaintiff’s claims are a request the Court of Federal Claims review, whether the Governments employee “ Federal Superior District Judge Jackson L. Kiser violated the Plaintiff 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 Government’s 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.

It’s 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 an 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 is 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 seriously did Judge Jackson L. Kaiser take his oath to uphold the law and the constitution?
  2. The Statute promises treble damages, Attorney Fees, and court costs 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. Understand Judge Jackson L. Kiser Lied. He made up alibis and manipulated the true nature of the evidence to dismiss the charges in the first place. see: Corrupt Federal District Court Of Federal District Judge Jackson L. Kiser – Traitor

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.

CB Julian

@blueridgesprings

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Not a Pro Pro-Se Per Se.

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________ CHRISTOPHER B. JULIAN, RENEE G. JULIAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

                ______________________

2016-1889

                ______________________

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

                ______________________

Decided: August 4, 2016

                ______________________

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

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

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

J. Damich.

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

2

JULIAN v. US

______________________

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

PER CURIAM.

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

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFFIRMED

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

Petition for Rehearing Final 

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

Please feel free to leave a comments below.

Integrity & Independence in the Federal Judiciary ?
by

Integrity & Independence in the Federal Judiciary ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CB Julian

Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se

Blue Ridge Springs,

Patriot Soldier of Misfortune.

@blueridgespring

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Blueridgesprings.com

Treason & The Good Ole Boy Network; The ABA Within!
by

Treason & The Good Ole Boy Network; The ABA Within!

Below is a slightly modified copy of the last filing in case 16-1889 in the Court of Appeals for the Federal District. This case is about a promise, stated in  U.S. Federal Law, to a Private citizen; willing, able, and with standing, to assume a job as a Private Attorney General to prosecute racketeering inside the U.S. Government, the Breach of that Promise by the U.S. Federal Judiciary which protected the rackets criminals, the enterprise, and effected commission of the rackets objectives.

The filling was limited to 5 type written pages this version has minor changes in red to assist the readers understanding or to provide additional details  on the subject for which the original lacked space and commentary.

Defendant (The Department of Justice) asserts in Dkt item 6 at II “Statement of Facts and Course Of Proceedings Below”  ¶2 (1) page 2 “the Court Of Federal Claims does not have Jurisdiction to” – “review due process claims;” A copy of the DOJ’s filing is linked here:

This is completely illogical! Prime tenants of Due Process include a fundamental principle of fairness in all legal matters, a requirement government operates legally and within the law, and the requirement “the King cannot create any offense by his prohibition or proclamation, which was not an offense before.”

The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction “upon any express or implied contract with the United States 28 U.S.C §1491(1).

The most basic definition of a contract is a legally binding agreement enforceable by law. Given Due Process is fairness in legal matters and requires government operate within the law. Its simply implausible, if not impossible to breach or violate the terms of any express or implied contract without violating the doctrine of Due Process; without violating the law or legal terms of an agreement.

The very essence of this proceeding and the precursors, which ignited them, are firmly founded in a countless sequence of Due Process denial and the detrimental damages to the private property interest of a farmer.

When the Federal Government implements regulations, which constrict and limit the availability of credit, when it establishes itself a lender of last resort; with preferences for beginning farmers unable to obtain credit elsewhere, when a farmers life, livelihood, lifestyle, assets, and property are imperiled by a single available source of credit he has a property interest and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Farm Service Agency (FSA) has an a obligation to provide Due Process in evaluating a farmers loan application.

In the 1960’s and 70’s with bi-partisan legislative and executive support the USDA created a Sub-Prime loan bubble in farming and rural farms almost tripling farm size averages. In the late 70’s and early 80’s the bubble burst  and Government fueled devastation with free trade agreements, trade embargoes, significant and substantial reductions in credit availability; while the USDA began its own version of robo accelerating foreclosures. By 1985, an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 farmers were facing financial failure, farmland values dropped drastically for 1985 and 1986, the Farm Credit System ‘FCS’ institutions reported net losses of 2.7 billion and 1.9 billion respectively, the largest losses in history for any U.S. financial institution at the time. When it became apparent the financial viability of FCS was at risk, Congress stepped in to provide relief.

The USDA was besieged with loan requests from farmers unable to find credit elsewhere as private agricultural lenders failed in unprecedented numbers. The USDA was inundated with complaints by farmers, claiming mismanagement, Due Process violations in agency initiated foreclosures, failure and unwillingness to offer loan modifications in avoidance of foreclosure; overwhelmed with complaints, requests for assistance, and lawsuits; three key lawsuits ensued in the early 1980’s Matzke v. Block, Curry v. Block, and Coleman v. Block, followed by Coleman v. Lyng and Coleman v. Espy. These suits cemented Federal precedent farmers have a property interest, and the USDA a Due Process obligation.

Coleman v. Block’s 230,000 class members’ complaints were dismissed legislatively with the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. Curry v. Block taught the USDA precedent could thwart abuse of deference and the follow on cases to Coleman v. Lyng and Coleman v. Espy that USDA denials of due process would have plaintiffs file complaints under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Coleman v. Espy was decided almost a decade after origination on February 23, 1993, precisely two weeks to the day before newly elected President William Jefferson Clinton withdrew the nomination of Edward J. Damich to the Copyright Royalty Tribunal (CRT). These cases were the precursor, foundation, framework on which the USDA’s RICO schematic was designed. Judge Edward J. Damich resume gaps and career history coincide perfectly for having means, motive, opportunity as the presumptive architect of USDA’s legislation, policies, and procedural racket denying farmers these Due Process rights with passage of the Agricultural Reorganization Act of 1994, legislation which took bi-partisan congressional support to subvert the segregation of powers, and institutionalize in executive offices of Government. A scheme designed to obstruct justice, usurp judicial review, and rely on an abuse of unconstitutional deference.[Footnote 1]

Both republican and democratic administrations, presidents, and legislators contributed to the creation of the farm loan bubble, to its financial collapse; the second greatest decline in farms in American history, and the implementation of unconstitutional policies, procedures, and legislation to violate the constitutional rights of farmers. However, the greatest presidential culpability lies with Presidents, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Obama who did not respond to request under the Take Care Clause to address this unconstitutional criminal enterprise operating in his cabinet.

Appellants here and after referred to as the “Julian’s ” invested their life savings and in excess of half a million dollars in capital assets, farm land, equipment, and improvements; contributing in excess of 5 years of hard physical unpaid labor in the care, development, and rehabilitation of a farm, to prepare and establish a small farm winery business, and were relegated by Dodd Frank legislation to pursue a farm loan from the lender of last resort; the USDA/FSA. With their capital investment and significant investment of time, labor and commitment, having met requirements of eligibility for a beginning farmer, farm ownership loan, the Julian’s had a capital interest, a property interest, and a due process right to have their loan application handled with due care in accordance with USDA’s defined procedures.

USDA/FSA personnel were negligent, fraudulent, discriminatory, and committed a multitude of due process and criminal violations in processing of the Julian’s loan application without following USDA/FSA required procedures. In accordance with appeal rights the Julian’s mediation request was met with a vexatious denial of service; presumably at the direction of USDA counsel in the Department of Justice; Mediation itself is a scam used by USDA/FSA for discovery. The administrative appeals process is a racket designed to deny due process rights, fair and equal treatment, and obstruct justice, avoiding legal liability for criminal acts of USDA/FSA personnel, and their denial of due process in the handling of loan applications and farmer grievances.

The Julian’s pursued prosecution with a private right, specifically defined by congress to prosecute corruption in government, against the USDA’s RICO enterprise. The Federal Court instructed the Julian’s to file the complaint without citation of any cases, statutes, or legal argument; and then dismissed the RICO charges for failure to state a claim while denying a single opportunity to amend the complaint. The Judge Jackson L. Kiser substituted his opinion of what could be proved for what was pled, crafted alibi’s in direct contradiction to evidence, ignored constitutional challenges, and penned his signature to outright lies. This was done with bias, arbitrarily, capriciously, and not in accordance with the law, Due Process, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or Supreme Court precedent. The fourth circuit court of appeals placed a rubber stamp on this dismissal without comment and the Supreme Court denied cert.

The RICO statute is a promise, made as federal law in 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) to compensate a private citizen by paying them an attorney’s fee, cover their court cost, and compensate them with treble damages for recovery of economic losses resulting from damages to their business and property not a cause of action for torts.

The Julian’s filed suit in the court of federal claims for government’s breach of this promise. Government has repeatedly denied the Julian’s constitutional rights, to protect its criminal’s, and their unconstitutional enterprise from responsibility and accountability. In the Court of Federal Claims the Julian’s case was presided over by non other than Judge Edward J. Damich, who declined to commit in writhing he would abide by his oath of office, he would perform his duties, since he has no legal obligation to do so and is unlikely, as are members of this court to be held accountable for breaching their oaths’ to save government millions and protect the members of their corp.

Numerous Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, and Judges are culpable. There is not one single Justice sitting on the Federal District Appellate Court who’s impartiality is not in question as a result of life appointment by one of these culpable Presidents, and confirmation by Congressional and Senate judicial committee members who facilitated implementation of this unconstitutional criminal enterprise. And most if not all of these judges are guilty of granting agencies unconstitutional deference.

The President, Congress, Senate, and Judiciary in fact; every branch of the U.S. Government has culpability for crimes against the American farmer and violence against the U.S. Constitution in this matter. This case is truly the hundreds of thousands of farmers before, the tens of thousands after, the thousands annually deprived of Due process, fairness, and justice; by the USDA. It’s truly We The People v. Government.

The Due Process Clause requires “our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this end, no man can be a judge in his own case.” In re Murchison, 349 U.S. at 136. “[T]o perform its high function in the best way,” the Supreme Court has said, “‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.’” Id. (quoting Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954)). As Thomas Jefferson said “trial by jury is the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution,” and in this case only a jury can provide the appearance of fairness to protect We The People from tyranny and oppression of Government where all branches have participated in its unconstitutional criminal operation.

Make no mistake America this is the Ole Boy Network of the Rich Criminally and Unconstitutionally repressing the Poor!

Submitted by,

Christopher B Julian Pro-Se

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

July -21-2016 Major Update Congressional Action taken of Deference.

Thank you Congressmen Griffith!

House Bill 4768 addresses a significant legal issue abused by the USDA’s racketeering enterprise. I applaud you and the House of representatives in passing this legislative reform. This is precisely the kind of legislative reform needed to assists in addressing Executive overreach and protect the American people from Government turned tyrant.

My personal goals in pursuing legal action in the federal courts included overturning this precedent as unconstitutional.

I hope Congress will work further on dismantling the unconstitutional separation of powers granted by the Agricultural reorganization act of 1994. Passage of H.R 4768 and /S-2724 and signing by the President is of significant interest to me. Please let me know if I can perpetuate any grass root efforts to assist in having this legislative reform become law.

Thank you again for this legislation and its passage. Allowing Government agencies to create laws or amend them at will must end.

Sincerely,
Christopher B. Julian

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

August 4 2016 – Major Update Court of Appeals for Federal District assigns Biased judicial Panel.

Today the case docket, case#16-1889 reflects the judicial panel selected to hear this case includes Chief Justice Sharon Prost. How very appropriate, since it so perfectly coincides with the Old Boy network theme of this post. You see Judge Sharon Prost was working with the Senate Judiciary committee at the same time as Edward J. Damich. She was also working with the committee when the committee to quote Justice Clarence Thomas attempted a “high tech lynching” of his career. I can’t prove it; but I can produce significant circumstantial evidence Anita Hill lied and Judge Thomas’s attempted lynching was perpetrated to entice passage of the civil rights act of 1991. That passage of this act was a key building block of the USDA’s racketeering enterprise; a key building block for the false flag cries of discrimination used in so many class action settlements, a key to limiting legal damage awards as this act capped damage awards for discrimination and sexual harassment. I believe the whole country would be interested to know if Anita Hill’s parents received a settlement in the USDA’s Piggford class action settlements. They were both farmers when the USDA’s sub prime farm loan bubble burst and Anita Hill went home. Was it to assist her large family financially?   There is no other Judge on the Court of Appeals for the Federal District who lacks the appearance of impartiality more than Judge Sharon Prost. Will she recuse herself? I previously pointed out this fact to Congressman Morgan Griffith in a letter to him on March 21, 2016 seeking a congressional hearing. A copy of that letter was also provided to the Department of Injustice defense counsel Melissa Baker. A copy of that letter can be read in at the bottom of blog post Mr. President You Are an imposter. Tell me again Mr. Comey the system isn’t rigged! Here’s a snapshot of the docket which shows the judicial assignment. Docket 

The Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed this case for breach of contract against the Federal Government. The Court said in its opinion there is no indication the legislature intended for the Federal Government to be contractually bound by its promise to compensate a private citizen to assume the role of a prosecutor. This despite the fact  the Supreme Court has reiterated countless times the law in question makes these offers as an inducement for a private citizen to pursue the cause of action. This despite the fact it is a Federal Law. I take this as the legislature had no intention for the Federal Government to be held accountable to the law.

I will count this as numerous violations of my law another act of treason as the court once again failed to address the  gaping holes in their logic with any viable show of reason. They should be held accountable for all consequences.

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

Need for reform of the Judiciary – A Study of judges unaccountability and consequent riskless wrongdoing. By  Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. However, the judges is this matter should not consider their actions risk less.

See OPT In America Letter to the U.S. State Department July 21, 2016

See OPT Ub Reuters Good Ole Boy Network to the Supreme Court. “At Americas Court of Last Resort”  

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

July 25 2016 – Today Hospice informs me my mother will not likely live another 24 hours. The final years of her life,the opportunity to enjoy a grandchild, to spend time living with family, time to enjoy friends, family and life were stolen from her by the Government criminals who failed to do their jobs, the criminals, who created this racket, the criminals who aided and abetted these criminals from responsibility or accountability for their actions. The greatest criminals of all those who act criminally to deny the justice their charged with administering. In my book you will forever be labeled traitors to the constitution, traitors to the American people, traitors to your country and countrymen.

Judges train law clerks to become lawyers, who become attorney generals and legislators making laws and appointing State Judges. More often than not one of these lawyer legislators becomes President and then gets to appoint Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices who are confirmed primarily by lawyers turned legislators. This is the epitome of a good ole boy crony capitalist net work where one bad apple at the corp spoils the whole bunch. 

The Court of Federal Claims from which the appeal originates does not usually have Jury trials, However, Since Presidents, Congressmen, Senators and the Judiciary have all been involved in the operations of this enterprise; which I contend was an ACT of treason and all branches of Government have culpability; and the Judiciary seems to be interested in protecting it. Numerous request to my congressional representative for a congressional hearing have been ignored. Many of Congress and the Senates career statesmen have been involved in this crime. 

All of the Judges on this appellate court were appointed life appointments to this court by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Obama. And numerous Senators on the Congressional and Senate Judiciaries including Vice President Joe Biden and Al Gore were involved in this RICO enterprises establishment and these judges confirmations. 

Only a Jury can provide the appearance of fairness.

Heres a linked list of the judges and their appointee.

The linked document has a great deal of supporting information on allegations made in this filing it furthermore, provides footnote’s with links to supporting documentation from unrelated parties. See more in depth information here: The Irony of Why

Make it known for the record I consider every argument made by the DOJ and Judge Damich to be based on lies not law and the Appeal  and writ of Mandamus filed reflect that. Given Governments role in this criminal operation I will only accept a different answer from a jury given all the evidence and facts. 

Footnote 1- Un Agenda 21, The Civil Rights Act of 1991, was part of the scheme. Piggford I & II, The American Indian, and Hispanic and Women rancher settlements false flag cries of discrimination concealing, Gross Negligence to limit damage awards and the population to less than 2 percent of farmers. 

CBJulian

Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se

Blue Ridge Springs,

Patriot Soldier of Misfortune.

@blueridgespring

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Blueridgesprings.com

Treason from Within Via the ABA!
by

Treason from Within Via the ABA!

A criminal enterprise curtesy of the ABA treason within the United States Government!

The Secretary of Agriculture is a member of the Presidents cabinet consequently; he’s a member of the Executive branch of Government. Note both were or are members of the ABA.

Congress unable to handle their duties allowed the establishment of Agencies with both Legislative and Judicial authority which established entities not contemplated by the constitution and usurping separation of constitutional powers. For more information on that See Thomas Jefferson Explains Path to Oligarchy William Jefferson Clinton Perfects It! Slide1

The USDA is an Agency reporting to the Secretary of Agriculture and it, and its subsidiaries like the Farm Service Agency (FSA) have authority to promulgate regulations interpreting congressional legislation and having the full force of federal law. These regulations are prescribed to the public in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

The Secretary of Agriculture by Executive authority promulgated into law the National Appeals Division (NAD) with authority to administer all administrative hearings of agencies under the Secretary of Agriculture. Subsequently, he promulgated into law the National Appeals Divison would not be required to adhere to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rules of Evidence derived from centuries of precedent defining Due Process. See Tom Vilsack Before Hispanic Caucus Slide1

A Summary of these facts shows the Secretary of Agriculture has Executive, legislative, and judicial power in direct contradiction to the constitutional intention for checks and balances in Government by maintaining separation of power.

  1. The Secretary of Agriculture utilizing this unconstitutional power is running an enterprise designed to deny individuals the constitutional guarantee of Due Process and Equal Justice under the law. This Enterprise is contrary to the Governments due process obligation under the Supreme Law, the constitution of the United States to operate legally and within the law.
  2. The Department of Agriculture uses this enterprise to avoid being held accountable or responsible for violations of Federal Law and Federal regulations they have promulgated into the code of Federal regulations. In other words they use the enterprise to protect themselves from being held accountable to Federal Law or responsible for violating Federal Law.
  3. The USDA/FSA has for decades used this criminal unconstitutional enterprise to inflict all manner of despotic tyranny, torture, and terrorism for all manner of destruction in the lives, livelihoods, health and causing all manner of family destruction in the lives of thousands including my family.

B. Federal Courts have aided and abetted this criminal enterprise by granting agencies like USDA, FSA, NAD the ability to interpret their regulations with any arguable interpretation, even interpretations contrary to the plain language of the regulation and it’s underlying statute as my case demonstrates and is discussed in Dumb and Dumber Judges Don’t Know English!

  1. Today the Federal Judiciary protects this criminal enterprise by granting them sovereign immunity protection from their constitutional obligation to operate legally. Additionally, they aid and abet this enterprise by freely granting Chevron deference.
  2. In this manner the Federal Judiciary has become a co conspirator with the Executive branch in a criminal enterprise granting them power above the law, the supreme law – The constitution of the United States, and in opposition to the true sovereign We The People.
  3. Effectively, the Executive and Judicial branches of Government are acting in their own interest above the law waging war on We The People. What are the United States, if not the embodied representation of We The People? Corrupt Federal Agencies Aidded By Corrupt Federal Judges

C. Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution – Treason.

  1. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them“ (We The People ? ), “or in adhering to their Enemies.” Enemies of (We The People)
  2. “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason”
  3. Is the Court of Federal Claims the agent of Congress?

On the receiving end of numerous acts of negligence, fraud, discrimination, and other criminal acts meeting predicate requirements for a civil action against the USDA/FSA for racketeering under Title 18 Chapter 96 sections 1961 – 1968; I filed a civil suit against the responsible individuals and enterprises in Federal Court on September 16, 2013. Case #4:13-cv-00054 JLK RSB.

  1. I relied on the promise of congress in Title 18 Chapter 96 section 1964(c) as an individual with standing, I would for compensation of my time as an attorney and cost, assume the role of prosecutor to remove this criminal enterprise from the legitimate operations of Government. To which I was promised a reward of treble damages for the prosecution.
  2. Under the constitution Article III Clause III Federal Crimes must be tried before a jury. The Defendants right in this case.
  3. Under the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, Civil claims in Federal Court must be tried before a jury. The Plaintiffs right in this case.

I say Superior Federal District Court Judge Jackson l. Kiser violated his oath of office, my constitutional rights, federal laws and unconstitutionally converted the lawsuit in D for operation of the RICO enterprise described in A. to a cause of action for torts under the FTCA. Furthermore, he proceeded in violation of my constitutional and procedural rights into judicial review and decided for himself over valid objections to his jurisdiction and my constitutional rights to decide a material issue of law which had specifically been requested left to a juries purview as provided in D 2 & 3. May I have a day in court to put these issue before a jury? Because the puppet judges of Government serve only the corruption of their master. See We The People v. United States Government

  1.  This case was filed with a RiCO civil cause of action.
  2. This case was not brought under FTCA or U.S.C 5 Section 702.
  3. If Judicial review were to be performed then it was inappropriate to proceed barring the same requirements as demanded under the FTCA because as USC 5 702 States “A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.”
  4. To quote Justice Scalia in National Law review 12-4-2014 “I doubt the Government’s pretensions to deference. They collide with the norm that legislatures, not executive officers, define crimes. When King James I tried to create new crimes by royal command, the judges responded “the King cannot create any offence by his prohibition or proclamation, which was not an offence before.” James I, however, did not have the benefit of Chevron With deference to agency interpretations of statutory provisions to which criminal prohibitions are attached, federal administrators can in effect create (and uncreate) new crimes at will, so long as they do not roam beyond ambiguities that the laws contain [internal citations omitted]. . . .”
  5. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone said the juror “ is voting on the justice of the law according to his own conscience and convictions and not someone else’s. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided.”
  6. “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution,” a Virginia lawyer wrote around the same time. His name Thomas Jefferson.
  7. Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas write, in their concurrences in Perez, that judicial deference to agency interpretive rules cannot be squared with the constitutional structures of separation of powers, and checks and balances.
  8. And for the very reasons stated by Thomas Jefferson, Justice Harlan F. Stone, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas deference in civil and criminal trials is the jury’s purview and not the agencies or a judge.

Case #4:13-cv-00054 JLK RGB was upheld by the 4th Circuit court of appeals case 14=1480 and 14-1925 and denied cert by the Supreme court Petition 14-1051.

On April 14, 2015 I requested The President of the United States abide by his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and the Laws of this nation under the Take care Clause 5 of Article 2 and I submitted my form SF-95 under the requirements of the FTCA. See Mr. President all thats necessary for the triumph of Government evil is for those in power to do nothingAlbert Einstiend World Destroyed

On November 9 2015 I filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims for breach of contract and a taking without just compensation. Because, Judge Jackson L. Kiser unlawfully converted the RICO cause of action and separated for his personal review the material question of law that belonged in the juries’ purview. Case # 1:15-cv-01344 EJD EGB See We The People v. United States Government

Cog Dis

On January 19, 2016 Because numerous Federal & State judges had ignored federal laws and my constitutional rights on numerous occasions I motioned for Judge Edward J. Damich of the Court of Federal Claims to state in writing: 1 he had taken the judicial oath of office 2 would adhere to that oath during proceedings 3 abide by the Judicial cannons of his office.

  1. Why if you took an oath of office to uphold the law and the constitution might you hesitate even a minute to affirm it?
  2. Why if you took an oath of office to uphold the law and the constitution might you hesitate for even a minute to affirm your intent to abide by that oath?
  3. Why if you took the oath of a judge would you hesitate to affirm your intent to abide by the canons of that office?

Surely an honest judge would have no problem with any of that?

Canon 1: A Judicial Employee Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary and of the Judicial Employee’s Office

A Federal Judge  must  honor an offer as an official of the United States Government he cannot decline acceptance by a private citizen the offer of Constitutional rights. Denying a request to affirm  his oath, intent to adhere to it, and his judicial canons, Judge Edward J.Damich  declined acceptance of the Governments offer to a private citizen. Common law says once an offer is accepted a contract is binding. “Contracts make the law – all law is contract.” Declining to attest, is  breach of contract under common law and constitutional intent of the United States.

The reason for asking judge Edward J. Damich to attest he took an oath of office and intends to abide by that oath of office and his judicial canons, is to ascertain beforehand, the honesty, fairness and integrity this total stranger “intends” to display during the course of the hearing.

Remember, this stranger holds enough power over Plaintiffs and has the potential to disrupt Plaintiffs life and remove their liberties. Which numerous Judges have already done to  Plaintiff(s) Furthermore, and of great importance is the role prior judicial breaches  of the laws, the oaths, and canons played in the proximate cause of the complaint at issue.

Plaintiffs had a due process right to know their going to be treated in the prescribed manner by this unknown stranger and getting access to the law, Plaintiffs are entitled haven given up some natural freedoms? Plaintiffs opted into being subject to the Constitution and allowing the Supreme Law to have [legitimate] control over them. “Contracts make the law – all law is contract.

“The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature: being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will. But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish.” – William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.

“The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court to decide according to law. Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirements or to undermine public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court” – Lord Diplock in Att-Gen v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974]

Once laws are made it’s the job of the judge to listen to and make judgments when there are disputes and allegations of wrong doings. This position as you would expect requires the holder to be of impeccable character and hold the highest moral standards and unshakeable integrity. There can be no lesser qualifications for a position in society of such great importance and power.

You should ALWAYS get a positive answer from an honest judge, how could you not?  What do you think? 

In an ideal world no one would even dream of questioning a judges integrity. It would go without saying that if that man or woman took a solemn oath to perform and act in a certain way, there would be no way on Earth that that solemn vow would be welched on or forgotten when suited. Men and women who are honest develop a reputation for that honesty and so there is very little if any natural motivation to question that honesty.

For Judge Edward J. Damich to confirm his intention gives the people and Plaintiffs confidence in this complete stranger to act fairly, honestly and with integrity and to be TOTALLY IMPARTIAL His denial of the motion for said relief the antithesis.

This is a NORMAL request for someone to ask in a situation as alien to him as this and having a case based largely on Federal Judges failure to observe the same.

For judge Edward J. Damich to decline a request to confirm being bound by his oath did not foster confidence, judge Edward J. Damich would act as professional as one would expect, and so there was no trust in judge Edward J. Damich judicial abilities and integrity when the responsive pleading was written.

Plaintiffs have found judges lacking in honesty, fairness and integrity, a requirement demanded by their “noble” profession. It’s these judges that appear to have abandoned their oath and honor, and it’s these judges’ prior actions that demanded Plaintiffs ask Judge Edward J. Damich if he would be bound by the principles of his oath with the intention of getting a positive answer.

Consider the Words of Thomas Jefferson: “judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps, Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.” SeeThomas Jefferson Explains Path to Oligarchy! William Jefferson Clinton Perfects It!                                                                        

If I was appointed to be a Justice by President William Jefferson Clinton and later was  assigned a case accusing President William Jefferson Clinton of establishing and operating a criminal unconstitutional enterprise waring against We The People I should I recuse myself on the grounds presiding over such a case might appear to lack independence or worse an intent to protect a criminal enterprise involved in treason. An enterprise accused of denying individuals the constitutional rights a judge has a  sworn  oath to uphold? See Thomas Jefferson Explains Path to Oligarchy! William Jefferson Clinton Perfects It! 

Canon 2: A Judicial Employee Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities

Presiding over a case in which President William Jefferson Clinton who appointed you to the bench as a judge with a 15 year plus appointment is accused of establishing a criminal unconstitutional enterprise and you do not recuse yourself. I state for me unequivocally presents the  significant appearance of impropriety. What do you think ?   

February 4, 2016 Judge Edward J. Damich Denied a request to attest:

  1. he had taken the judicial oath of office,
  2. would adhere to that oath during proceedings,
  3. would abide by the Judicial cannons of his office.

Judge Edward J. Damich denial of attestation of  is calculated obstruction of justice 18 U.S.C 1505 and so, a common law contempt of court, a broken oath 28 U.S.C. 453 and, a common law breach of contract,  a violation of 28 U.S.C 455(a) and 18 U.S.C. 242! And quite plausibly 18 U.S.C. 1621 & 18 U.S.C 2382 42 U.S.C 1986

If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution, and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Furthermore, since this Plaintiffs case involves treason judge Damich has chosen to War against We The People and to adhere to the enemies of We The People.

If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.

These are hardly what can be characterized as Judicial functions or the expectations society has on such a high office and an officer sworn to uphold the constitution under 28 U.S.C 453.

Judge Damich the Constitution of these united States of America is the supreme law of the land. No other law, rule, regulation or code including contract can supersede it, nor can your authority as a judge, or an imposter acting as a judge. You did not confirm your oath you violated it and you have violated 28 U.S.C. 455(a) you are an imposter, you are unlawful in the office, in violation of 18 U.S.C 912. You should have recused yourself and you should step down. You sir I contend are a traitor and should be tried for treason.

Failure to confirm your oath of office suggest judge Edward J. Damich does indeed intend to prejudice your the Plaintiffs  rights to equal access to justice. Consequently, I will no longer consider myself bound by the social contracts of law because, the U.S. GovernmentThe Pick Poem is in breach of its agency duties and has become a law breaker. I denounce as valid any control local, state, and federal governments have over my personal sovereignty. I no longer under my free will grant you any power and will resist with full and uninhibited force any attempt at control over my person in any manner whatsoever. Until such time as my constitutional rights are observed and justice served on the traitors.”

The rule of law requires that no one be above the law, not even the king, that the law has been defined before a controversy exists and that the punishment set for breaking the law. Prior to this controversy the rules were set in : Anatomy of a Criminal Threat Absent Malace

January 27, 2016 I contacted my congressional representative because the judge had not only not responded but  several items I believed should be on the courts docket had not been docketed. I requested, since the court of federal claims was an agent for congress my case become a petition for a congressional hearing on my allegations. See item C(2).

February 4, 2016 The response brief to the DOJ’s motion to dismiss under 12(b) was filed with the Court and at the same time the motion of January 19, 2016, appeared on the docket followed February  10, 2016, by other items the court should have long ago docketed.

February 11, 2016 I had a personal come to Jesus discussion with the office of my worthless  congressional representative Moron Griffith. I believe as the Executive and Judicial branches of Government are co conspirators in this treason on We The People it is Congresses duty to bring the traitors to justice. See C(2) & C(3).

February 13. 2016 News of this case was just to much for Antonin Scalia to bear!

Because:

A(3) The USDA/FSA has for decades used this criminal unconstitutional enterprise to inflict all manner of despotic tyranny, torture, and terrorism for all manner of destruction in the lives, livelihoods, health and causing all manner of family destruction in the lives of thousands of We The People.

B (3) Effectively, the Executive and Judicial branches of Government are acting in their own interest above the law waging war on We The People. What are the United States if not the embodied representation of We The People?

C. (1) “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them“ (We The People ? ), “or in adhering to their Enemies.” Enemies of (We The People)?

C. (2) “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason” Is this then not the responsibility of the Court of Federal Claims?  They don’t think so. They have responded to this law suit precisely as predicted in.Any doesn’t mean Any Anymore!

Slide1

March 10, 2016 in a perfect example of a reasonless summary order Judge Edward J. Damich denied the Government, We The People had any intention in legislating this law to contract with a Plaintiff for  the prosecution of these criminals and denied the promise  presented in title 18 Chapter 96 Section 1964(c)  entitled plaintiffs to the compensatory damages the U.S Government promised. Attorney fees for my time and effort, Cost of brining the suit, and treble damages as incentive in contrast see the intent of this law as stated by the Supreme Court in:

Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates][107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987)] : “RICO and the Clayton Act are designed to remedy economic injury by providing for the recovery of treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.[1] Both statutes bring to bear the pressure of “private attorneys general” on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate; the mechanism chosen to reach the objective in both the Clayton Act and RICO is the carrot of treble damages. Moreover, both statutes aim to compensate the same type of injury; each requires that a plaintiff show injury “in his business or property by reason of” a violation” ”

It’s astonishing to discover the Federal Courts do not find a RICO enterprise operating from the Office of the President a serious national problem. But they’re going to do everything in their power to protect it from a jury. I can tell you from experience and I suspect the tens of thousands of farmers before me believe congress had every intent to contract with a private individuals to rid our Government of the Mafia style corruption it operates under.

While the court labeled the Opinion not for publication you can read it here as Item 13 opinion.Please feel free to review any of the other court filing documents you like. The Key Documents Chronologically  

America where should we go from here?

The Executive Branch of Government is operating criminally aided and abetted by the Federal Judiciary and the Court of Federal Claims as agent of Congress claims to have no authority to review the actions of  the Judiciary as it conspires with an Executive office against We The People.

Yes America the Treason within is perpetrated by members of the judiciary and the ABA of Liars.

Update 4-9-2016 Every American has a civic duty to watch this film: WHO STOLE THE AMERICAN DREAM I challenge you to discredit its facts. After you watch this film answer the questions. Who Started, What Professional/Organization were they in, When did it start, and Where did the war on the American dream began. Who’s running and controlling the war on the American Dream? Lawyers working with Bankers?  You should also watch this film as well The American Dream What Happened

If Congress refuses to assume power to hold these branches accountable for treason; they too, join in tyranny and oppression of We The People and We The People have a duty to freedom and our fore fathers to see the traitors, and those who aid and protect them hang in the fires of hell.

America should understand, I write this blog as a record for the world to see, just what a hypocritical nation the American Government has become. A nation touting its respect for justice, the rule of law, and for democracy while itself being a serious oligarchy run by the ABA engaged in despotic, tyranny,  oppression and extortion of We The People!

The US Government is completely responsible for the consequences of their criminal actors

cbjulian

Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se.

@blueridgespring

WordPress.blueridgesprings.com

blueridgesprings.com

Tom Vilsack Before Hispanic Caucus.
by

Tom Vilsack Before Hispanic Caucus.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) together with the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the National Appeals Division (NAD), and multiple state agricultural mediation programs operate an organized racketeering enterprise, fraudulently masquerading as an administrative appeals process. This Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) is designed to deny appellants their individual constitutional rights to Due Process and Equal Justice under supreme law while usurping the judicial system to hide incompetent administration of the people’s resources and manage legal risk for financial gain. Since this is Fraud on Farmers, it obviously has an impact on agricultural commerce.

This fraudulent unconstitutional illegal risk mitigation effort under guise of an administrative appeal process is a federal crime under title 18 chapter 96 sections 1961-1968.It cannot be squared with Governments obligation to the people to operate legally and within the law.

This enterprise protects employees of the USDA & FSA from accountability and responsibility for crimes committed on the very individuals their employed to serve, from responsibility for negligence in the mismanagement of the people’s resources, from negligent, fraudulent, and discriminatory acts in the performance of their jobs even from accountability for failing to preform, proclaimed required procedures.

This enterprise is designed to deny fair, impartial, legal, and constitutionally guaranteed judicial review. It is intentionally designed to abuse the judicial doctrine of Chevron deference, which the judiciary has come to abuse in the denial of individual civil rights by consenting to Governments usurpation of the Constitutions intentional separation of powers.

My lawsuit against the USDA RICO enterprise described above was protected by Superior U.S. Federal District Court Judge Jackson L. Kiser and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals from a Jury trial and Denied cert by the of the United States Supreme Court. I believe Judge Kiser’s intent was to block the RICO charges to protect the enterprise from dissolution as allowed under RICO.

Today Secretary Tom Vilsack at 12:00 noon, Thursday, March 3rd, will come before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to answer questions regarding the Hispanic & Women’s Civil Rights Claims process. Where Of 53,803 total discrimination claims submitted 22,163 (41%) were reviewed. Of these only 3,210 (14.4%) of the claims reviewed were approved — only 6% of the total claimants and most of these to women.

I ask you to consider the impact the RICO enterprise described above had on these appellants prior to their filing claims under this settlement. I assure you this enterprise took every opportunity to deny these appellants their constitutional rights to a fair and impartial hearing and that fact is not reflected in the Agencies case records.

I submit that an agency operating a RICO enterprise to avoid financial damages, accountability, and responsibility for the jobs their paid to perform has no business being allowed any involvement in the evaluation of these claims.

Remember, “There is no greater tyranny, than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice” Montesquieu

The Small American Farmers of this country deserve a loud and demanding call from American Citizens to end this decades old Trojan horse war by the USDA on the backbone of this country.

Justice Louis Brandeis offered this view ‘”Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen.” Racketeering is a Federal Crime!

“ In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.”

Operating a RICO enterprise in violation of Federal Law and for denial of constitutional rights to Due Process is a violation of the Constitution that borders on treason.

“Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).”

Chris Julian

Not a Pro Pro Se per Se.

@blueridgespring

WordPress.blueridgesprings.com

We The People v. United States Government 1:15-CV-01344
by

We The People v. United States Government 1:15-CV-01344

As an agent for Congress the U.S. Court of  Federal Claims has a duty to protect the American people from Government abuses of power. Especially abuse of power by the executive branch engaged in criminal and unconstitutional activities for the depravation of constitutional rights protected by arbitrary, capricious, judicial abuses of power not in accordance with the law.

The Department of “In” Justice (DOJ) asks the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, to suppose the power of the judiciary is superior to that of the legislature.

The DOJ ask the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to accept on the pretense of a repugnancy and by violation of federal law Judge Jackson L. Kiser may substitute his own pleasure for the constitutional intentions of the legislature.

The DOJ ask the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to accept that Governments power is above that of the people and the supreme law of the land.

The DOJ ask the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to accept We The People are no longer in power but, that Government has usurped the United States for its own self interest and enrichment of its servants.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims should look to the words of Abraham Lincoln “It is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against itself in favor of citizens, as it is to administer the same, between private individuals” Because, it is as much the duty of the Federal Court of Claims to render prompt justice against the “Judiciary” and “Executive” branches of Government, in favor of citizens as it is to administer the same between private individuals. Is the judiciary no longer a branch of the United States Government?

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims was founded under Article I., not Article III of the Constitution of the United States. Consequently, this court and its jurisdiction are representative agents of “We the People” through collective congressional representation. It is the function of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to hold Government “Both” the Executive and Judicial branches of government accountable.

If the U.S. Court of Federal Claims finds for any reason it lacks capacity to hear this case, then they must refer it as a petition for congressional hearing. As an agent of Congress, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims must ensure that the legislative will of the people is enforced. Enlightened souls are opposed to Government operating illegal enterprises for the depravation of constitutional rights to absolve themselves of crimes, accountability, and responsibility, in the jobs they’re paid and have duties to perform.

For the record, frustration and displeasure with the Governments lying, judicial abuse, corruption, and criminal operations of the Executive offices is an extraordinary understatement. Plaintiffs are tried of Governments persistent attempts through pervasive and consistent lying, corruption, and contempt for the law and Constitution, to deny justice while continually trivializing and ignoring such grotesque corruption plaguing the American farms and farmers. Real frustration comes from having to deal with lame arguments by a Government continuing to insist on abusing power, believing people should simply accept as true persistent lies and fallacy under the pretense of justice, at the hands of judges who are but pawns of the same enterprise.

Congress may condone these traitorous acts, as they have obviously turned a continuous blind eye to this heinous, despotic, and criminal enterprise operating as a wolf in sheep’s clothing against civilians they’re paid to serve. The people may be blind and in the dark but, disinfecting light is coming. I would submit the corrupt government oppressors have continually underestimated the resolve, ingenuity, and persistence of Plaintiffs intent to see this enterprise eliminated. As Clint Eastwood would say go ahead, make my day! For decades USDA has operated this enterprise without accountability or responsibility. Never did they believe a farmer would discover their scam or pursue them through federal courts. In the next rounds any attempt to obstruct swift justice by jury trial will not be tolerated by the people; darkness is fading into light.

Congressmen like representative Steve Chabot first district of Ohio, Who is on the House Judiciary Committee, the House Committee on Small Business, The House subcommittee on Economic Growth, and the House Subcommittee on Investigations, Oversight and Regulations, are intimately aware of the Governments manner of family destruction in the lives of so many African American, Hispanic, and Female farmers.

However, this to is another Government cover up, a fraud on the farmers. While numerous diversities have suffered, so to have all small farmers at the hands of government, which hit small farmers with the force of a cataclysm as they waged an invisible and unreported war on small farmers. A war waged to support large corporate agribusiness, lawyers, judges, bankruptcy courts, financial institutions, and environmental objectives lining the pockets of elected officials.

A war waged through an unconstitutional, criminal, and illegal government run RICO enterprise supported by agencies at county, state, and federal levels to intimidate small farmers, giving them faulty information, denying them loans, after having made the wolf in sheep’s clothing the lender of last resort, and harassing them from their land. A Government run RICO enterprise taking land by bankrupting and foreclosing on small farms with no need for compensation.

A Government run RICO enterprise which has protected evil, criminal, recalcitrant agents of government,who never lost their employment and are granted rich retirements and benefits after haven stolen the land, the livelihood, the health, and causing all manner of family destruction in the lives of so many. Farmers fraudulently entrapped by government agents representing themselves as servants of the people when in reality they served a criminal self serving government and the financial coffers of the peoples representatives.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims must use its Jurisdiction to ensure the peoples Constitutional rights are not subverted by any branch of government. Furthermore, The U.S. Court of Federal Claims must assure the American people they will no longer be subjects of tyranny and oppression at the hands of co-conspirators in Government.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims must pause to recognize, Plaintiffs with standing who brought the civil (RICO) cause of action against an executive branch of government and its agents, were and are uniquely granted with the legislative authority to prosecute this criminal enterprise. The judiciaries’ actions to unlawfully, convert Plaintiffs suit blocked the only path available to the American people to end the criminal enterprise operating in and by an Executive branch of the U.S. Government. An enterprise aided and abetted by the unconstitutional granting of deference in a civil cause of action, aiding and abetting tyranny and oppression of We The People!

The USDA’s RICO enterprise operating from the Secretary of Agricultures office has unlawfully destroyed the lives of thousands of farmers assisted by the Judiciaries extraordinary bias in granting the agency deference to rewrite laws at will for their own protection. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims must act for justice (RCFC 1.), to assist in dismantling the despotic, oppressive tyranny which appears designed to allow Government the unlawful taking of personal property without due compensation. Designed to enforce big corporations who line the pockets of the people’s representation to the detriment and will of the American people.

The Judiciary is but one of three original branches of Government under the constitution, If this court “Congress” does not hold the Judiciary and Executive branches accountable to the law then they join in the oligarchy of kings above the law and submit the American people to slavery of despots.

The world should then know the U.S. Government is a fraud upon the people and its Constitutional form of Government has failed!

To We The People the U.S. Government is in breach of its Agency duties, and did breach its contractual offer, and promise to the American people to contract with a private citizen to assume the role of a prosecuting attorney with the carrots of inducement by legislative act for monetary compensatory damages, with further express congressional mandate of treble damages, attorneys fees and cost. The only purpose congress had in providing such inducements to a private citizen, was incentive for a private individual with standing to contract for the position of prosecutor and entice such a prosecutor to diligently investigate and pursue the elimination of criminal enterprises negatively affecting the channels of free enterprise and commerce in the publics best interest.Especially those operated using tax dollars to do so.

If Congress had no intent to be bound to the promise only a private citizens can pursue, why offer inducements? Why did they provide a private cause of action for the prosecution of criminal acts? Why does all prior precedent find this law applicable to government agencies?

Plaintiffs contracted for compensatory treble damages, attorney’s fees, and cost to assume the role of prosecutor, to prosecute a Government agency, because Congress understood the prosecutorial gap created by governments inability to prosecute itself.

In fact the U.S Government is defended in these cases by the DOJ, employees of the very government congress intended to empower a private citizen to prosecute. Furthermore, so to are the judges of Article III courts. Would it make sense for the DOJ the so-called Department of Justice to defend the U.S. government and prosecute the U.S. Government as both prosecution and defense council? The King who judges himself can do no wrong!

The founding fathers were well aware of the usurpation of power by government for tyranny. John Adams said, “Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty.” Emphasis added. Thomas Jefferson wrote “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution,” The founding fathers supported these statements in Article III clause 2 “The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury;” and in the seventh Amendment ”In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” Remember also the words of former Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone “The juror is voting on the justice of the law according to his own conscience and convictions and not someone else’s. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided”

Congress and all prior precedent in RICO found RICO applicable to government agencies and the forces that corrupt them. Congress provided RICO with a civil cause of action specifically to place judgment in the hands of a jury and not in the hands of the king that can do no wrong. Which is precisely the act of treason against the people committed by Superior Federal District Court Judge Jackson L. Kiser when he converted the RICO filing in and attempt to avoid a Jury trial in case 4:13-cv-00054-JLK. 

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims as agent for Congress is duty bound as the people’s representative government not to dismiss this case. They may find the Defendants guilty, bring the case as a petition before congressional hearing, or remand it for a jury trial.

The Court cannot without breach of their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws dismiss this case or convert it for Government to Judge itself. Such an act is adhering to the enemies of life liberty and justice, an act of war against the Constitution and We The People.

Plaintiffs based their claim on a promise by the United States Government. A promise the United States Government breached through unlawful, unconstitutional, criminal acts. Additionally, while the case was brought for plaintiffs benefit, it was is and always has been fueled by the thousands of small farmers whose lives have already been destroyed, and those that will be in the future unless this enterprise is cremated.

Plaintiffs RICO claim and the Conversion thereof to a claim for torts was not dismissed with prejudice. The torts were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the rubric of the Federal Torts Claim Act. Forcing Plaintiffs to literally request from the RICO enterprise permission to sue them for being corrupt. Plaintiffs  forced to sign an agreement to accept a sum certain rather than the congressional mandated compensatory treble damages provided under RICO. Plaintiffs maintain the Constitutional right and standing to bring a new RICO claim against the USDA and a civic duty, at an appropriate time to pursue prosecution of this despicable display of unconstitutional government corruption.

A corrupted Secretary of Agricultures office running a criminal enterprise through corrupt federal and state agencies to usurp the constitutional rights of American citizens in order to avoid accountability and responsibility for crimes, or the duties they’re compensated to perform on behalf of the American people, is a travesty for justice of unfathomable consequences. For the U.S. Federal judiciary to aid these unconstitutional violations of the supreme law, with unconstitutional bias in favor of government agencies is a travesty of the United States Constitution, and the life liberty and justice for which it stands.

This combination has all too often led to the taking of private property without just compensation. So much so, it appears the U.S. Governments intent in establishing this criminal enterprise. A corrupt federal government protected by a corrupt federal judiciary is a tyrannous trespasser of the law and its people. Congress is duty bound to abolish it or otherwise “We The People” have every right, in fact a duty in the name of liberty and our sovereign rights to dismantle the government and our congressional representation by whatever means necessary.

The founding fathers were well aware from histories teachings Governments can and do become corrupted self-serving tyrannous despots. So enlightened the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the constitution were written for the very day. 1. Only through free speech could disinfecting light be shared among men, spreading the truth of a completely corrupted government. 2. Only by having arms in the hands of the people could liberty and freedom once again rise from the ashes of a government fallen to the weaknesses of the flesh.Jefferson & Tyranny & the 2nd amendment

In the words of Malcolm X ” His answer, “And I go for that. If you take up arms you’ll end it, but if you sit around and wait for the one who’s in power to make up his mind that he should end it, you’ll be waiting a long time.”

The U.S. Government DOJ defenses arguments have only wasted the Peoples and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims time and money, and justice in delaying. Every argument the Government portends to support its case is nothing less than fallacious attempts to prolong and avoid accountability and responsibility for their treasonous acts on the people and Constitution of the United States. It’s obvious that the Government is run by and thinks like lawyers in constant opposing battle over turf and never focused on the rights and needs of the people.

We The People need to understand this is not a partisan issue President Bill Clinton may have institutionalized the racket, but it was operating long before he took office. No, this operation took bipartisan support to instigate and I believe you can attribute the whole operation to the collusion of, for, and by lawyers.

 

This U.S. Court of Federal Claims should choose carefully a path to salvation. The path is narrow and sharper than the razors edge.

Chris Julian

Not a Pro Pro Se per Se.

@blueridgespring

WordPress.blueridgesprings.com