June 7, 2015 by CBJulian De Mala Care

Any doesn’t mean Any Anymore!

To the Liars, lawyers, corrupt federal judges, and Supreme Court traitors, I hope you find this one interesting, I’m sure you’ll be seeing much of this information presented again in another lawsuit. Knowing the depth of your insidious hypocrisy I expect only to continue my story by filing. Given your prior track record for criminally and corruptly ignoring the law, I would further expect no viable reasonable argument on your part as you have already demonstrated your inability, unwillingness, and pathetic dodging of facts and precedent. Hey! Just too bad if you can’t handle the TRUTH like men!

If you’re just a reader or follower I apologize for all the legal stuff in this one. There will be a lot of quoting and citations again a bit more than normal. However, this article and the others should concern all Americans. The law, the constitution, and the foundations of our freedom have been heinously breached. We the people are under tyranny, oppression, and repression from a despotic oligarchy aided and abetted by a corrupted federal judiciary.

A Visit with RICO:

Robert Blakey was an adviser to the United States Senate Government Operations Committee, under the close supervision of the committee’s chairman; Senator John Little McClellan drafted the racketeer-influenced corrupt organizations act “RICO’. It was enacted as Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970.

In a brief of amicus curiae by the national association of Shareholder and consumer attorneys ’NASCAT’ in support of respondent ‘United States Of America’ G. Robert Blakely presented the following argument in the case of Edmund Boyle v. United States of America on pages 3-5 of his brief.

“To state liability for a claim under Section 1962(c), the Government or a civil RICO plaintiff must allege “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.” Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985); accord Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541,547 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 464 (2007). The necessary elements for liability for a criminal RICO conviction are the same. See, e.g., H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tele. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 236 (1989) (“pattern” element “appl[ies] to criminal as well as civil applications”); accord Sedima, 473 U.S. at 489 (“violation”).The only question presented in this appeal is the second element – “enterprise” – of a Section 1962(c) criminal prosecution or civil claim when based on an “association-in-fact” theory The definition of “enterprise” in RICO is straight forward. In its entirety, the definition is: “ ‘enterprise’includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) (emphasis added). As is evident from the plain text, this definition is hardly demanding. A single “individual” is an enterprise. Similarly, a single “partnership,” a single “corporation,” a single “association,” and a single 4 “other legal entity” are enterprises. See Odom, 486 F.3d at 548. This Court admonishes courts to construe RICO and, in particular, “enterprise” expansively. See National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 257 (1994) (“NOW”) (“RICO broadly defines ‘enterprise’ ”); United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 586-587 (1981); Sedima, 473 U.S. at 497-98. With few exceptions, the circuit courts of appeals adhere to this admonition. See, e.g., City of New York v. Smokes-Spirits.Com, Inc., 541 F.3d 425, 447 (2d Cir. 2008); Odom, 486 F.2d at 547; United States v. Cianci, 378 F.3d 71, 78-79 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. London, 66 F.3d 1227, 1243-1244 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1155 (1996); United States v. Lee Stoller Enters., Inc., 652 F.2d 1313, 1318 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1082 (1981). Congress gave the term great flexibility by using the word “includes” rather than “means”; thus, its definition is illustrative, not exhaustive. See United States Masters, 924 F.2d 1362, 1366 (7th Cir.) (Posner, J.),cert. denied, 500 U.S. 919 (1991); United States v.Perholtz, 842 F.2d 343, 353 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 821 (1988). Accordingly, courts properly interpret “enterprise” to include (1) legal entities, that is, legitimate business partnerships or corporations, and (2) illegitimate associations-in-fact, marked by an ongoing formal or informal organization of individual or legal-entity associates, see Cianci, 378 F.3d at 79,who or which function as a continuing unit “for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct.”5Turkette, 452 U.S. at 580-583; see also United StatesPatrick, 248 F.3d 11, 19 (1st Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 910 (2002).”

See the following link for the complete text:

http://www.wilentz.com/files/articlesandpublicationsfilefiles/134/articlepublicationfile/edmund%20boyle%20v.pdf

This argument makes these primary points.

An enterprise can be an association of any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.
The Supreme Court has admonished courts to construe RICO and in particular “Enterprise” expansively.
With few exceptions, the circuit courts of appeals adhere to this admonition.
Congress gave the term great flexibility by using the word “includes” rather than “means’; for the purpose of illustration and not as an exhaustive list. Who would no more about this than the lawyer involved in writing the legislation? Also, Consider whom he is arguing for.

When it came to using RICO for the prosecution of a Government Agency Mr. Blakey made the following arguments on behalf of the United States of America.

“ Finally, a principal and wholely [sic] proper use of RICO by the Government is to prosecute political corruption cases where the enterprise is usually defined as the governmental agency, political office, and the like. See G. Robert Blakey & Thomas Perry, An Analysis of the Myths That Bolster Efforts to Rewrite RICO and the Various Proposals for Reform: “Mother of God is This the End of RICO?, ” 43 VAND .L. REV.851, 1020 (1990) (reporting that the largest category of criminal RICO prosecutions involved political corruption). See, e.g.,United States v. McDade,28 F.3d 283, 295-297 (3d Cir. 1994) (upholding association-in-fact RICO enterprise consisting of congressman, his two offices and congressional sub-committees that he chaired), cert. denied , 455 U.S. 910 (1982); United States v. Dischner, 974 F.2d 1502, 1511 (9th Cir. 1992) (upholding association-in-fact enterprise consisting of municipal officials, office of mayor and department of public works), cert. denied,507 U.S. 923 (1993); United States v. Angelilli,660 F.2d 23, 31-33 (2d Cir. 1981) (“We view the language of § 1961(4), . . . as unambiguously encompassing governmental units, . . . and the substance of RICO’s provisions demonstrate a clear congressional intent that RICO be interpreted to apply to activities that corrupt public or governmental entities.”), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 910(1982);see also G. Robert Blakey, The Civil RICO Fraud Action in Context: Reflections on Bennett v. Berg, 58 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 237, 298-299(1982) (collecting decisions). In Cianci, 378 F.3d at 78-88, where the First Circuit affirmed the RICO convictions of the mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, and associates who operated affairs of an associated-in-fact enterprise consisting of themselves, the city and its agencies and entities to enrich themselves, the court stated that “[a] RICO enterprise animated by an illicit common purpose can be comprised of an association-in-fact of municipal entities and human members when the latter exploits the former to carry out that purpose.” Id. at 83. After surveying the above-referenced decisions from the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits, the First Circuit stated: “In each of these cases, the groupings of individuals and corporate or municipal entities were sufficiently organized and devoted to the alleged illicit purposes that the resulting whole functioned as a continuing unit. The common purpose was dictated by individuals who controlled the corporate or municipal entities’ activities and manipulated them to the desired illicit ends.” Id. RICO’s important role in combating political corruption would effectively end if this Court were to accept Petitioner’s attempts to narrow the broad definition of “enterprise” found in section 1961(4) and explicated in Turkette.

See pages 29-30 of the brief available for review at this link.

http://www.wilentz.com/files/articlesandpublicationsfilefiles/134/articlepublicationfile/edmund%20boyle%20v.pdf

The following points can be taken literally from this argument made on behalf of the United States Government:

A principal and wholely {sic} proper use of RICO to prosecute political corruption cases where the enterprise is usually defined as the governmental agency, political office, and the like.
The largest category of criminal RICO prosecutions involved political corruption.
The Supreme Court in Angelilli viewed the RICO language as unambiguously encompassing governmental units.
The Supreme Court found the substance of RICO’s provisions demonstrates a clear congressional intent that RICO be interpreted to apply to activities that corrupt public or governmental entities.
A RICO enterprise animated by an illicit common purpose can be comprised of an association-in-fact of municipal entities and human members when the latter exploits the former to carry out that purpose.
RICO’s important role in combating political corruption would effectively end if the Supreme Court were to accept attempts to narrow the broad definition of “enterprise” found in section 1961(4) and explicated in Turkette.
The RICO act was used to prosecute a congressman and two of his offices, a congressional sub-committee, an enterprise of municipal officials, two mayors, a department of public works, and yes even the State of Illinois.
RICO’s important role in combating political corruption effectively ends when the court chooses to narrow the broad definition of “enterprise”.

In another case following Mr. Blakey’s: United States v. Warner, 498 F.3d 666, 694-97 (7th Cir. 2007), the Seventh Circuit held that the “State of Illinois was properly charged as the RICO enterprise. See the previous blog post for more on this case.

Mr. Blakey made the following argument on behalf of the United States of America on pages 5-7 in the text body.

Text Body.

“This Court more than a quarter-century ago in Turkette, 452 U.S. at 580-593. Carefully examining RICO’s language (id. at 580-587), legislative history (id. at 588-593), and purpose (id. at 593), this Court – with a lone dissent – articulated the evidentiary criteria for an associated-in-fact enterprise under RICO. To establish (“prove”) the existence of such an enterprise at trial, the Government (or civil RICO plaintiff) must offer “evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal,” and “evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit.” Id. at 583. This Court required no other evidentiary showing. See id.; see also City of New York, 541 F.3d at 447; Odom, 486 F.3d at 552.3 As set forth herein, the majority of the circuits faithfully adhere to the criteria enumerated in Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583. In practice, the dual requirements of (1) distinctness and (2) the proof needed to demonstrate an associated-in-fact enterprise “work in tandem to weed out claims dressed up as RICO violations but which are not in fact.” City of New York, 541 F.3d at 447. The “distinctness” requirement requires the Government or civil RICO plaintiff to allege and prove at trial that the RICO “person” is legally separate from the RICO “enterprise,” while the “association-in-fact” requirements ensure that “distinctness” is not achieved by simply adding on entities to the enterprise that do not in fact operate as a “continuing unit” or share a “common purpose.”Id. (quoting Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583). Anything more is superfluous.”

From the text body of Mr. Blakey’s brief in support of the United States Government we can conclude the following facts:

The Supreme Court articulated the evidentiary criteria of an associated-in-fact enterprise under RICO in Turkette, 452 U.S. at 580-593.
The distinctness requirement requires a plaintiff to allege and “Prove at Trial” the RICO person is legally separate from the RICO “enterprise”

In the Footnotes from these same pages, Mr. Blakey noted the following:

“In Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583, this Court spoke repeatedly of what must be “proved” at trial – not what must be alleged or pled. See id. (referring to what “the Government must prove”; “proved by evidence”; “proof used to establish”; “proof of one”; and “must be proved by the Government.”). Id. (emphasis added; footnote omitted); see also United States v. Nascimento, 491 F.3d 25, 32 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Turkette), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1738 (2008); United States v. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214,222 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 849 (1983). Turkette says nothing about what must be alleged by the Government or civil RICO plaintiffs.Consistent with Rule of Civil Procedure, the pleading stage should offer a “low hurdle” to clear. City of New York, 541 F.3d at 449; see also In re Sumitomo Copper Litig., 104 F. Supp. 314, 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (Pollack, S.J.) (“Allegations of the existence of a RICO enterprise must meet only the ‘notice pleading’ requirements of ” Rule 8(a) (citations omitted)). Nevertheless, district courts “confuse [ . . . ] what must be pleaded with what must be proved,” ignoring that “[i]t is the function of discovery to fill in the details, and of trial to establish fully each element of the cause of action.” Seville Indus. Mach. Corp. v. Southmost Mach. Corp., 742 F.2d 786, 790 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1211 (1985). As Judge Posner recognized in Limestone Devel. Corp. v. Village of Lemont,520 F.3d 797, 805 (7th Cir. 2008), civil RICO plaintiffs may “conduct discovery” to flesh out their evidentiary showing of an association-in-fact. See also Dubai Islamic Bank v. Citibank,N.A., 126 F. Supp. 2d 659, 671 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“not always . . .reasonable to expect . . . when a defrauded plaintiff frames his complaint he will have available sufficient factual information regarding the inner workings of a RICO enterprise”). Expecting the pleader to allege pre-discovery what he, she, or it can only obtain in discovery is a classic “Catch-22.” See Joseph Heller, CATCH-22, 47 (Dell 1985) (“He would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of [the Catch-22.] ” ) . In cases alleging violations of § 1962(c), the Government and civil RICO plaintiffs must “allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a ‘person’; and (2) an ‘enterprise’ that is not simply the same ‘person’ referred to by a different name.” Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158, 161-162 (2001). A “person” is “any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3). Thus, “by virtue of the distinctness requirement, a corporate entity may not be both the RICO person and the RICO enterprise under [§] 1962(c).” City of New York, 541 F.3d at 447 (citation omitted). Nevertheless, “a defendant can clearly be a person under the statute and also be part of the [association-in-fact] enterprise,” because the “prohibition against the unity of person and enterprise applies only when the singular person or entity is defined as both the person and the only entity comprising the enterprise.” United States v. Goldin Indus., 219 F.3d 1271, 1275 (11th Cir.) (collecting cases), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1015 (2000); see also Securitron Magnalock Corp. v. Schnabolk, 65 F.3d 256, 263 (2d Cir. 1995) (notwithstanding common ownership and a common officer and agent, each distinct corporation could be charged individually as a “person” under § 1962(c) while also being considered jointly as constituting the “enterprise”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1114 (1996). “

From Mr. Blakey’s footnote in this case one can conclude:

There is significant precedent to support, the existence of a RICO “enterprise” must be proven at trial but, the Supreme Court has not articulated any requirement for what must be pled.
A Plaintiff need only meet ‘notice pleading requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a).

This text can be viewed in the full brief on pages 5 – 7: in the text body and footnotes at the following link: http://www.wilentz.com/files/articlesandpublicationsfilefiles/134/articlepublicationfile/edmund%20boyle%20v.pdf

When the Supreme Court of the United States published its opinion in Edmund Boyle v. United States of America, the Same Case in which Mr. Blakey had produced his Amicus Brief for the national association of Shareholder and consumer attorneys ’NASCAT’ in support of Respondent United States Of America. The Opinion No. 07–1309. Argued January 14, 2009—Decided June 8, 2009

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

On page 4 of the opinion, not the slip opinion, section A states in the Text Body:

A

“RICO makes it “unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such entrprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 18 U. S. C. §1962(c) (emphasis added). The statute does not specifically define the outer boundaries of the “enterprise” concept but states that the term “includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” §1961(4).²This enumeration of included enterprises “is obviously broad, encompassing “any . . . group of individuals associated in fact.”Ibid. (emphasis added). The term “any” ensures that the definition has a wide reach, see, e.g., Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op., at 4–5), and the very concept of an association in fact is expansive. In addition, the RICO statute provides that its terms are to be “liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes.” §904(a), 84Stat. 947, note following 18 U. S. C. §1961; see also, e.g., National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 S. 249, 257 (1994) (“RICO broadly defines ‘enterprise’”); Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U. S. 479, 497 (1985) (“RICO is to be read broadly”); Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 21 (1983) (noting “the pattern of the RICO statute in utilizing terms and concepts of breadth”). In light of these statutory features, we explained in Turkette that “an enterprise includes any union or group of individuals associated in fact” and that RICO reaches “a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct.” 452 U. S., at 580,Such an enterprise, we said, “is proved by evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and by evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit.” Id., at 583. Not withstanding these precedents, the dissent asserts that the definition of a RICO enterprise is limited to “business-like entities.” See post, at 1–5 (opinion of STEVENS, J.). We see no basis to impose such an extra textual requirement.^{3 “}

From the Supreme Courts Opinion, one can see the Court has expressed the following facts with emphasis:

Unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise.
The Statute does not define the outer boundaries of the “enterprise” concept but states that the term includes any —-.
Included enterprises “is obviously broad, encompassing “any” ensures that the definition has a wide reach.
In addition, the RICO statute provides that its terms are to be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes. I have bolded sections for emphasis but have not changed any wording or italics in the original.

In the footnotes, the Court again enunciated the breadth of application for the RICO act.

—————— ²This provision does not purport to set out an exhaustive definition of the term “enterprise.” Compare §§1961(1)–(2) (defining what the terms “racketeering activity” and “State” mean) with §§1961(3)–(4) (defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include). Accordingly, this provision does not foreclose the possibility that the term might include, in addition to the specifically enumerated entities, others that fall 5 Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) —————— within the ordinary meaning of the term “enterprise.” See H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U. S. 229, 238 (1989) (explaining that the term “pattern” also retains its ordinary meaning not with standing the statutory definition in §1961(5)). ³The dissent claims that the “business-like” limitation “is confirmed by the text of §1962(c) and our decision in Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U. S. 170 (1993).” Post, at 3. Section 1962(c), however, states only that one may not “conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of [an] enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. ”Whatever business-like characteristics the dissent has in mind, we do not see them in §1962(c).

The full text of the opinion in Edmund Boyle v. United States of America. Can be accessed at this link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1309.pdf

Point out here for emphasis that in my case against the USDA the court has found cause for an extra-textual requirement that if the “enterprise” is operated by a Federal Employee working for a Federal Agency “enterprise” the FTCA must be evoked in filing a case thus granting this criminal unconstitutional “enterprise” operating in violation of Federal Law Sovereign Immunity. BS!

In SEDIMA, S.P.R.L., Petitioner,v.IMREX COMPANY, INC., et al. The United States Supreme Court stated at 29:

“ This less restrictive reading is amply supported by our prior cases and the general principles surrounding this statute. RICO is to be read broadly. This is the lesson not only of Congress’ self-consciously expansive language and overall approach, see United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 586-587, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 2530-2531, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981), but also of its express admonition that RICO is to “be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes,” Pub.L. 91-452, § 904(a), 84 Stat. 947. The statute’s “remedial purposes” are nowhere more evident than in the provision of a private action for those injured by racketeering activity. See also n. 10, supra. Far from effectuating these purposes, the narrow readings offered by the dissenters and the court below would in effect eliminate § 1964(c) from the statute.”

From this statement by The Supreme Court of the United States, the following facts can be ascertained.

The Supreme Court believes it was Congress’s intent with the use of self-conscious expansive language to imply RICO was to be read and applied broadly.
RICO is to be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes.
The Supreme Court of the U.S. believes the statute’s “remedial purpose’ is nowhere more evident than in the provision of a private action for those injured by racketeering activity.

Which would be me, my friends, and my family!

Here’s a link to SEDIMA, S.P.R.L., Petitioner,v.IMREX COMPANY, INC. If you would like to read the full opinion or check the facts.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/473/473.US.479.84-648.html

Private Attorney General:

A private attorney general is a private citizen who brings a lawsuit considered to be in the public interest, i.e., benefiting the general public and the community as a whole. The “private attorney general” concept holds that a successful private party plaintiff is entitled to recovery of his legal expenses, including attorney fees if he has advanced the policy inherent in public interest legislation on behalf of a significant class of persons.

This Criminal enterprise has operated for decades and severely trampled the constitutional rights of 10’s of thousands of American Farmers of all ethnicities. In my last blog post, I provided numerous links to articles on this fact. I brought this suit because I had the evidence to prove it and while the USDA has been sued countless times no one to my knowledge ever tried shutting this operation down using RICO. So my intention from the start of this was to advance the policy inherent in the public interest on behalf or the significant number of Farmers whose lives were destroyed by bad Government!

You can see this definition at US Legal here is a link. http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/private-attorney-general/

Also, Wikipedia has a nice overview and the provisions used in civil rights. Wikipiedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_attorney_general

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:

RICO’s civil enforcement provision provides:

“Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and [483 U.S. 143, 151] the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.” 18 U.S.C. 1964(c).

Both RICO and the Clayton Act are designed to remedy economic injury by providing for the recovery of treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. 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.

The close similarity of the two provisions is no accident. The “clearest current” in the legislative history of RICO “is the reliance on the Clayton Act model.” Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 489 (1985). As early as 1967, Senator Hruska had proposed bills that would use “the novel approach of adapting antitrust concepts to thwart organized crime.” ABA Report 78. As Senator Hruska explained:

“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).

From this court opinion, the following is expressed fact of the Supreme Court:

That the RICO and Clayton Acts are both designed to remedy economic injury by providing for the recovery of treble damages, cost, and attorney’s fees.
Both the Clayton and RICO acts 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.
The Court expressed the opinion that extraordinarily broad and flexible remedies ought to be used more extensively against the legitimate business activities of organized crime.

Perhaps not when organized crime is the Government?

The full text of the decision of Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates][107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987)] can be accessed at this link:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16561326211012167071&q=AGENCY+HOLDING+CORP.+v.+MALLEY-DUFF+%26+ASSOCS

In [Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000)] in response to a writ for certiorari, the 5^th circuit court of Appeals stated and on appeal, the Supreme Court reiterated in No. 98–896. Argued November 3, 1999—Decided February 23, 2000

“In rejecting a significantly different focus under RICO, therefore, we are honoring an analogy that Congress itself accepted and relied upon, and one that promotes the objectives of civil RICO as readily as it furthers the objects of the Clayton Act. Both statutes share a common congressional objective of encouraging civil litigation to supplement Government efforts to deter and penalize the respectively prohibited practices. The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, “private attorneys general,” dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity.³Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151 ) (civil RICO specifically has a “further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate”). The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better. It would, accordingly, be strange to provide an unusually long basic limitations period that could only have the effect of postponing whatever public benefit civil RICO might realize.”

Postponing and delaying as a tactic for torture is precisely what the Federal Courts have done for this Federal Government “enterprise”

In the Footnotes the Supreme Court stated:

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

The full opinion of the Supreme Court in Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000)] can be read at this link see the PDF tab:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/528/549/case.html

Quite frankly I believe the court in Rotella v. Wood et al overstepped its bounds by setting a statute of limitations shorter than the one expressly stated by the legislators in the statute. They picked a winner not based on the law.

The “private attorney general” concept holds that a successful private party plaintiff is entitled to recovery of his legal expenses, including attorney fees if he has advanced the policy inherent in public interest legislation on behalf of a significant class of persons. Dasher v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta, Ga., D.C.Ga., 64 F.R.D. 720, 722. See also Equal Access to Justice Act. 28 U.S.C. §2412 (a)

From the Supreme Court statements on Rotella v. Wood the following facts are stated:

Both the Clayton Act and RICO statutes share a common congressional objective of encouraging civil litigation to supplement Government efforts to deter and penalize the respectively prohibited practices.
The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, “private attorneys general,” dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity.
Civil RICO specifically has a “further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate”).
The provision for treble damages is justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity.
Eliminating racketeering should be pursued the sooner the better.
It would be strange to provide a long basic limitations period that could only effect postponing the public’s benefit of eliminating a RICO “enterprise”. Again unless it’s run by the government.

In Summary of this quoted precedent on the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act ‘RICO’ let’s begin by reviewing the statements, and precedent, stated by Mr. G. Robert Blakey. Mr. Blakey was a Lawyer and Law professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School. He is known for his work in drafting RICO with Senator John Little McClellan. Mr. Blakey also drafted the Amicus Curiae brief referenced above for the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys ‘NASCAT’ on behalf and in support of the United States. Mr. Blakey is known for being the foremost authority on the RICO statute.

Mr. Blakey’s arguments in the brief for Edmond Boyle v. United States No. 07–1309. Argued January 14, 2009—Decided June 8, 2009, demonstrated that the concept of “enterprise” was to be applied expansively to any union or group. He stated it was, congressional intent the term has great flexibility in its use which Congress dictated by the use of the word includes. Blakey further emphasized that the wholly proper use of RICO was to prosecute political corruption where the enterprise is usually defined as the governmental agency, political office, and the like. Mr. Blakey pointed out that the Supreme Court of the United States had itself stated that they viewed the language of RICO as unambiguously encompassing governmental units and the substance of RICOS provisions demonstrated a clear congressional intent that RICO is interpreted to apply to the activities that corrupt public or governmental entities. A RICO “enterprise animated by an illicit common purpose can be comprised of an association-in-fact of municipal entities and human members when the latter exploits the former to carry out that purpose.” A Congressman, two mayors, a congressional subcommittee, and even a State have been found to be an enterprise under RICO and none were protected by sovereign immunity. Mr. Blakey believed RICO’s important role in combating political corruption would effectively end if the Supreme Court were to accept attempts to narrow the broad definition of “enterprise” found in section 1961(4) and explicated in Turkette. The existence of a RICO enterprise must be proven at trial and only noticed in accordance with the federal rules of civil procedure 8(a) when pled.

In its published Opinion on the case of Edmund Boyle v United States. No. 07–1309. Argued January 14, 2009—Decided June 8, 2009. The Supreme Court emphasized that it was unlawful for “Any” person employed by or associated with “Any” “enterprise” to participate in a RICO. They further emphasized that there were no outer boundaries for the term “enterprise” The concept term includes the definition “Any” and is obviously broad encompassing “Any” ensuring that the definition has a wide reach. Additionally, the statute provides that its terms be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes. The court seems to make it very clear their interpretation means “Any” person and “Any” Enterprise!

In the Supreme Court decision of SEDIMA, S.P.R.L., v IMREX COMPANY, INC., et al. At 28 the Court Stated the” less restrictive reading is amply supported by our prior cases and the general principles surrounding this statute. RICO is to be read broadly. This is the lesson not only of Congress’ self-consciously expansive language and overall approach, see United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 586-587, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 2530-2531, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981), but also of its express admonition that RICO is to “be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes,” Pub.L. 91-452, § 904(a), 84 Stat. 947. The statute’s “remedial purposes” are nowhere more evident than in the provision of a private action for those injured by racketeering activity. See also n. 10, supra. Far from effectuating these purposes, the narrow readings offered by the dissenters and the court below would in effect eliminate § 1964(c) from the statute.”

Much can be gleaned from the full text of this case at the link below. https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/473/473.US.479.84-648.html and United States v. Turkette at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/452/576/case.html

RICO and the Private Attorney General

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 Opinion indicates both RICO and Clayton Acts are designed to remedy economic injury by providing for the recovery of treble damages, cost, and attorney’s fees. That both the RICO and Clayton Acts 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 incentive of treble damages. The Court expressed an opinion that extraordinarily broad and flexible remedies ought to be used more extensively against the legitimate business activities of organized crime.

In the Supreme Court case of Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000)] the Supreme Court stated both the Clayton Act and RICO statutes share a common congressional objective of encouraging civil litigation to supplement Government efforts to deter and penalize the respectively prohibited practices. The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, “private attorneys general,” dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. Civil RICO specifically has a “further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate”). The provision for treble damages is justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity. Eliminating racketeering should be pursued the sooner the better. It would be counterproductive to provide a long basic limitations period that could only effect postponing the public’s benefit of eliminating a RICO “enterprise”.

Mr. Blakey and the Supreme Court have in these precedents both stated emphatically RICO is to be liberally and broadly interpreted to apply to “Any” individual and “Any” “enterprise”. Both have also made it very clear they viewed the language of RICO as unambiguously encompassing governmental units and the substance of RICO’S provisions demonstrated a clear congressional intent that RICO be interpreted to apply to the activities that corrupt public or governmental entities. In the Supreme Court Rulings for Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates] and Rotella v. Wood et al. the court made it very clear both the Clayton act and RICO act share a common congressional objective of encouraging civil litigation to deter and penalize the respectively prohibited practices. Both bring to bear the pressure of ‘private Attorneys General on a national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate. In SEDIMA, S.P.R.L., v IMREX COMPANY, INC., et al. The Supreme Court stated the RICO statute’s “remedial purposes” are nowhere more evident than in the provision of a private action for those injured by racketeering activity.

Yet in my case against the USDA for Racketeering the Federal Courts ruled that the USDA could not be sued under RICO without evoking the Federal Tort Claims Act postponing the public’s benefit of eliminating a RICO “enterprise”.

This required me to request permission from a corrupt organization permission to sue them for being corrupt. “Unconstitutional” The Federal Tort Claims Act requires the conversion of treble damages to a sum certain. It requires that to sue an Agency you must be willing to accept the sum certain as a settlement. Therefore, it also converts and eliminates the provisions allowing the court to intervene in its criminal operations. Furthermore, it is a taking of the property rights of “private attorneys general,” incentives for, treble damages, cost, and attorneys fees conveyed to the private citizen to diligently investigate and prosecute a RICO enterprise. And those incentives have an intrinsic value beyond a purely monetary one.

I state that requiring a plaintiff to evoke the FTCA when bringing a suit under RICO is a forced conversion of rights and a violation of due process and the takings clause under the 5^th Amendment to the Constitution.

This is the “Federal” Court ruling sovereign immunity trumps the constitutional obligation to due process to protect a criminal unconstitutional government “enterprise” operating in violation of Federal Law for the oppression and tyranny of civilians.

NOT WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED!

I stand by my allegations that Federal Judge Jackson L. Kiser and his cohorts in the fourth circuit have knowingly violated federal law to aid and abet a criminal racketeering operation owned and operated by individuals at the USDA, NAD, FSA, and state mediation program participants, at the participating universities. I further allege that the United States Supreme Court is a traitor to the people for allowing the evocation of the FTCA with its theft of my private property rights and granting the opportunity for this RICO “enterprise” which is designed for the usurpation of the court judicial powers and theft of civil and constitutional rights to avoid being terminated. An operation responsible for the deprivation of civil and constitutional rights for ten’s of thousands of farmers, often wiped out by this criminal terrorist enterprise victimizing the USDA and “We the People”. It is Government at its worst! Government for the preservation of a corrupt and criminal Government!

It’s been said no one is above the law. Fascinating in this case the law does not apply to “Any” Individual or “Any” enterprise. It seems the court believes Government employees get special treatment. A Federal employee is after all not just “Any” individual and an enterprise operated by an executive branch of government is not just “Any” enterprise.

The “Federal” Courts decision

Robert Blakey once told Time magazine: “Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, “We don’t want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas.”

But I guess a different set of rules is ok for the Government’s self-preservation of its own criminal operations.

Time Magazine Story Link: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958402-1,00.html

To any lawyer or Law firm reading this, I can’t afford your help. But, I believe these facts are grounds for another significant lawsuit against the U.S Government. One in which their sovereign immunity has been waived! I would entertain any pro bono effort on that suit. The ones on which I currently have valid grounds are already numerous. I will however pursue this sooner rather than later so time is important. Corruption begets more corruption causing ever greater harm.

Christopher Julian

Pro-SE

May 9, 2015 by CBJulian De Mala Care

How do you justify calling the Supreme Court Justices Traitors of “We The People”?

Like This!

On April 27th, 2015 the Supreme Court denied Certiorari to petition 14-1051. This Petition asks three questions but the number #1 question was “Is a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) Enterprise operating in and by a Federal Agency protected from civil suit for violation of the RICO act 18 U.S.C. 1964(C) for violations of 1961 and 1962 (a-d) by sovereign immunity or by provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)?

The Federal Court and the appellate court upheld that failure to evoke the FTCA was a fatal flaw in my case. However, Civil Rico is not a suit for any TORT. It requires the commission of multiple felonies or torts to be invoked but, the federal statute states the law applies to the operation of an enterprise defined in 1962 causing damages to an individuals business and property stated in U.S.C.18 1964″ (c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee” Additionally, all precedent history indicates an Enterprise to be a separate entity that does not enjoy sovereign immunity protection.

On March 24, 2014, The Federal district court Of VAWD ruled it lacked jurisdiction in the matter because I had not asked the USDA for permission (i.e. filed form SF-95 requesting permission from USDA to sue them for being corrupt). The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this ruling!. Neither court offered any explanation of any kind as to how this was the case when all the precedent and stare decisis and prior statements of the supreme court were contrary to this ruling. I found no record of any precedent being set for a Federal Agency being charged with violation of this Federal crime nor any suggestion in any case precedent or Supreme Court decision this statute would not apply to the USDA or any other government agency for that Matter

. ” In United States v Angelilli 660 F. 2d 23, the second circuit stated in paragraph 27 available here http://openjurist.org/660/f2d/23/united-states-v-angelilli the following.” 27 ” In sum, we view the language of § 1961(4), defining enterprise, as unambiguously encompassing governmental units, and we consider that the purpose and history of the Act and the substance of RICO’s provisions demonstrate a clear congressional intent that RICO be interpreted to apply to activities that corrupt public or governmental entities. We note that this view is shared by virtually every other court that has considered the question.

” In United States of America v. Lawrence E. Warner and George H. Ryan, Sr. (2007) p 74-75. The Second Circuit addressed Sovereign immunity and provides a significant list of precedents to support that a Racketeering enterprise does not benefit from immunity. ”

“In arguing that states may not be considered “legal entities” under the racketeering statute, appellants miscast a straightforward issue of statutory interpretation into an issue of federalism. Br58. Their reliance on cases dealing with federalism or state sovereignty, such as Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 748 (1999), is misplaced. Nothing in RICO precludes the states from addressing corruption or infringes in any way on the legitimate functioning of state government or on its sovereignty.” “Appellants overlook the fundamental principle that the racketeering enterprise, whether it be a legitimate business, governmental entity or association in fact, is merely the vehicle through which defendants conduct alleged racketeering activities.”

See also U. S. Supreme Court on United States v. Turkett: 452 U.S. 576,580 (1981) (“[t]here is no restriction upon the associations embraced by the definition” of “enterprise”).” The precedent, issues, and laws around Jurisdiction and Sovereign immunity are too lengthy to discuss in detail for the purpose of this post But! I suspect this entire line of defense was used by the Federal Courts to aid and abet this criminal government racketeering enterprise in avoiding litigation. A look at why I believe this was just BS on Jurisdiction in the next blog post!

How long this racketeering operation has been going on in the USDA I’m not quite sure. I know at the least it was in operation in the early 1990s when the then Secretary of Agriculture established the National Appeals Division his own judicial tribunal reporting directly to him like all other agencies under the USDA who NAD holds hearings for. Judge & Jury, of themselves! with no rules of evidence, no stare descisis, no rights to present evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and no judicial history available like the Federal Courts but, only the rulings of officers directly reporting for the preservation of their mob bosses and the preservation of the enterprise and their own jobs. All the precedents, laws, and legal challenges in the cases preceding the Supreme court were completely ignored.

This RICO enterprise is operated by the USDA’s budget for risk management. There is nothing wrong per se with having a risk management operation or even a legal risk management operation. There is, however, a serious problem with running a risk management operation illegally, in violation of individual constitutional rights, and in violation of Federal Law with the unlimited financial support of the U.S. Government and the largest Legal firm in the world at your disposal. For the express purpose of denying constitutional rights to due process. It is this very conflict of interest- The DOJ can not prosecute a U.S. Agency for crimes and that’s a prosecutorial gap civil Rico was designed to remedy.

The USDA uses illegal tactics, and illegal processes under the RICO Act to operate this enterprise. They further abuse government power in its operation and every legal trick they can pull using federal protections as shields for their corruption. Furthermore, as in my case, they have used deference to avoid attaching legal damages to 14 federal violations by a lawyer’s count. I personally find the count much larger but, I have information he did not.

This illegal unconstitutional racketeering operation is run by the USDA to avoid accountability and responsibility for the criminal acts of its employees and the incompetent mismanagement of the people’s resources. Which their doing with our tax dollars and this whole operation is designed for tranny, oppression, and utter despotism of farmers, often poor farmers. The RICO statute 1964(a) grants the Federal Court the right to order “dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons.” Therefore, had the courts heard this case the opportunity existed for the Judicial Branch of Government to perform their duty to the American people and put an end to the executive branches’ operation of this tyrannous enterprise. An absolutely heinous act of terrorism operated by a Federal Agency for its own self-preservation to the detriment of farmers and others.

It is precisely the duty of the Federal Courts to apply the law as written and to uphold the constitution of the United States. They are “We The Peoples” only protection from a Government bent on tyranny and oppression. This case lives on and if the Government continues to get its way likely on, and on, and on! It was not dismissed in the Federal Court with prejudice. I would also contend that based on crimes committed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser the entire case history is void and unenforceable.

In mid-April, I delivered my request for permission from this corrupt organization to sue them for being corrupt. See my letter to the President posted on this blog. However, and this is why I’m so bothered by the court’s denial of this petition. In making that request Government Form SF-95 I had to sign my name agreeing to accept as settlement a sum certain as stated on Form SF-95. If the USDA now wishes to put an end to this legal battle they can simply pay that sum certain.

The real disappointment here is – then this racket can continue to operate and frankly they will get off much cheaper by just paying me the large sum than open themselves to the potential litigation that could follow me from all their prior criminal acts over the last 3 decades. Consider for a moment they have already settled multiple class action filings for several billion dollars.

That’s why The Supreme Court are Traitor to the American People. They were given the opportunity to potentially do their Job to protect “We The People”: from tyranny and put an end to this heinous, criminal, illegal, and unconstitutional racketeering operation. A Chance to permanently end a reign of terrorism that has punished farmers for seeking help for more than 3 decades, They traitorously passed on it. How many more poor individuals will get raped, robbed, and financially destroyed by this oppressive government agency? Because the Federal Courts protected this racket and the Supreme Court decided to let this petition and the USDA’s racketeering operation have a pass to continue on and on until?

If you never heard about the USDA’s despotic history I suggest these articles for a little history lesson.

1. http://old.seattletimes.com/text/2017876971.html From Old Seattle Times.

2.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113730694 From National Public Radio/NPR

3. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs141p2_015583.pdf NRCS USDA. Gov

4.http://deltafarmpress.com/white-farmers-suing-usdafsa Delta Farm Press “A particular favorite of mine”

5.http://www.ebony.com/black-listed/news-views/alabama-black-farmers-sue-usda-981#axzz2dehBlOEK “Ebony Magazine “follow the links on this one to more if you like”

I’m interested in any intelligent conversation on this subject. Please feel free to leave your comments!

I believe the Media will not cover this story because they fear retribution in the courts and government. Telling the people there really is no justice system could anger a mob.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist essays describing the proposed new constitution.” I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny.”

In June of 1776, delegates of the Virginia Convention adopted a declaration of rights that included the following statement:…In controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.” Less than one month later, representatives of all 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence, which cited “depriving us in many cases of the right to trial by jury” – a right granted to every British subject by Magna Carta in 1215 – as one of the chief reasons for breaking with the King and Mother England.”

The Court took this path to the BS of jurisdiction to deny a trial by jury as demanded in the original complaint. While I find it interesting the Media will not report on this story. More interesting is the lack of remarks from a single legal pundit!

A blessed warm Christmas cheer to the Supreme Court, 4th circuit court of Appeals, and especially the dishonorable Judge Jackson L. Kiser whose demise I await with great anticipation that I may raise my glass to the glory of God upon his death and drink to his eternal life in Hell!

Amen!

Christopher B. Julian Pro-Se.

May 6, 2015 by CBJulian De Mala Care

Supreme Court of the U.S. Government! No longer a court of Law but of Men.

In September 2013 a Civil Lawsuit was filed alleging Racketeering by the USDA and seven affiliated defendants. The court granted the Government a lengthy extension of time to respond. No evidentiary hearing was ever held. No discovery was ever allowed. No Amendment to the complaint was ever allowed.

A hearing of approximately 30 minutes was held in late February 2014 and a ruling claiming the court-lacked jurisdiction on 90% of the cause of action was published in late March 2013. For all intense purposes, this ruling reflects the court’s opinion that Federal Agencies are protected by sovereign immunity for racketeering.

It requires a plaintiff first to request permission from a corrupt government agency permission to sue them for being corrupt. It grants them the opportunity to simply pay you to avoid court. I contended this itself was a violation of Due process beyond common right and reason. A constitutional challenge to the FTCA in the matter was presented and completely ignored.

In all prior precedent rulings on Governors, judges, legislators, and even the State of Illinois the courts found racketeering enterprises are not protected by Sovereign immunity. See United States of America v. Lawrence E. Warner and George H. Ryan, Sr. (2007) p 74-75 . Perhaps this is a Supreme Court Question but, they denied answering it and neither the Federal court nor the appellate court properly addressed it.

An Interlocutory appeal was filed in June requesting an appellate review of the court’s ruling. The district court continued to delay and ruled in favor of the defendants granting them deference to actually change the wording of their own regulations as well as extraordinary deference in changing their interpretative rules and applying those changes long after the rules as written had been relied on.

The District Courts rulings by the dishonorable Judge Jackson L. Kiser are fascinating not for the countless acts of deceit, deception, obfuscation, intentional acts of misdirection, or even the outright lies. But for the absolute disregard for the rules of civil procedure, blatant disregard for all judicial precedence, and the absolute intense and malicious degree with which they are written to exonerate the Government and their criminal employees.

Continue reading →

April 27, 2015 by CBJulian De Mala Care

Mr. President all thats necessary for the triumph of Government evil is for those in power to do nothing!

Blue Ridge Springs Orchard

blueridgesprings.com

April 14, 2015

President of the United States
Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Re: Racketeering by the USDA and Form SF-95

Dear Mr. President:

Mr. President, I’ve always been your ally and supporter. I mean absolutely no disrespect to you or your administration in sending this letter. I’m fully aware your administration inherited many issues of corruption in government at the IRS, VA, CIA, NSA, and the Secret Service, I’m writing to you regarding corruption at the USDA and in the Federal Judiciary for three primary reasons.

First Federal Judge Jackson L. Kiser informed me you were the top law enforcement official in the country and it would take executive action on your part to rectify the tyrannical despotic operations of the United States Department of Agriculture, which destroyed my life’s work and relegated my family to homelessness. Given the Federal Courts have ignored numerous federal laws, their judicial oaths of office, and all prior legal precedent, and justified their opinions with deceit, deception, intentional misrepresentation, and outright lies. All of which I’m happy to provide evidence of before the jury I demanded as a constitutional right. It follows, the Judiciary is not performing its appointed duties and your intervention under the take care clause 5 of Article 2 of the United States Constitution is required to protect the laws and the Constitution of the United States. As President, it is your sworn duty to uphold federal law for racketeering against the USDA and the Federal Judiciary for aiding and abetting this enterprise, violating their oaths of office, and violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 for justice, the law, and the U.S. Constitution to prevail.

Secondly, Judge Jackson L. Kiser and his cohorts – Judge Clyde H. Hamilton, Robert B. King, and Barbra M. Keenan of the fourth circuit court of appeals have intentionally ignored numerous federal laws, all legal precedent, and their judicial oaths to railroad this case and assist the USDA in the commission of a racketeering operation objective to steal constitutional rights to trial by jury, They have prevented this case from any evidentiary hearings or ever being heard in a courtroom and have granted the USDA extraordinary deference to write there own laws to avoid attaching financial damages for numerous acts of negligence, fraud, mail fraud, discrimination, conspiracy, and countless other crimes including perjury. Deference I might add several Supreme Court justices have recently argued as Un–Constitutional. [1] I am now dependent on the 1 percent chance the Supreme Court of the United States will grant my petition for certiorari. With the court’s track record in this case I cannot help but be highly skeptical of a positive outcome. I believe with your background in constitutional law and the fact, the leader of this organized crime ring works for you, you may find it of interest therefore; I have included a copy of my Supreme Court Petition with this letter for your reference.

Third, Judge Kiser dismissed part of this lawsuit without prejudice on grounds that I must first file form SF-95 with the USDA requesting permission from a racketeer-influenced corrupt organization (RICO) permission to sue them for being corrupt. I find such to be beyond common right and reason, a violation of due process, and unconstitutional, no agency should be judged in its own case; therefore, since Mr. Vilsack, a member of your cabinet, runs and operates this criminal operation, I’m deferring my form SF-95 submission to you, his manager.

The form is enclosed with this communication. Mr. President, having spent more than 2 years and never having had a trial, an opportunity for discovery, an evidentiary hearing, or the opportunity even for my grievance and evidence to be heard the statute of limitations clock on filing form SF-95 is about to expire. I requested a leave of the Supreme Court to motion for equitable tolling; however, I did not receive a timely response, and given the treatment, I have already encountered in the Federal Courts, I have every reason to believe it would not be granted even though the court has recently questioned the constitutionality of deference. The extraordinary deference granted in this case is highly relevant to an assessment of the legal damages. Furthermore, the district and appellate courts’ actions leave me with no respect for the institution, and highly skeptical that we’ll ever see justice in this matter from the Federal Court system.

The Federal Courts seem determined to aid, abet, and protect the criminal operations and protect the criminals in this agency. I personally believe for an executive branch of government to have established its own court system where the federal rules of evidence do not apply, the rights of due process are totally ignored, and there is no stare decisis is unconstitutional given the specific separation of powers specified by Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the constitution. For an executive branch of the government to have usurped judicial powers where they serve corruption in the executive branch rather than the interest of the people seems highly unconstitutional–downright criminal. A heinous operation you would expect the judiciary would likely demand to dismantle rather than protect. This leads me to serious questions about the judiciary’s true resolve to protect us the people, and the constitution from a tyrannous despotic government.

Mr. President, I wrote to you regarding the issues my family encountered as a result of Dodd-Frank legislation and criminal activities by the USDA in 2012. Additionally, I copied you on a letter, which I wrote to each member of the Senate Banking Committee in January 2013. I appreciate the fact each of these letters received a response from your office. However, it was quite ironic you or your office forwarded my letter of January 2013 to Christopher P. Beyerhelm USDA Deputy Administrator of Farm Loan Programs, who eventually responded, he would not be able to have any involvement with our issues as they were pending with the (USDA) National Appeals Division (NAD) but, he would forward some of our issues on to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) although they seem to have no record of it.

This was ironic for 2 reasons; first I had already made a complaint to the CFPB. But much more importantly Mr. Beyerhelm’s negligence was a factor in wiping out everything my wife and I worked so hard to accomplish. You see Mr. Beyerhelm is one of the many USDA employees named as defendants in the lawsuit against the USDA for racketeering.

The federal courts have railroaded this case, ignoring federal laws and all prior precedent ultimately leaving my family now in our 3^rd year attempting to get justice from an absolutely corrupt despotic federal agency aided and abetted by a corrupt Federal Judiciary. I find it very disturbing to know the RICO act has been used against numerous states, and local government agencies in cases where the courts have always found a RICO enterprise not to be protected by sovereign immunity. In fact, Mr. President, the courts found in United States v. Warner, 498 F.3d 666, 694-97 (7th Cir. 2007), the Seventh Circuit held that your home “State of Illinois was properly charged as the RICO enterprise that was the victim of corrupt office holders’ pattern of racketeering activity”. How is it, that a state RICO has no sovereign immunity while a Federal Agency RICO operated by an executive branch of government is protected?

Overall, our story is long and complex, it would as Mrs. Janice Pigford says regarding their case with the USDA, ” Take Jesus Christ himself to come back here and straighten out this whole mess.” This seems to be the specific intent of the USDA and the Federal Courts, although I’m confident in an honest jury’s ability to find the appropriate answer but, it seems highly unlikely the Government will ever allow that to happen. This brings me to an explanation as to the demands of the lawsuit, which I believe the country deserves.

By the time the lawsuit was filed, we had experienced negligence, on a massive scale, countless acts of fraud, mail fraud, obvious discrimination, violations of the FCRA, FOIA, obstruction of justice in the form of perjury, denied an opportunity to present relevant evidence of these in our defense and being disallowed to present a defense for violating a regulation that was not a regulation when it was broken. Our stellar personal credit had been irreparably damaged as well as being unemployed and relegated to homelessness. At this point, we had become quite aware of the racketeering operations being orchestrated by the USDA to avoid responsibility and accountability for the criminal acts of its employees. Everything we had worked our whole lives to accomplish was being destroyed by a criminal RICO enterprise operated by the USDA. How do you place a value on this small sample of the damages caused by criminal incompetent USDA-run government agencies?

20 plus years of saving until it hurt to amass the financial ability to make this effort – lost
The devastation of a business plan for which you had already provided 6 years of development, planning, financial resources, and hard manual labor to implement – lost.
A business plan that was on the verge of getting established when the market demand was growing rapidly – was lost.
A viable business development opportunity providing jobs in a rural Hud-Zone in serious need of economic stimulus – lost.
Multi-million-dollar life insurance policies which you will never be able to replace – lost.
A lifetime of planning to be able to provide care and comfort to your literally poor mom – irreplaceably lost.
Time to spend with her and her to spend with you and the only granddaughter you gave her – forever irreplaceably lost.
Being forced into homelessness in your fifties with a young daughter now only 8. How can you replace the childhood she’s had with the one she should’ve had? Forever irreplaceably lost.
The absolutely despicable fact the USDA is running a RICO operation with taxpayer dollars to hide its incompetent mismanagement, protect its employees from criminal prosecution, and avoid accountability and responsibility. All with malice and specific intent to destroy the lives of struggling farmers whom they’re legislatively directed to assist. Unconscionable!

That’s just the beginning of a very very long list of devastating consequences from the incompetent criminal and corrupt mismanagement of federal resources at the USDA and the unwillingness of the Agency to simply admit a mistake.

I was aware the USDA’s largest single legal settlement payout was 14 million dollars.
I was aware that the agency had a 3-decade history of discrimination against, Blacks, White, Hispanics, and Women farmers, a history of sexual harassment, and had defended its discrimination successfully against white farmers because white farmers are not a protected civil class.
I was aware although, I felt I’d been the victim of discrimination that as a married white, protestant, and heterosexual man I would have no success with a suit for discrimination.
I was aware this criminal enterprise would continue to devastate and destroy small farms and farmers as it had for 3 decades if not stopped.
I was well aware the stories of farmers from the last 3-decades were all very similar to mine.
I am aware this institution needs to shut down or disinfected. Although the culture of this organization appears so culturally corrupt there’s no hope.
I was evidently mistaken to believe with such a history, the Federal Courts would follow the law and use the powers of chapter 18 of 1964 to dismantle this criminal unconstitutional enterprise.

Form SF-95

Requires the statement of a SUM certain for settlement. It, therefore, denies me the liberty, and the property conveyed to me by congress in chapter 18 §1964(c) to pursue this proceeding for the farmers and people of this country.
- It denies me the opportunity to leverage the grant of treble damages.
- It denies me the opportunity to leverage the grant of attorney’s fees.
- It affords the USDA the opportunity to settle this without granting the court the opportunity to exercise statutory remedies like dissolution or reorganization, which RICO authorizes.
- It offers no opportunity to make any demands for relief from the agency outside of a monetary one. No opportunity to demand changes to put this racket out of business.

The Original Suit filed in Federal District Court:

The original suit requested 1 million dollars a month in damages for all of the reasons stated above and more, but mostly because the Agency was operating a conspiracy of devastation against my family and friends simply because it wished to cover up its crimes, incompetence, and had unlimited time and resources to do so.
The original suit requested 1 million dollars a month until settlement. Because of the agency’s specific intent to do harm to my family and friends in order to avoid accountability and responsibility for their criminal behavior and it needed to end post haste or have consequences.
The suit requested 1 million each for 4 other individuals whose lives were devastated and irreparably damaged by these same actions.
It was intended for this case to never be settled but carried it into trial expecting to win so the court would have the opportunity afforded under RICO to dismantle this criminal unconstitutional enterprise.
While RICO suits are for damages to an individual’s property and business, legal precedent suggested the torts may be actionable too however, these could be subjected to provisions of the FTCA. Which came first the chicken or the egg? Deference dictated.
The suit also sought repayment of fees paid to FSA for services, that the agency never provided.
And for the Agency to repay the plaintiffs for the cost of Mediation which was nothing more than an agency scam, a tool of the racketeering operation.
The suit also requested all payments net of taxes. Because previous successful litigants against the USDA claim the IRS partnered with the USDA in retaliation for the suits. Are all the tens of thousands of claims against the USDA valid? I don’t know, but I have experienced and seen their corruption firsthand.

The original suit totaled $14,000,370.25.

Add to that 1 million a month for 19 months only through April 2015.

$19,000,000.00

Add to that the congressional mandate in a RICO case of treble damages:

19+14= 33,000,370.25 * 3 = $99,001,110.75

Plus attorney fees granted by RICO for 28 months based on my last corporate salary at Bank of America 100,000.00 a year is 233,333.36 = $99,234,444.11

Add to that all required federal and state tax payments: will just use an overall estimated tax rate of 42% so the bottom line is $140,912,910.64.

That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the 18 billion dollar settlement the DOJ just made with Bank of America plus all the other financial institution settlements made by the DOJ for their roles in the mortgage and financial market collapse. The mortgage collapse and the implementation of Dodd-Frank is the only reason a request ever had to be made of the FSA/USDA for a farm loan in the first place.

If Brian Moynihan, my former employer, is worth 18 million a year my family, friends and I are worth 12.

Oh, I’ll just let the 29.5 percent interest asked for in the original suit, because American Express hit me with it when I was one day late with a payment for the first time in my life because of this mess slide.

Based on the court’s finding for a lack of jurisdiction, this letter and the attached documents, I find satisfy the court’s ruling effectively, that form SF- 95 be submitted. The Agency may now take their six months on top of the already 2 years they’ve known about these complaints to think about their future in court. I will be better prepared when refilling this suit and more. Upon a ruling from SCOTUS, every public avenue to disclose the truth will be pursued.

Mr. President, I had no desire to travel any part of this road. I simply was working very hard on the American Dream when a financial collapse caused by highly overpaid idiots prompted Congress to implement some bad legislative provisions with Dodd-Frank. This left me no alternative but to pursue the only financing option available – a rural farm loan with the USDA/FSA farm loan program. The criminal negligence, “My opinion” which resulted in the criminal acts committed by this agency led directly to the criminal unconstitutional racketeering enterprise operated by the Secretary of Agriculture. A fraudulent criminal racketeering enterprise that:

Denies individual constitutional rights while usurping the judicial system.
Allows the commission of crimes hiding behind sovereign immunity.
Intentionally grants extraordinary deference to incompetence.
Designed to eliminate damages with deference segregated by misuse of the FTCA from the crimes that were perpetrated on their victims.
Designed to avoid accountability or responsibility for the corrupt incompetent administration of the people’s resources and to manage legal risk expenses.
Designed to prevent an appellant’s presentation of relevant evidence.
Designed to hide the truth in any case by only making available the perverted corrupt self-opinionated hearing officer “and/or” Ha! Ha! Director’s ruling protects the system and the powers in Government.
Designed for no transparency on any hearing or challenge or brief, just corrupted judges’ opinions and orders available for public review.
Designed not just by shielding case history but also with intentional acts to avoid stare decisis from any other appellate hearing.

Mr. President, petition copies for the Supreme Court are expensive, especially when you’ve been forced into homelessness by a government agency and had to spend more than 2 years in legal maneuvers against a defendant with unlimited time and resources. So when you’re finished reading my petition, could you please sign this copy and return it.

I have done and will continue with my last breath to perform my civic duty to the best of my ability to put an end to tyranny and despotism by the U.S. Government.

I consider my obligation to file form SF-95 complete and respect that you will ensure that its appropriately handled and filed.

A judge that justifies his opinions with lies and balances the scales of justice with deceit, deception, misdirection, obfuscation, and misrepresentation is a criminal as are those who look the other way. They have no Honor.

Mr. President, I respectfully request you perform your sworn duty with regard to the take care clause under the 2^nd amendment to the Constitution.

All that’s necessary for the triumph of evil is for those in power to do nothing.

Thank you Mr. President for your time and your service.

Sincerely,

Christopher. B. Julian

The Julian Family

474 Orchard View Drive

Ararat, Virginia 24053

Christopher.b.julian@gmail.com

CC: Secretary of Agriculture

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Mail Stop 0101 Room 200-A

Washington, DC 20250

Assistant Secretary Agriculture Admin.

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Mail Stop 0103 Room 240-W

Washington, DC 20250

Dept of Agriculture White House Liaison

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Mail Stop 0112 Room 507-A

Washington, DC 20250

Chris P. Beyerhelm

Deputy Administrator for Farm Loans Programs

U, S. Department of Agriculture

Farm Service Agency Stop 0520

1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D. C. 20250-0520

As an update to this posting, it should be noted the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari on April 27, 2015, just as expected. The reason this letter was submitted to the President and the Secretary of Agriculture prior to the 2-year deadline under the FTCA. Interesting questions arise as RICO has no statute of limitations and the Supreme court just ruled in favor of equitable tolling under the FTCA. See United States v. Wong decided on April 22, 2015.

The White House has not responded in any way to this communication. Are President Obama and Presidents Clinton’s involvement in Piggford and Piggford II perhaps related to ignoring these charges from a white man and protecting the Government which Obama is now in charge of.

Some info on Obama, Clinton, & Vilsack

[1] See Justice Scalia and Thomas’s comments in National Law Review on December 4, 2014. See also Scalia and Thomas’s individual opinions in the recent decisions on Perez & Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers Association Decided March 9, 2015

Corrected error not 2nd amendment but Article 2 clause 5.

June 28, 2014 by CBJulian De Mala Care

Judge Jackson L. Kiser sends U.S. Marshall with comments on my Blog.

Read the filing Judge Kiser refers to on page 1 Here Reply to Response DeCoster Sanctions.. Pay careful attention to what the filing actually says.

Update 3-3-2016 I invite you to read the blog post to which Judge Jackson L. Kiser has referred in his show cause order. I believe you will find that contrary to his statement of being wholly unsubstantiated in each article the allegations are backed up by supporting documentation and evidence. Secondly, if you carefully read the statement made in the court filing you will see that Judge Jackson L. Kiser’s allegation I called him and his court criminal and corrupt is not accurate but, was as he runs his court based entirely on his personal assumption and bias. Nowhere in that statement was his name or any reference to his courtroom made. It’s a statement no different than one repeated countless ways throughout the ages on issues with court neutrality and objective application of the law by countless judges.

Update 5-3-2017 It should have been noted long ago. Held in front of the Marshall is a document showing that plaintiffs were already scheduled to appear in court on the date of the Show cause order the Marshall is serving. I.E. Judge Kiser sent the U.S. Marshall purely and solely for the purpose of intimidation.

Really nice public / Government employee rare find in Virginia.

Really Nice U.S. Marshall

Response to Reply for Sanctions

JULIAN

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

James Rigney, Et Al,

Defendant(s).

))

)

Case Number: 4:13CV00054

CHRISTOPHER B. AND RENEE G. JULIAN’S REPLY TO RESPONSE FOR SANCTIONS OF KATHERINE DECOSTER.

REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS.

Comes now Plaintiff’s s Christopher B. and Renee G. Julian in opposition to Katherine DeCosters response to motions for sanctions. Rule 5(b)(2)(E) is very specific “If the person consented in writing” Plaintiffs never consented in writing to any electronic form of service. Plaintiffs simply did Ms DeCoster a favor letting her know of her errors. Plaintiffs had no reason to object to her email and a response was merely a common curtsey. It is plainly direct, obvious, and observable that plaintiffs were made aware of these motions only by the courts service of the Roseboro notice. Plaintiffs would not have had such a notice had they not been Pro-Se. Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to make any motion or any reply with regards to Ms DeCosters motion for an extension of time to respond as the Court granted the motion without Plaintiffs having any knowledge of its existence. There is no way now nor was there ever anyway for this error to be justly corrected. The Jonesboro notice was the one and only reason Plaintiffs responded to the Motion to dismiss and plea of immunity. This was for Plaintiffs a very serious issue. It put Plaintiffs case in a very precarious situation as the Defendants motion was for failure to state a claim and given the lenience gifted in the filing of the complaint Plaintiffs could not jeopardize the case with a motion for default judgment.

Facts

Motion for extension of time to file a response. Dkt 14 & 15

The Court new Plaintiffs were Pro-Se. This is evidenced by the issuance of the roseboro notice. The Court Clerk had informed Plaintiffs on inquiry Judge Jackson L. Kiser never grants Pro-Se Plaintiffs access to electronic filing. The Court knew when the Defendant filed the motion for extension of time to respond that it had not been served for this reason. This is further evidenced by the time the Court allowed for Plaintiffs to file an opposition ref dkt 14 & 17 and dkt 21 & 23 as opposed to the length granted when the USAG made the same motion; and note the Holiday weekend in the filing of dkt 21. The Court approved this motion knowing it was not effective. Dkt 17 Since Plaintiffs had no knowledge this motion had been filed until after receiving the roseboro notice from the court dkt 18 Plaintiffs never had any opportunity at all to oppose this motion.

Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim and plea for Sovereign and qualified immunity.

This Motion placed Plaintiff’s in a very precarious position jeopardizing elements of our case. Plaintiffs had to respond to countless issues Sovereign Immunity, Qualified Immunity, failure to state a claim, etc raised in defense of Ms Johnson that were by rule subject to summary judgment as they were issues raised outside of the complaint, hence the rosesboro notice. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were subjected to numerous allegations in the motion of faults in the filing directly attributable to the courts instructions not to make legal arguments or citations. Had plaintiffs motioned for default judgment, a viable motion in response to failure to effect service, however, the court could have, and, we now know, would have dismissed Ms Johnson on failure to state a claim. Was that the courts prime objective? Defeating the primary reason Ms Johnson was named in this suit, Ms Johnson’s participation in aiding and abetting RICO USDA in the Commission of the enterprises objectives, an argument that had been completely pulled from the original complaint to comply with the Courts instructions not to cite statues, cases or make legal arguments. A compliance with the courts instructions, which caused Plaintiffs serious undue and unnecessary complications, and has significantly, delayed the entire process while causing significant physical and mental stress to plaintiffs as well as stealing precious time from our lives.

The Courts actions with regard to these two motions together with the Courts action approving the USAG’s motion for extension without granting Plaintiffs a single day of the Clerks Office being open to file an opposition, when the court clerk had been informed plaintiffs were attempting to file a responsive motion Exhibit AT. Plaintiffs viewed these actions as biased and prejudicial treatment by this court which resulted in Plaintiffs contacting the 4CCA on 11/14/ 2013 Exhibit AU attempting to file a grievance for prejudicial treatment by this court. Additionally, two articles on the experience were published on the internet “Legal Conundrum by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b)2(e) on January 1, 2014 and “Op Ed for the Federal District Courts” on January 15^th 2014 after being denied publication by the Wall Street Journal. One additional article “ The Weak” discussing the experience was published on January 7, 2014. It is further worth noting that after all the motions had been filed the Court did not act to make a ruling and the moving party never motioned for a hearing or advised the court as prescribed by local rule 11(b). Did the Court and the Defendants council wait intentionally? There is absolutely no way to prove these acts were not coordinated between the court and the Defense Councils. And there is evidence in the docket of ex parte communication. Everyone is welcome to read any of our articles at Blueridgesprings on wordpress.com There will be many more to come.

Up-Date 4-26-2017 these are all facts that demonstrate bias on the part of this court.

CONCLUSION

A Corrupt Federal Agency aided and abetted by a Corrupt Federal Court is a travesty of justice for American Democracy an Insult to the U.S. Judicial system, to the constitution of the United States of America, and to Life, Liberty, and Justice for all. It results in tyranny, oppression, and absolute despotism of the people, justifying completely and succinctly the second amendment to the constitution of the United States. There is no greater criminal than the criminal that sits on the bench robbing America of its foundations.

Respectfully Submitted,

Christopher B. and Renee G. Julian Pro-Se

May 30, 2014 by CBJulian De Mala Care

USDA Plays Dumb

Christopher B. Julian

474 Orchard View Drive

Ararat, Virginia, 24053

May 24, 2014

Mr. Kartic Padmanabhan,

Mr. Padmanabhan,

Please advise your clients at the USDA and NAD, Plaintiffs do not view the administrative record provided to the court as complete and accurate. While they have obviously stated such on a technicality, Plaintiffs view it as another example of the enterprises deceptive culture. Plaintiffs respectfully request pursuant to FRCP 37(a) NAD provide to the court the complete record of the Plaintiffs case. Plaintiffs assume the defendants have not provided the complete record on the technicality the documentation was retained under a separate case number NAD created during correspondence. Plaintiffs request that NAD provide the court with a complete administrative record for NAD Case No. 2013E000308 as it is inextricably tied to this case.

Thanks,

Christopher B. & Renee G. Julian

Pro-Se.

April 22, 2014 by CBJulian De Mala Care

A Question of Corruption?

AMERICA COME ON!

REALLY?

What about it America? Should you be required to get permission from a ”corrupt racketeering operation” PERMISSION to sue a racketeer for being a “corrupt racketeering organization”? Is that any kind of logical?

Is the USDA free to run a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization with impunity protected by sovereign immunity? Should we as American citizens not be outraged if that’s the case?

Can you believe the Federal District Court Dismissed 90% of the charges in our case based on a lack of Jurisdiction? Which they grant for failing to request permission from the USDA to file suit against them. From the court’s memorandum

of opinion page 15 see Memorandum Of Opinion here.

BUT We filed this suit not for Negligence, Fraud, Perjury, Discrimination, Denial of Service, Obstruction of Justice, Illegal access of our credit files, or taking money for services never provided.
But, for Racketeering under Chapter, 18 U.S. Code § 1961 The court acknowledges reading this. IT IS ALSO ON THE CIVIL COVER SHEET AND HOW THE CASE IS DOCKETED ON PACER.GOV. The venue is defined for 18 U.S. Code §1961 in 18 U.S. Code §1965

The US Courts have consistently held that 18 U.S. Code § 1964(c) Applies to Government entities. From the Memorandum to which the court refers above. See it in its entirety here

RICO 1961(4)

RICO 1964(C)

Congress has given Chapter 18 1961 private attorney general status by specifying the payment of attorney’s fees and providing incentive in the form of Treble Damages to private parties in pursuing a suit under this statue. A status vindicating a policy Congress considered of the highest priority.”

Again under 1964(C) Venue is appropriate in any United States District court.

America Come On! If a Federal statute is viewed by the courts to unambiguously encompass governmental units and the provisions demonstrate a clear congressional intent RICO be interpreted to apply to the activities that corrupt public or governmental entities. Surely they had no intention that a RICO enterprise inside the US Government would be protected by sovereign immunity. Does the court contend this Federal law does not apply to the USDA or U.S. Government agencies and their personnel? Is the USDA free to run a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization with impunity protected by sovereign immunity? Should we as American citizens not be outraged if that’s the case?

Update 4-24-2017 Yes we should due process requires the government to operate legally and within the law. Running a RICO is in violation of Federal Law. Thomas Jefferson himself described Tyranny as “that which is legal for the government, but illegal for the citizenry”

As to providing the court an argument for an alternative waiver of immunity. They have not allowed a single amendment to the complaint although they instructed us not to make legal arguments, or cite statutes, or cases in the original complaint. See our blog post on Manifest Injustice.

Furthermore, as to other crimes “TORTS’ are not considered predicates under Rico the courts have held the commission of other crimes is evidentiary in the establishment of a pattern of activity for the furtherance of a RICO’s operations. As to protection from suit for the crimes committed by USDA personnel, we have challenged the constitutionality of the FTCA provision requiring permission to sue when the suit is for racketeering.

It is unconstitutional to require a plaintiff to get permission from a ”corrupt racketeering operation” PERMISSION to sue this racketeer for being a “corrupt racketeering organization”? It simply shocks the American consciousness to require that we ask a corrupt USDA for permission to sue them for being corrupt. It manifests injustice.

While the Federal Court references information from the same page in their memorandum “they say” they never saw the constitutional challenge. Furthermore, they ignored all the other challenges to the FTCA found on page 17 (Mem Of Law in Opp to Def Mot to dismiss 17 [ECF 38] ) Under the heading FTCA. Note the reference in the first excerpt above. See it in entirety here Please feel free to read the entire memorandum.

But They never saw it.

They never saw it ?; even though the challenge is under the Heading FTCA and the court cited other statements from the same section. Corrupt Federal Court protecting a corrupt Federal Agency? Who pays the Judges salary?

This court also denies Attorney’s Fees are a valid request although they cite a different statute again not the statute charged in this case.

Come On America Really? No Attorneys don’t get paid for taking a private attorney general role but, I’m not an Attorney I’m a Pro-Se and the Court knows that. Are you going to stand up and help fight this corruption or continue to allow the USDA to run a racketeering operation detrimental to the farming operations of this nation? They have already ruined hundreds of thousands of poor farmers. Tell Congress to stop the madness. Read more on USDA civil rights abuse history here.

Find more articles on the USDA’s Civil rights history on our website blueridgesprings.com

This Court has created its own defense in direct conflict with the evidence. See our Blog Corrupt Federal Court

Denied the application of Federal Statutes for Obstruction of Justice regarding Perjury by a USDA employee. See our Blog Lies, Lying, liar.

Ignored the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by not allowing a single amendment to a complaint. See our Blog Manifest Injustice.

Should this Court and this Judge be added as Defendants for Aiding and Abetting the commission of USDA’s RICO enterprise? By allowing Enterprise personnel to avoid accountability or responsibility for criminal acts? For Aiding the Enterprise in denying our right to present evidence and have a fair unbiased hearing. For Violating our civil right to a fair grievance process?

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure say a plaintiff’s complaint is to be interpreted in a light most favorable to the plaintiff but, this court’s memorandum is written completely in a light most favorable to the defense, almost, as though the defense had written it themselves. On other items reflecting the court’s lack of neutrality see our blog “Legal Conundrum Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” More to come on the lack of neutrality in this court’s opinion.

The Judge told us in the hearing we needed an attorney. What we really needed was an Honest Judge!

Next post to cover the beginning of our FSA story!

April 12, 2014 by CBJulian De Mala Care

Lies, Lying, Liar, All in a days work at the USDA.

Come on America. There is absolutely no legitimate justification for a civil servant to lie under oath giving false testimony against the very people they are to serve!!!

Below the allegation of perjury made against Ronald A. Kraszewski Farm Loan Manager FSA / USDA Chatham VA. In the original and only complaint allowed by the Federal District Court of Danville, VA.

Here is the Audio Portion taken from the Hearing Audio file you may listen if you like to. Ronald K’s Perjury.wav

Exhibit’s G, Z, and A can be viewed here in the Complaint Exhibits Folder.

Or in the excerpt below

Form Exhibts G an Z.

The complaint and the exhibits, all but the Audio recording were on Pacer for U S District Court Western District Case 4:13-CV-00054. Listen to Ron in the March 9th Pre Hearing relate labor to Living expenses. Ron’s Ineptitude.

The Suit was filled on pacer with a civil cover sheet against the USDA for Racketeering September 2012. Follow along Please. The definition of predicate act offenses for a charge under this RICO Statue includes predicate act 1503 (relating to Obstruction of Justice) at the bottom of the next exhibit. ‘Google of ‘Racketeering RICO’ and refer to the Cornell law publication this came from. You can read the Complaint See the Pleading with Cover Sheet and Exhibits Here.

Would you agree the following excerpt makes sense. “Whoever corruptly endeavors to influence, any officer in, or of any court of the United States, Or officer who may be serving at any examination”

Mr. Kraszewski testified under penalty of perjury to a hearing officer of the National Appeals Division of USDA an Agency of the U.S. Government.
He had conversations with Mr. Julian where, Mr. Julian requested to be paid living expenses.
He was asked multiple times by the hearing officer to confirm this and repeatedly made false statements regarding a material fact at issue in the hearing.
Listen for your self. It’s a very disturbing life event to have a Civil Servant lying under oath in an attempt to cover for his incompetence knowing that if he is believed it will destroy everything you worked your whole life for.
Note that the original declination letter proved that FSA had made the assumption entirely on their own accord AND contrary to the documentation they had been given.

Mr. Kraszewski’s lie was an effort to protect a reason FSA gave for denying the loan . Like the allegation made that we requested to pay off real estate debt made without ever pulling a credit report. Debt that did not even exists! And pulled from discussion by the hearing officer.

When I asked USDA to address this issue they told me to get an attorney! Now the Federal District Court is granting this crew sovereign immunity, and stating they did not do anything outside what might be a legitimate course of action for their job.

Come on America. There is absolutely no legitimate justification for a civil servant to lie under oath giving false testimony against the very people they are to serve on a material fact that would cause serious harm if effective. What kind of justice system lets such an act simply be described as a legitimate job function. Excerpt below was taken from the Judges memorandum of opinion you can find a link at the bottom of the page if you would like to explore the whole ruling.

Judges Assement of Lying under oath.

The hearing officer who was factually biased by the Agencies own handbook rules in this case. Covered for Mr. Rigney stating their was a disagreement about what was said. But the Facts and evidence available prove Mr. Kraszewski lied under penalty of perjury.

From the Hearing Officers Ruling: see Exhibit AE in the Complaints link if you like to see the whole document.

I believe this qualifies as obstruction under the definition provided in 18 U.S. 1503 Influencing or injuring an Officer or Juror Generally! What do you Think America?

The Federal District Court Judge of Danville Judge Jackson L. Kiser said the following in his Memorandum Opinion verify on pacer if you like.

Update 4-24-2017 The Court fails to recognize the jury is to decide a case and the law is on trial just as much as the case to be decided. judge. The Jury should decide if its just part of the Agencies racket to obstruct justice.

See the Memorandum Opinion Here if you like.

This is all one big cover up of a corrupt Government Agency America. Think carefully what it means when Government employees are free to make false testimony under oath to your detriment without any ramifications. And Judges are granted the same immunity when they ignore the law!

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

Update 7-26-2016

Look again think twice.

Under Title 5 Chapter 7 judicial review limits the courts review of agency action to a review of the agency record.

All events then, occurring in the compilation of the agency record, are directly attributable in a natural and continuous sequence unbroken, by an efficient intervening cause to be testimony before a Federal judge.

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”

18 U.S.C. 1503 ”or” 1505 is there really any deference is it really 1505 “and” 1503? The jury must decide!

Remember the court instructed us not to cite Statues, Make Legal Arguments, or Cite cases when filing the complaint and denied any amendment.

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

April 7, 2014 by CBJulian De Mala Care

Manifest Injustice

The USDA is a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization, in conjunction with FSA, NAD, and affiliated state Mediation programs it is conducting a Racketeer Influenced enterprise for the financial purpose of mitigating legal expenses and covering up for the failure of poor management and training. Their protecting employees in the commission of crimes while destroying farmers, businesses, and lives.

Read below how the Federal District Court of Virginia the Court of the Traitor Judge Jackson L. Kiser is Aiding and Abetting this racketeering operation.

Below is the General Complaint form for Pro-Se litigants found on the Federal District Courts Western District of Virginia web site. The Court of Judge Jackson L. Kiser.

Note: the Instructions. Provide Basic facts of your claim. The description of facts should be Specific. Do not give any legal arguments or cite cases or statutes.

Before filing the complaint I called the clerks office and complained; I did not find it possible to meet filing requirements with those instructions. The only answer given was, they would take it up with management.

Pro-Se Complaint Form

The Federal Rules of Civil procedure

Rule 8(a)2. Says the Pleading should contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”.

Rule 9(f) States “Time and Place: An allegation of time or place is material when testing the sufficiency of a pleading.

Rule 15(a)2 States the Court should freely give leave when justice so requires.

The best Pro_Se guide we found for the Federal Courts was that of California. It states very emphatically however, a complaint should be 25 pages or less, otherwise its not a brief.

Read our complaint it is designed to provide as much about what, when, where, and how it occurred “in time sequence”, as possible and provide specific evidence with the complaints exhibits proving allegations are true but, adhering to the instructions not to make legal arguments, cite cases, or statutes. Read the Complaint.

Don’t ask us WHY these criminals did what they did. We’ve been denied discovery for that. But, none of that has anything to do with the discovery along the way that the whole USDA mediation, and Administrative appeals program is a Racketeering Operation supplemented by intentional legal loop holes left in their program operations and an abuse of Sovereign Immunity to protect their criminal(s) behavior. This is a major reason why the courts ruling in our case is so corrupt! This enterprise is an act of treason warring against the Constitution and We The People.

The court granted absolutely no leave to amend the original complaint.

The judge stated during the one and only hearing “I have the discretion of permitting you to amend your complaint if I think it will help but, you don’t have a right to amend your pleading.” As if to say Justice be damned! Constitution be damned. Damn my oath of office. Transcript page

Told not to site statutes, cases, or make legal arguments how in hell do you make allegations with sufficient specificity, reference sections, tell the whole story in under 25 pages? Told not to make the legal arguments and then denied an opportunity to correct deficiencies primarily a result of the courts instructions is criminal intent to obstruct justice.

Throughout the courts ruling, on numerous items in the complaint, The court argues we did not make the appropriate legal arguments. Cite the laws broken or provide sufficient support for our allegations. In opposition to the courts instructions!

Additionally, they mock us for attempting in reply briefs for trying to rectify issues caused primarily by those very instructions.

I call that Manifest Injustice.

Here is one of numerous examples from Page 38 of the courts ruling. Read the Ruling.

FCRA

Having formerly worked in Banking it is commonly accepted knowledge there are only 3 valid reasons under the FCRA to accesses someone’s credit file.

If you have a valid application for Credit.
If you have provided the creditor with pre-approved credit.
If you are currently a creditor.

Having denied our application in November 2012 FSA was none of the above in February 2013.

Mr James Rigney FSA Farm Loan Officer and Mr. Ronald Kreaszewski FSA Farm Loan Manager claim to be loan officers but fail to exhibit even basic lending industry knowledge. After denying the loan in November 2012 and claiming we were paying off debt we did not have when they never pulled a credit report. We requested they provide the copy we paid for them to obtain. So on February 8, 2013 they pulled a credit report and sent it via US Mail in an act of Fraud proffering it as the one used. I say that was an act of fraud and placing it in the us mail for that purpose was mail fraud.

This case was Filed with a civil cover sheet cause of action for Racketeering under the RICO statute 18 U.S.C. 1961 and is and always has been on the courts docket as such. See the Complaint Cover Sheet.

Update 4-21-2017– Don’t you think given a judges sworn oath to uphold the constitution he would have an obligation to his oath and the American people to investigate allegations of treason throughly?

The court instructed us not to cite statutes, cases, or make legal arguments in the complaint. But, the court has dismissed this cause of action without ever allowing the complaint to be amended to correct deficiencies caused by their own instructions.

We’ve never had opportunity to plead the RICO requirements.

Cite the Violation of predicate acts with specificity as required in a RICO filing.

Cite the Violation of Torturous acts with specificity as required

Note; However, the court was provided not only the allegation of these acts but more than sufficient evidence provided as exhibits to prove them to a preponderance of the evidence.

Cite the violation of other statues and evidence of uncharged crimes, admissible to prove the existence of the enterprise, A RICO Conspiracy, A defendants participation in both the continuity of the pattern of racketeering activity and other matters.

Make the legal arguments to support this cause of action and construct the pattern of activity to which the defendants aided and abetted the commission of the enterprises criminal function. While establishing the requisite continuity of a RICO charge. Establishing the long term pattern of USDA in running this enterprise to the detriment of US Farmers. It’s been going on now since 1994 and decimated hundreds of thousands of lives.

Establish the fact this enterprise will continue to operate and commit criminal and constitutional violations of law unless stopped by the Judicial system. Continue its treasonous act of War on Americas farmers and rural communities.

Establish the argument that the courts have consistently held that RICO’s provisions demonstrate a clear congressional intent that RICO be interpreted to apply to the activities that corrupt public or governmental entities and the provisions of 1961(4) as unambiguously encompassing governmental units. ). See United States v. Angelilli, 660 F.2d 23, 31-33 (2d Cir. 1981)

If the statue applies to Governmental units it must also apply to Government agencies. Furthermore, it must therefore be considered a congressional abrogation of sovereign immunity when the governmental unit charged is an agency of the U.S. government else the law is inapplicable to employees and agencies of the sovereign. No one is supposed to be above the Law and Government is sworn to operate legally and within the law.

Establish the argument that the FTCA is unconstitutional where the charges of a RICO violation are applicable to an Agency of the US Government. It is simply manifest injustice to require a plaintiff to obtain permission from a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization “USDA/FSA” , permission to Sue the Agency for Operating a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization. But Government officials will obfuscate these facts.

Cite case law to support this charge under Chapter 18 1961. The existence of which is voluminous.

However, evidently this court supports the conclusion that Government Agencies and it’s employees are free to run and participate in racketeering operations committing crimes against the people. And, the Judiciary will protect their operations and their criminals from any restitution, allowing them to destroy the lives of those they are paid to serve. The courts ruling and memorandum in support thereof supports this conclusion and is Treason under the constitution and holy adverse to the Constitution of the US and Governmental and Judicial oaths of office and cannons.

This Courts ruling completely fulfills, aiding and abetting, the commission of the USDA RICO enterprises financial and participant goals.

Segregating the commission of multiple crimes of negligence, fraud, perjury, discrimination, obstruction of justice and denial of service from the unlawful denial of a loan causing significant financial harm.

If the loan denial is upheld, there is no financial cause of action for the multitude of torts and other criminal acts.
If the Criminal acts are segregated from the loan denial as if they had no bearing on the loan decision then a true and fair assessment of the loan decision is denied and a failure to provide a fair procedure occurs. There are occurrences of negligence and malaice that support the contention the loan denial was erroneous from the start.
Cumulatively they are manifest injustice and provide the financial incentive for the USDA to operate this RICO enterprise against farmers a core component of interstate commerce in the United States.

Allowing the criminals that committed the acts of negligence, fraud, perjury, discrimination, denial of service, obstruction of justice, corrupt acts, aiding and abetting the commission of the USDA RICO enterprises financial goals, to escape any accountability or responsibility for the corrupt and criminal acts committed against a civilian who sought Congressional mandated government service’s.

Devastating the lives of many needlessly and simply walking free from any responsibility or accountability under a widely abused despicable shroud of sovereign immunity.

This court has provided a “completed” denial of plaintiffs due process right to present relevant evidence before a fair tribunal with a neutral judge, and to equal justice under the law. Facts show the Judge operated under and with extreme bias to fulfill A complete and utter snub to the fifth and fourteenth amendment rights of Due Process. A legal obligation with the central promise and assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law (“legality”) and provide fair procedures.

The entire memorandum of support by this court, appears written by Attorneys for the defense. I ask you? Tell a Pro-Se not to cite statutes, cases, or make legal arguments. Then deny a single opportunity to amend the complaint.

Does that sound like a court seeking to effect justice or a court seeking to protect criminals and obstruct justice?

Would you want your case back in the hands of this court if your appeal were granted?

The USDA is a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization in conjunction with FSA, NAD, and affiliated state mediation programs like those of Virginia and is conducting a Racketeer Influenced enterprise for the financial purpose of mitigating legal expenses and protecting employees in the commission of crimes.

They have such significant numbers of well placed logic errors in their programs they can only be viewed as intentionally placed to provide legal loopholes.
Their actions against Farmers corruptly effect interstate commerce in the United States.
They are Running a racket, “a scam of intentional design”, stealing constitutional due process rights of Farmers and protecting criminal activities of members of their organization with sovereign immunity.
They are manifesting individual employees with no training, no education, no support, and unqualified to preform their jobs the legal support of Chevron deference. The intentional design of which provides individual challengers inequality in the application of rules, regulations, the law and ultimately denial of a fair process and equal justice.
They claim nothing to hide yet the rulings they publish contain only the information they want the public to have opportunity to view. All the brief fillings any arguments made by an appellant are completely hidden. They disclose only the summary information “right, wrong, intentionally misstated, even down right false they want seen. Corruptly hiding the Truth.

This villainous use of government funding tortures farmers, their families, ruins businesses and destroys lives all at tax payer expense. It has been going on for 3 decades and only public outrage will stop the abuse, cruelty, and absolute despotism and tyranny Because,

The Federal Court system has been aiding and abetting this Government run Racketeering operation.

Manifest Injustice!!!

No its actually TREASON by the highest courts in America!

This RICO charge may never have been brought before against the USDA because of the wealth power and corruption of Government. Or because, No one else whom, had ever been victim to multiple predicate acts under this Statute by this enterprise recognized the potential of filling under Chapter 18, 1961. Or most likely because the Victims are primarily poor and unable to get legal help. There is however, thousands of individuals whom have been victims of this enterprise and whose experience only adds significantly to the weight of, and the pattern of, racketeering activity we have encountered and been victimized by. The design, implementation, and intent of this enterprise is, was, and always will be treason by. Bill Clinton and Al Gore.History needs to shed light on the truth.

Please follow along with our blog as we continue to critic the courts ruling, provide updates on the case, and begin publishing this story beginning to end with full details. Hopefully by the time we finish the racket will be exposed.

Manifest Injustice

	CBJulian De Mala Car… on Mr. President all thats necess…
	Tucker Cooper on Mr. President all thats necess…
	CBJulian De Mala Car… on Royale Gem of Malacare.
	Ben Pettis on Royale Gem of Malacare.
	Witness comes forth… on The Nations Conscience Has Tak…

Blue_French_Qtr

The root of all evil is not money it's a lie.

Federal District Court

Any doesn’t mean Any Anymore!

How do you justify calling the Supreme Court Justices Traitors of “We The People”?

Supreme Court of the U.S. Government! No longer a court of Law but of Men.

Mr. President all thats necessary for the triumph of Government evil is for those in power to do nothing!

Judge Jackson L. Kiser sends U.S. Marshall with comments on my Blog.

Response to Reply for Sanctions

CONCLUSION

Respectfully Submitted,

Christopher B. and Renee G. Julian Pro-Se

USDA Plays Dumb

A Question of Corruption?

Lies, Lying, Liar, All in a days work at the USDA.

Manifest Injustice