U.S Government Breaches Contract With We The People

U.S Government Breaches Contract With We The People

Recently, I mailed a lawsuit against the United States to the Court of federal claims for breach of contract and taking without just compensation. That suit should arrive at the court today. I filed this suit as a pro-se however; This stands as an open offer to any legal firm that wishes to handle the case on a percentage basis. The entire complaint can be read at this link:Breach of Contract as Mailed

For those few who have followed my story and those who are aware of the significance, the complaint is 39 pages long and this post serves as an attempt to provide a brief overview.

While this suit is filed on my behalf, its also on behalf of We The People. Government agencies should not be protected from suit for the operation of a criminal enterprise designed to steal We The Peoples constitutional right to due process in violation of the government and its officers sworn duty to operate legally. The rule of law requires that no one be above the law, not even the king, that the law has been defined before a controversy exists, and that the rights of minorities are protected.

The U.S. Constitution is a law. It proclaims itself as such, in Article V. clause II. “The Supremacy Clause as “the Supreme Law of the Land” The Supreme Law of the Land states only one law twice called due process. Due process dates back to the Magna Carta and the thirteenth century promise of Great Britain’s King John that he would act only in accordance with law and all would receive the ordinary processes of law.

Racketeering is a federal crime as defined by Title 18 Chapter 96 §§1961 – 1968. For a government agency to operate a racketeering enterprise as defined by this federal law is in violation of its constitutional obligation to due process.

Title 18 Chapter 96 in essence provides that “Any” individual whose business or property was harmed by a pattern of racketeering activity by “Any” individual participating in “Any” enterprise in a manner forbidden by §1962 is entitled to bring a civil cause of action in “Any” appropriate United States district court in “Any” district court of the United States for “Any” district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.” And such an individual is entitled to the recovery of treble damages, costs, attorney’s fees and bringing to bear the pressure of “private attorneys general” on the defendants.

In regards to this Federal Law the United States Supreme Court and US appellate courts have held the following as precedent: 1. A Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) enterprise animated by an illicit common purpose can be composed of an association-in-fact of government entities and human members when the latter exploits the former to carry out that purpose. 2. The language of §1961(4) unambiguously encompasses governmental units. 3. The substance of RICO’S provisions demonstrates a clear congressional intent that RICO be interpreted to apply to the activities that corrupt public or governmental entities. 4. Congress intended as inducements to achieve the objectives in both the Clayton and Rico acts the provision for the recovery of treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees and bringing to bear the pressure of “private attorneys general” 5. 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 and a further purpose of encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate.

A Congressional committee, the Mayor of Road Island, and the State of Illinois have all been found guilty under RICO of participating in or of being the enterprise through which a RICO enterprise operated. Why would the USDA, NAD, FSA, and affiliated State Mediation programs be protected by immunity when these public entities were not?

When the Federal district Court of Virginia Judge Jackson L. Kiser dismissed my RICO allegations against these entities and, the 4th Circuit court of appeals upheld, it did so under the rubric of sovereign immunity and  FTCA. However 28 U.S.C. §2680(a) Specifies a prohibition against using the FTCA to challenge the validity of a statute or regulation. This ruling effectively granted the USDA an opportunity to settle out of court these charges for a sum certain. However, while the law is not a contract, every law is an offer to those aggrieved, to redress the civil wrong, and a notice to the people, certain actions have consequences.

A contract, in the modern sense of the word, has been defined as an agreement containing a promise enforceable in law. The term “agreement” implies that there are at least two parties involved, since one party cannot agree to a proposition unless another party makes it to him. The term further implies that one party proposed a promise or offer to which the other party agreed or accepted. Thus, an agreement is the result of an offer by one party and an acceptance by the other party, which creates a binding contract.

Title 18 Chapter 96 §§1961-1968 establishes the terms of an offer. Section 1964(c) extends this offer to any private citizen granting them a private cause of action with very specific monetary rewards. The Federal District Court of Virginia converted the terms of the offer after its acceptance and reliance on Supreme Court rulings and prior precedent.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) has specific terms for the acceptance of an offer made under Federal Law. FRCP 8(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

“Allegations of the existence of a RICO enterprise must meet only the ‘notice pleading’ requirements of ” Rule 8(a) see https://blueridgesprings.wordpress.com/2015/06/14/dumb-and-dumber-judges-dont-know-english/ for specifics on these quotes by the Governments expert G. Robert Blakey ” RICO’s important role in combating political corruption effectively ends when the court chooses to narrow the broad definition of “enterprise”.

The Federal Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction because the King is immune from suit unless he gives his permission. However, the King cannot knowingly violate federal law, nor can he war against the will of the people as expressed by congressional legislation and legal precedent. To operate within the law, the King must abide by the supreme law.

The Tucker Act of 1887 waives sovereign immunity regarding express or implied contracts with the United States. The posting of an offer explicitly stated with terms in Federal Law and the acceptance of that offer providing monetary relief defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure creates a binding contract from a statute specifying monetary compensation.

Conversion is the unlawful and inequitable alteration of a contract term once an offer has been accepted. Conversion is any unauthorized act that deprives an owner of personal property without his or her consent. I went all the way to the Supreme Court  with my dissent of this unlawful conversion.

There is no language in this federal law, or prior precedent of the Supreme Court to suggest  this law would not apply to government agencies and their employees. Keep in mind, the operation of a RICO enterprise is a federal crime and in violation of the Supreme Law the constitution, the peoples power over Government. Furthermore, the requirements of evoking the Federal Tort Claims Act converts the terms of the agreement not only by eliminating the express congressional intent for treble damages, cost, and attorney fees as inducement but, also by providing these criminals an opportunity to continue their illegal operation.

The Supreme Court has reiterated countless times, the RICO statute is to be interpreted broadly, liberally, and has no stated boundaries. The Governments expert, G. Robert Blakey  a contributing author of the statute argued on the governments behalf “ RICO’s important role in combating political corruption effectively ends when the court chooses to narrow the broad definition of “enterprise”. How then does the Federal Court justify granting this government entity sovereign immunity protection from its contractual obligation to operate legally, within the law, and in violation of the Fifth Amendment take the personal property legally conveyed by an offer explicitly stated in federal law and officially accepted in accordance with the Federal rules of civil procedure? A valid offer, a valid acceptance, a valid contract, and a Government Breach!

Today the Court of Federal Claims should receive a complaint filling suit against the United States Government because, the U.S. Federal judiciary breached the explicit and implied offer of Federal Law between the Government and We The People.

Corruption in the U.S. Government is a terminal cancer and it’s being aided and abetted by the same cancer in the Judicial branches fueled by money and graft.

Elbridge Gerry refused to sign the U.S. Constitution objecting the judiciary would be oppressive.

He was right!

Wake up America the U.S. Government has become an entity of its own, criminally operating in its own self interest with the aid of a judicial branch refusing to hold Government accountable to the law, its constitutional obligation to keep Governments actions in check for protection of We The People. RICO’s important role in combating political corruption effectively ended when the court chose to narrow the broad definition of “enterprise” in my suit against the USDA granting them sovereign immunity protection from this law in direct conflict with its stare decisis and congressional intent.

 CBJulian – Pro Se

Update – Interesting perspective on this case. Constitution as Power of Attorney

Watch this Video and then read more of my blog. Andrew Brietbart died of a heart attack at the age of 43? Read a rw article on it:

Brietbart

Update- Case docketed Federal district court of claims Washington D.C. Case # 1:15-cv-01344 EJD

Update: 1-14-2016 Given this case should be of immense public interest i have started a google folder where the fillings can be obtained free of charge by all who wish. Link to Google Drive Folder with court filings and responses on this case. 

Assigned Superior Judge Edward J. Damich – ADR Superior Judge Eric G. Bruggink

Update- 1-8-2016 DOJ files motion to dismiss 12b1 and 12b6 and pleading judicial immunity. My questions are. How do you grant immunity to a Federal Judge who aids and abets a Federal Agency in a racketeering operation to steal constitutional rights? With an oath of office to uphold the constitution it seems more like treason. Here is a link to court documents in this case. The Key Documents Chronologically.

Update 1-24-2016 To date the Clerk has not docketed the notice of appearance filed by the attorney for the defense November 23, 2015.  Prior experience tells me based on the defense motion to dismiss under 12b & my Pro-Se status the court should have issued a Roseboro notice but did not. Two Motions filed by Plaintiffs on January, 14 2016 also have not appeared on the docket and while the Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is docketed no ruling on it has been issued. It’s beginning to look a lot like the Federal District Court of Claims intends to intentionally deny a private citizen Due Process. Perfect fit with the courts Mandate. “It is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against itself, in favor of citizens, as it is to administer the same, between private individuals.” Abraham Lincoln. 

Update -1-26-2016 There has been no change from the update above. Today I sent a letter via email to my congressional representative petitioning for a congressional hearing. I believe since the Federal Court of Claims was created under Article 1 athourity and is therefore an agent of Congress performing congressional duties they are not providing due process and therefor I’m entitled to petition congress for a hearing. Gmail – Responding to your message

Un American Express !

Un American Express !

May of 2012 I discovered the implementation of Dodd Frank had significantly changed real estate lending laws. Real estate asset based lending disappeared all together. Low doc and no doc lending disappeared completely.

At the markets peak loans were being written, many real estate professionals I knew, referred to as NINJA loans – No Income, No Job, No Asset loans. Many of these NINJA loans were occurring on excessive property valuations and lenders were eager to lend, eager to package mortgage backed securities for sell. Many were lending at 125%, of excessive valuations, on the assumption real estate prices always went up. If you could fog a mirror you could get a mortgage.

However, there is a significant difference between a NINJA loan and the existence of and the validity of No Doc and Low Doc loans of the prior 200 years. These loans in their initial applications allowed entrepreneurs, small business operators, etc., to leverage their capital to run businesses, to take risk in forming businesses, or build something for sale. Two of the most prevalent uses of asset based collateralized lending in the nations history were farming and construction.

Small farmers would work hard, scrape and save, to someday buy land of their own to farm. They passed it from one generation to the next. Once they purchased their own block of land they were able to borrow against their real estate holdings to risk farming for themselves. With no job, No income, they mortgaged the land to bet on their own hard work. How many times have you heard it said they mortgaged the farm to stay in business?

I personally have known numerous individuals that started in their youth working on a construction site, many as framers, masons, plumbers, electricians, and others, who overtime bought their own land and then mortgaged it to build their first spec house. Some of the smartest I knew built them, lived in them, started another and when it was complete they moved into it, only to start again. This process enabled them to build sweat equity and wealth increasing the return on their investment, with hard work, and investment in themselves.

Dodd Frank killed these small business opportunities and left farming to the mega corporations, and building to the mega builders. It’s eliminated the path for individuals to start and grow small business by leveraging real estate holdings. It has in fact eliminated the use of real estate equity as capital to be leveraged. Unless you’re already in a profitable business your real estate equity is capital locked up unless you sell it. That’s a lot of liquidity removed from the economy. Dodd Frank ended Mom & Pop farming and construction.

If you think about banks leveraging their holdings today at 20 to 1 and at the peak of the financial collapse many of these institutions were leveraged at more than 40 to 1 risking it all gambling on their own Ponzi scheme. Now an individual cannot leverage real estate at all. Take calculated risk to bet on their own ability, risk it on themselves, to create a successful return or build a business. An individual with real estate equity today cannot get 40% loan to value risk capital, that’s not even 1 half to 1 leverage unless their able to do it through crowd funding or a hard money lender.

In 2006 – 07 I made the biggest mistake of my life purchasing 23 acres of an old apple orchard on the side of a mountain in Patrick County Virginia with piedmont views.

IMG_2458

I encountered a enough corruption, crime, lies, lying and government obstruction to fill a novel between 2007 and 2011. Since it’s not the point of this post, suffice it to say the good ole boy network (criminal and otherwise) is alive and well in Patrick County and they use every means to let outsiders know, their not welcome, or wanted in “their” community.

Just one example an illegal garbage dump buried and hidden on the property sold to me. Buried in the head of a natural spring feeding into local creeks and streams. Fifteen thousand dollars just in fees to have the county landfill take the garbage. I’ll add to that, when I tried to sue the seller no one was willing to take the case because Martin F. Clark Senior was the lawyer for the seller and his son was a locale court judge. Just as Alan Black the Attorney I tried first to take the case had informed me.

Ararat Construction Begins 00046

What you need to know here is the plan was to put new life into an old apple orchard, build a primary residence were my aging mother could come to live out her final years, plant available space as a vineyard. Start an operation to make hard apple cider and viniferous wines and potentially blends. Once this had been established. Build with sweat equity some tree houses with piedmont views overlooking the vineyards and market to Motorcyclist riding the Blue Ridge parkway and touring the regional mountain roads and countryside.

The plan was to use our capital assets to buy the farm, put it back into production, build a house with our capital and leverage and start a wine making operation. Prior to publication of this post it was announced that Virginia wine sales hit an all time record and the states hard apple cider sales were up 200%. These were trends we spotted back in 2008 worked toward and got clobbered on by Dodd Frank, criminals in this community, and racketeering by the USDA. Evidence of that news linked here. 8 Things That moon over Rosslyn Eclipsed

Locals had every intention of stopping us, or delaying us, any and every way possible. A house that should have taken 2 years to complete took 3 years just to get a foundation; locals ensured then the foundation was delayed until bad weather would prevent any further progress for yet another year. When a community does not want you in their territory their obstructionism can cause serious financial and psychological damages. It was a mistake to believe local farmers and the region would like to see an increase in tourism and business. I believe the correlation between the GOP in congress and the local community is one of total devotion.

To that I say if you want to control how land is developed, you need to either buy it to control it, or have zoning laws. But acts of criminal obstructionism including extortion, mob style intimidation, and work slowdowns, perpetuated by civil servants is disturbing, criminal, and indicative of an immoral society of thugs.

Dodd Frank was implemented June of 2011, prior to that banks had been willing to work with us. Multiple financial intuitions had committed capital to our plans but one expired and others demanded timelines that were to restrictive given the obstructionism, encountered, and the desire to put as much sweat equity as possible into the efforts.

The SBA had been approached with the business plan in late 2008 or early 2009 but, informed us, if we wanted to focus on the orchard and vineyard ahead of tree houses we needed to seek financing from the Farm Service Agency before they could assist us. I called the local FSA office and requested an application.

In May of 2012 the reality of Dodd Frank implementation on our efforts became apparent. No longer could our real estate assets be used as collateral to pursue this farm winery operation, or to complete the half finished house. It was apparent having talked with countless banks, farm credit unions, hard money bankers, and every other potential lender we could think of to finance getting the house dried in and the vineyard planted we would not be extended credit on our real estate holdings.

With more than 600,000 in capital, five years of hard labor invested in this Farm Winery effort. Financial institutions leveraged to the hilt, negligently lending, and fraudulently selling mortgage backed securities prompted implementation of Dodd Frank legislation locking us out of credit markets completely.

When the SBA told us in 08 or 09 you need to be declined by FSA first, is when FSA rules you have to have 3 years farming experience, and be unable to obtain credit elsewhere to be eligible for an FSA Farm Loan had been learned. I had in 2009 requested an application from which I learned the eligibility requirements. So in June now with 4 years farming experience and unable to find credit elsewhere, I requested a new FSA Farm Loan application.

Without crop insurance and 3 years of hail, The apples all went to juice at a loss by the dump truck load. Yes the first Hail harvest.

Back Camera

Back Camera

Four years without a marketable crop to make us eligible for crop insurance the 2012 crop was looking good, sold at market, and made the operation eligible for crop insurance for 2013 finally. The plan was to sell great apples into the open market for crop insurance and use culls and special varieties and blocks for wine making.

By September of 2012 our financial capital resources were declining as we pumped money into construction of the house hoping to get it under roof before winter. The crew worked diligently harvesting the crop and working on the house. Local obstructionism had me framing the house with my farm hands and winter would not be kind to a house with no roof. Planning to work entirely on the house after completing the harvest. I made some very large purchases of construction materials on my American Express card. Materials needed to complete the framing and the roof.

By the end of September 2012 the crop was mostly harvested, I completed all the financial information as of September 30th and prepared my farm loan application and arranged with the local FSA office for a site visit on October 10th. From the moment FSA officials got out of the car I could tell this was not a friendly encounter. With all the other local corruption I had already seen, I secretly started the recorder on my Iphone at the first opportunity.

Much, not all of the criminal activity, negligence, fraud, discrimination, and perjury that ensued from submitting that application with the USDA and its decline on November 28th are documented in the thousands of pages filed with the Federal district court “of corruption”. There are also many examples on this blog.

The one Item I wish to discuss here was their failure to ever pull a credit report. It is a required procedure according to their manual, upon receiving an application for a farm loan. FSA charged an upfront fee to obtain a joint credit report. Knowing they declined the loan application without ever performing this required procedure, knowing they had declined the loan, and given debt refinancing as a reason, when there was no debt on the property. A copy of the credit report used in their loan evaluation was requested.

On February 9, 2013 I received an email from MYFICO informing me on February 8th my credit report was acquired by FSA. The only reason for them to now, pull a credit report was the express purpose of fraudulently presenting it as one reviewed for the credit application. In fact they sent it to us as if we would never know it had just been pulled.

Surely the U.S. Government understands, by conditioning eligibility for a farm loan on the inability to obtain credit elsewhere, the loan decision being made can be life or death for a small farm and therefore, failure to follow basic procedures should be a serious violation of their duty to due process.

I still contend, and want my day in court for a jury to decide whether the agency followed its own procedures or whether they’re simply running a racket to avoid accountability and responsibility for miserable, negligent, criminal performance of their duties.

Having worked on this project from 2007 to 2012 I found myself in January 2013 in immediate need of a job in a rural hudzone community and a bad employment market where I had previously been providing stimulus and jobs.

Firmly believing the agency was in error and the mistakes would be rectified we followed and adhered to the procedures they demanded. Days became months until almost a year later when our disagreement went to Federal Court. The Court would then delay for almost another year. The government figures they have all the time, money, and resources to eventually have you give up. This racket run by the USDA is aided by the Federal Courts with extraordinary abuse of deference.

The one rationale the Government has maintained for denying the loan, regardless of the fact they were negligent, and incompetent in its review is that my house is to big and more than meets my needs. Although, they changed their guidelines in the fall of 2011 and barred us from arguing the house met our needs. This is a violation of the rules of retroactivity because, the house had broken the rule implemented in 2011 back in 2008. In what world do we allow the rules to change after play has already begun?

We did the best we could to keep up with our bills while we looked for jobs and played lawyer through appeals, and federal court, Sometime In 2013 we could no longer keep up, we had applied and received food stamps and struggled to cover everything we could as we continued to look for work. By the time I found a job in January of 2014 the creditors were calling daily and demanding such large payments there was no way to make them. I did not wish to attempt settling the debt or finding an agency to negotiate some reduction. I have never asked for relief or to negotiate away what I owed. I owned this real estate out right and a mortgage or a loan against it would allow me to pay off all that was owed. Prior to FSA’s illegal access of my credit it was completely blemish free for more than 30 years. Had the financial institutions not wiped out the credit markets, or the Government preformed its duty my life’s work would not have been destroyed.

I have waited with baited breath for the big financial institutional creditor to sue me in court for payment of the unsecured debt. I repeatedly asked when they called why they would not rather exchange the unsecured debt for real estate secured debt. I never got an answer.

I believe I have a very valid counter suit for their negligence, fraud and criminal contribution to the collapse of the credit markets, the disappearance of real estate asset based lending, and the implementation of Dodd Frank. Consider the settlements financial institutions have made over the financial collapse.

Bank Of America 16.65 billion

JP Morgan Chase 13 billion

AIG 960 Million +

Wells Fargo 175 Million + 560 Million +

Here I sit with my real estate 100% owned with no available financing while other borrowers who were upside down, underwater, and had purchased more house than they could afford are having their principle reduced and getting historically low interest rates. Irony! I was debt free when the market collapsed owned my 23 acres out right, had money in the bank, had pristine credit, and was physically building my own home and a business from the ground up. And I’m the one who got locked out of the credit markets.

As luck would have it; it was not BOFA who came to court after me but American Express. I really have no reason to associate them with the financial market collapse. I will say they were not willing to work with me on reasonable payments when I got behind and living on SNAP. Nor did they give any consideration to my real estate holdings or provide any lender who would hold it as collateral. These financial institutions have now put me in a position where I can’t get a loan on my real estate even with a full time job.

I was summoned for a general district court appearance on November 18, 2014, having had the Federal Courts protecting Government criminals, I wanted any opportunity to tell this story to a jury. On that day in November, I went before judge Edwin A. Gendron Jr and, as is my constitutional right under the 7th amendment to the constitution, I demanded a jury trial. Judge Gendron’s immediate comment “ not in this court”. I had informed the court and American Express lawyers of my suit with the USDA. Which they completely ignored and made light of; they could have actually helped my case by filing to join in the suit against the USDA. They did not, and knowing these lawyers are out of Washington, I wonder if their real intent is to help the Government. Judge Gendron for reasons, which gave me, pause at the time ruled for a continuance on January 27, 2015 at 1:00 pm. Why did we need a continuance what purpose did it serve to delay this, I would simply demand my constitutional right to a jury trial again. I have some circumstantial reasons to believe that all, everything results from local government officials.

Sometime in early December I received a notice from American Expresses attorney. The notice was not unlike others I had received from my Federal Court case. It appeared to be a motion to the court for a hearing and was accompanied by an order for the judge to sign. The judge had not signed it. In federal court when a motion is filed the court clerk sends you a notice and if the judge grants the motion the court sends a signed copy from the judge to you with his order. Lawyers regularly file motions with a copy of the order they wish the judge to grant. They don’t grant every motion or sign every order submitted.

I received no notice whatsoever from the court. No notice a motion had been filed, no notice from the court that anything had happened in the case at all. No notice the judge had made any ruling or planned any hearing, other than the one already scheduled for January 27, 2015. As I had done numerous times in Federal Court, I reviewed the courts docket and found nothing beyond what I knew. I had a hearing on November 18th and a continuance was scheduled for January 27, 2015.

Given my experience with the Federal Court and the lies stated in open court by the department of justice and those penned by judge Jackson l. Kiser. I don’t believe anyone should ever accept a communication from a third party, paid liar as substitution for a court order. Hell given the corruption seen in the Federal Court, you should question and verify the validity of every court statement and action especially when challenging the judge’s source of income.

On January 27, 2015 I showed up for the court appearance. Judge Edwin A. Gendron Jr quickly informed me a hearing had been held in December in my absence, and judgment for American Express was granted. I protested stating emphatically the court had not provided any notice of the filing of a motion, nor had the court issued any notice a hearing was to be held. Judge Gendron’s reply was, I received a copy of the motion from the plaintiff’s attorney. linked here Notice from Pro Liar appear before court I’m sorry but it’s the courts duty, their constitutional obligation to provide Due Process. A prime tenant of Due process is, notice must be given. It’s simply unacceptable for the court to ignore their duty and rely on the communications of a third party paid liar. But Judge Edwin A. Gendron did! Like committing perjury see https://blueridgesprings.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/lies-lying-liar-all-in-a-days-work-at-the-usda/ there is simply no justification for a Judge to deny any individual of his constitutional right especially the right to a jury trial and the right to present evidence on his behalf.

At the very best this was nothing short of the good ole boy network circumventing the law to screw the little guy for the benefit of lawyers and corporations. At worst it was a judicial system fully aware, I would use the evidence of racketeering by the USDA as a defense, and this was a way to prevent government criminals from being forced to testify in my defense. In other words the criminal injustice system was aiding and abetting the USDA’s racketeering enterprise by protecting them from exposure in court to a jury once again!

I will admit this made me very angry and I spoke some choice although appropriate words. However, the court guard had no right to stand on my heels threatening me out the court door. Actually, he should have arrested the judge cause he just witnessed a crime a depravation of an individuals constitutional rights.

When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his constitutional rights he exercises no discretion or individual judgment; he acts no longer as a judge, but as a “minister” of his own prejudices. Pierson v. Ray [ 386 U.S. 547, 568] referencing 100 U. S. 100 U. S. 339; 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, 1642-1643 (1956).

“ Jurisdiction, although once obtained, may be lost, and in such case proceedings cannot be validly continued beyond the point at which jurisdiction ceases”. Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co. , 283 U.S. 643, 75 L.Ed. 1324 51 S.Ct 587.

Such actions by a judge are in violation of Federal Law:

“Title 42 U.S.Code §1983 “Every person who under color of an statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

February 2, 2015 while researching my appeal options, I thought to look on the courts docket. On February 2, 2015 still no indication any other court proceedings or filings had occurred in my case. The court docket still showed only the original court appearance date and the date for the continuance hearing. See the hyper link pdf to verify the courts docket.GENERAL DISTRICT COURT ONLINE by Civil Case Number CASE INFORMATION SYSTEM Do you think the docket said anything else in December, or January than it did now on February 2, 2015?

February 4, 2015 I went to the clerk’s office to file the necessary papers for an appeal. I was informed by the clerk I would have to post a $25,000.00 dollar bond to appeal although, I could file for In Forma pauperis status with the state court. I was dismayed at the absolute disarray of the clerk’s office and took these snapshots as they objected.

IMG_4475 IMG_4474

Does this look like a well run clerks office or typical of our Government resources? Perhaps they were not getting their job done? 

IMG_4473

Unable to borrow against my real estate holdings, unable to get a mortgage, how was I going to obtain a $25,000.00 bond, had I been able to do that I would have long paid it off. I filed for In Forma pauperis but Judge Martin F. Clark jr almost immediately denied it. Yes! Son of the Lawyer who was the attorney on the sale of the illegal dump to me. Once again the good old boy network was at work. These Judges civil servants intentionally depriving a civilian of constitutional right to a Jury trial as stated in the 7th amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Little guy gets screwed out of justice. Constitutional rights have no meaning when the judicial system refuses to honor them!

I don’t know if the judges did this for malice in connection to other criminal activities I had encountered with local government officials. Whether they did it to keep me from presenting evidence of the USDA’s racketeering enterprise in my defense, which was my goal, along with a counter suit against other financial institutions for the mortgage collapse, or weather it was simply to cover up mistakes by the clerks office. I simply find no justification for denying an individual his constitutional rights.

I can’t even begin to count now how may times my constitutional rights to Due Process, To a Civil trial by jury, to equal justice under the law have been violated by the judicial system. This behavior is appalling, oppressive, tyranny, and unconstitutional We the people must put an end to it!

Therefore, I’m proposing as a start to ending this kind of judicial disrespect for the law and the constitutional rights of individuals that every court room in the United States be continuously video taped and audio recorded and subject to civilian review upon the filing of any complaint of misconduct by a Judge. Think about it this way. Time and again we are reminded that people are capable of horrific offenses. A judge is no less likely to ignore the law than anyone else. We have videotape now on school buses, in hospitals, malls, and grocery stores, even on street corners and police are being given body cameras. Why should the judicial system be allowed freedom to commit their crimes behind closed doors protected within the confines of their own white-collar gang of professional obfuscators. Why with todays advancement in technology do court rooms still rely on transcribers. I believe its because judges can still control what those transcriptions say and show.

Its time America demand transparency, accountability, and responsibility from the U. S. Judicial system. Time We The People have civilian review boards to review complaints of judicial  and police transgression.

I’m the little guy who was debt free when the mortgage collapse started, the little guy who got clobbered by the financial institutions negligence, and fraud, clobbered by negligence and fraud in the USDA, clobbered by deprivation of my constitutional rights in Federal Court, General district court, and Virginia State Court. Truth is the U.S. Government and the U.S. Judicial system has more serious career criminals in it than we have in all the U. S. prisons combined.

Next Post I start preparing readers for the next law suit on which I expect government will respond to criminally ignoring laws.

http://www.blueridgespings.com

blueridgespings on Instagraham

blueridgespring on twitter

blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Now Consider This!

Now Consider This!

Working on my next bloq post I found it growing rather lengthy, I realize when they get too long people get bored and stop reading, especially mine filled with facts and prose of professional liars. The next post needs a lot of background setup to bring home the point. Buried in those details I had a point to make which I wanted to elaborate on and rather than lengthen the next post i decided to put this one out on the subject.

The Federal Court and the USDA have in court documents made countless derogatory statements about the size of the house we were building on this purposed Farm Winery operation. The size of the house in fact is the sole issue upon which the USDA has gotten the Federal Courts to grant them deference in interpretation of the law to deny our farm loan application.

I could provide numerous examples of the courts and the USDA’s attempts to exaggerate the size and utilization of the house.

Consider this on the house.

  • The original design of the house was for 2,400 square feet with a two car garage. We worked every possible angle to keep the garage on the same level as this one level house. The fewer steps into the kitchen with groceries the better when you get old.
  • This original design was a modified downsizing of our previous home. It eliminated the dinning room in favor of a larger family room added a mud room and switched which side of the house the master bedroom and bath were on. Minor other changes were made but overall the floor plan was very similar. We changed the elevation to look more like an old farm house than Charleston Low country.
  • I have had my legs broken multiple times in my life, Both of my knees are in need of repair. As a consequence of my broken legs one is longer than the other and my hips are also in bad shape. I have for years believed that I will one day no longer be able to walk. This is the reason the house was to have everything on one floor and the doors were all designed to be big enough for a wheelchair to pass.
  • In the process of building a road to the property one crew took some measurements of elevation on the purposed house site. The one site with the least disruption to trees etc.for a  house. To our dismay the ground had 12 feet of fall from the front right to the back left corner. Consequently, the house would require a substantial crawl space.
  • WE looked at every available option to minimize cost while maximizing utilization of the large crawl space. Local building requires a block wall greater than 10 feet be engineered, filled with concrete and rebar. When you consider the cost of block, having it laid, putting in rebar, waterproofing, engineering fees etc. The cost was very high even when you considered framing up sections which could be done that way.
  • We chose instead to use 10 foot tall preformed concrete walls from superior walls. The cost of adding windows and doors to these walls was almost offset by the reduction of concrete in them. Overall they offered superior quality for far less cost.
  • We informed the Architect that the house would require a basement. He asked us if we ever intended the space to be livable how we would want it laid out. Having never intended for such space pretty much left that to him. Knowing what he was doing he designed it for efficiency. Every label put on the house plans was done by the Architect.
  • Yes we knew this was going to be a very large basement. Yes we planed building it the most cost efficient we could while ensuring that longer term it had significant utilization potential. In fact we planned first to use it as an initial site for making wine. We considered finishing parts as living quarters for my aging mother. But you must realize that I spent 10 years working weekends and holiday’s and nights to complete my previous home. All a DIY projects.

Consider this on farming.

  • Prior to the Real Estate markets collapse I had bank financing in place to develop this project. Even after the market began its pucker I was able to get financing. For various reason we never used or committed any borrowed capital.
  • The land I purchased 23.75 acres i bought with my own capital. when local real estate agents criminally flipped it to me, but that’s another story.
  • I worked with and had a road built on the property to take get from the road frontage to the top of the property where the best views of the piedmont were.
  • I began farming the Apple Orchard without crop insurance and spent 10’s of thousands in revitalizing it. Along with my own unpaid time utilizing my own Funds. As the Orchard improved I bought a tractor, a bush hog, an air blast sprayer, and several other farming implements and tools and bins for harvest.
  • I spent 5 Years farming and preparing this land for the planting of a vineyard, to continue the apple production for the purpose of making hard apple cider and viniferous wines.
  • The first year a worthless crop. The second not great damaged by hail all sent to juice. The third year serious hail damage very little crop of any value. Fourth year again wiped out completely by hail. Year 5 our first really good year, high prices no hail,  as everyone else got wiped out by frost. Finally a crop sold 90% into the fresh produce market and finally production on which we would now get crop insurance eligibility.

Consider this overall.

  • Local officials did everything they possibly could to delay efforts on the road, the well, the septic, the house, There was so much of it the intention was obvious. You’re going to pay the locals 3 times what a job should cost to get these things done or you’re going to be stopped or delayed. Local officials want their share too and by the way the locals don’t have the skills to do the work anyway. This was happening and I had no way to prove anything illegal about this extortion racket. It was the impetuous for my research that led me to the RICO law which I ultimately used against the USDA in my Federal Lawsuit.
  • Local Farmers had no interest in helping us with the endeavor, Generally they could not understand what this city fella was doing in the country, and they do not like outsiders, especially not democrats or yankees. Our operation was assisted with numerous thefts, multiple acts of vandalizing farm equipment. This is a community that does not like change or outsiders. If you’re not born here you’re not welcome here.

Consider this about me.

  • This land I owned out right with my own hard earned money.
  • This Farm I put back into production providing local jobs and hope for a new potential business in rural community in desperate need of jobs and economic stimulus.
  • This house I managed just about every crew and aspect of its construction.
    • I personally dug footers with a shovel.
    • I personally put in the gravel base and drainage.
    • I personally installed the plumbing, drainage, radon emission removal,
    • I personally back filled around the underground walls with numerous tons of stone and a wheel barrow.
    • I personally did the prep-work for insulating,radiant floor heat, and  pouring the basement concrete flooring.
    • I personally ran the crew and the saw for the framing done to date on this house.
    • I personally laid the block walls on the front porch, and garage. and formed and prepared the site for pouring of all concrete, garage, patios, and basement.
    • I personally installed the well pump and the wiring.
    • I personally built and installed the power poll for the power company.
    • I personally, ran the tractor and sprayer through all 5 years of caring for the orchard crop.
      • I spent 10 thousand a year on chemicals and fertilizer for this effort.
    • I personally, worked my ass off on this place doing whatever needed doing all on my own dime.

Consider this when USDA denied me a farm loan.

  • I had put this farm 23 acres back into production and qualified for crop insurance.
  • I had personally built a house from the ground up to sheathing the roof.
  • I had put in irrigation to reach the planting of a vineyard.
  • I had prepared the land, rows, ditching, ground cover, rock removal, and was prepared for the planing of the vines.
  • I had cash in the Bank.
  • I owned everything except the tractor debt free. I only had a loan on the tractor to keep my credit active.
  • My credit was spotless after thirty years without ever so much as a late payment.
  • I started construction of the house in 2008.
  • In 2009 I talked with the SBA on this Farm winery and cabin rental business proposal and was told I would first need to be declined by the USDA.
  • I researched Farm Loan eligibility and found I was not eligible for the following reasons.
    • I was able to obtain credit.
    • I did not have 3 years of farming experience.
  • In 2011 as we marched on our merry way with this business plan the mortgage market had collapsed and in June of that year Dodd Frank was implemented. In October of 2011 USDA altered their handbook guidance on the rules regarding the use of funds to purchase a dwelling.
  • In 2012 I learned of the Implementation of Dodd Frank and Reg B. every financial institution informed me then they could no longer lend money against my assets unless I had a job. I thought I had a job. I was running the orchard, the orchard crew, the Framing Crew and personally building a house and managing the finances etc. How was I going to keep doing it and work a full time job? I was trying to build a very large product.
  • In the Fall of 2012 I submitted an application for a farm loan. I was now eligible.
    • I could not obtain credit elsewhere.
    • I had 3 years of farming experience and met all other known requirements.
  • November 2012 the USDA denied my farm loan they said for three reasons.
    • Because I intended to pay myself to work on these capital improvements, USDA said I was asking for a loan to pay living expenses.
    • Because I was asking to pay myself to work I was somehow refinancing debt I did not have.
    • The house is to big and therefore not essential to the farm.
    • The only one of these to survive a corrupt federal court is my house is to big.
    • I WILL ALWAYS CONTEND AND DEFEND THIS IS JUST LIES TO COVER UP FOR GROSS NEGLIGENT, FRAUDULENT, DISCRIMINATORY AND INCOMPETENT PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES BY USDA PERSONNEL.
    • There is certainly much more to read on the blog about that.

Consider the Mortgage Collapse.

  • Prior to the Financial Mortgage crisis credit for this project was available.
  • Prior to the collapse No Doc, Low Doc, lending was available,
  • Prior to the collapse you could mortgage the farm to farm.
  • Prior to the collapse you could use your land as collateral for construction development.
  • Prior to the collapse real estate holdings could be used as collateral for asset based lending.
  • AFTER  the collapse Dodd Frank was implemented and all these options disappeared.
    • The Mortgage Collapse was brought on by Fraud and Negligence in the mortgage market by numerous Financial Institutions.
      • Prior                                                                                       After
      • Country Wide Financial——————————-> Bank of America
      • Washington Mutual ———————————–> J.P. Morgan Chase
      • Golden West Financial ——–>Wachovia———–> Wells Fargo
      • Meryl Lynch——————————————–> Bank Of America
      • Leman Brothers—————————————-> Collapsed
      • AIG ——————————————————> AIG
    • These institutions have been fined Billions of Dollars and required to provide Billions of Dollars in Mortgage Relief to Investors and borrowers. In blue are links to articles on these settlements.

Consider the outcomes.

I  had no mortgage, owed nothing on this farm or the house. I had 5 years of sweat equity in the building of a farm operation a house and a business plan. I had my life’s work invested in this project and I got financially ruined, physiologically raped, robed and had my constitutional rights ignored as a direct result of the mortgage collapse and the implementation of Dodd Frank, the USDA denying me a Farm loan because my house was to big!  This folks, is how the U.S. Government is destroying America!

Don’t tell me, I didn’t have enough equity in my project. Don’t tell me, I was under water or upside down on my mortgage. Don’t tell me I wasn’t working hard enough to succeed. Don’t tell me my business plan or model was flawed. Whats flawed is the Governments full of corruption and criminals interested in killing the American Dream. While they enrich the 1% on the backs of all of us working slaves.

Underwater homeowners and those upside down have been given principal reduction. Refinanced into the lowest mortgage rates of the century.

While I got fucked by these financial criminals, corrupt public officials, corrupt General District Courts, a corrupt Federal government, a USDA racketeering enterprise, and a Federal judicial System protecting government criminals.

I had 470,000 in this property in direct cost not including my time, and effort, or any of the farming cost, or any of the cost, of prepping the land for planting, or putting the apple orchard back into production.

NOW consider this!

I’ve pursued justice from the USDA for 3 Years all the way to the Supreme Court and I’ve never gotten a fair hearing.

All because they refuse to admit they made a mistake not granting a $300,000 farm loan entirely for capital improvements against my 470,000 + investment because my house was too big.

Good Fuckin luck on the American Dream given the Governments desire to stop you!

Next post details and evidence of another Federal Crime by a judge in the illustrious judicial system of America.

Anatomy of a Criminal Threat Absent Malice

Anatomy of a Criminal Threat Absent Malice

In this post I used the following references, and as such, I’m relying on their content, This should stand as a good faith effort to ensure this post is within the Law. That is, its legally done. These linked articles are listed in order of relevance and reliance 1.9 Tips To help You UnderStand Criminal Threat Laws by Aizman Law Firm .2. Criminal Threats  by Nolo 3. “What are Criminal Threats and The Defences to This Charge” by Greg Hill Associates.

Why would I want to threaten anyone. Well its like this, I’ve been attempting to get justice from the U.S. Government specifically the USDA for almost three years now. I was locked out of the Mortgage market in 2011 as a result of the negligence and fraud of our To Big to Fail institutions, whose criminal activities gave us Dodd Frank legislation. I was told by the SBA I would need to work with the USDA because my business model involved farming. I was forced into homelessness because of criminal negligence, fraud, and discrimination by the FSA a division of USDA. The DOJ, I believe as counsel for USDA began an immediate program of cover up and denial. The NAD also a division of the USDA violated my constitutional rights and the law to protect the USDA from the criminal allegations. I took my case to Federal Court where Superior Federal District Judge Jackson L. Kiser also covered for the USDA with lies, deceit , deception and outright criminal denial of my constitutional rights. The Fourth circuit court of appeals simply passed on these acts without comment and the U. S. Supreme court denied certiorari. Please refer to the earlier blog post for details on these and other allegations I would like presented to a jury. Update March 27 and now once again criminally blocked in the courts by the Just Us System! Case # 1:15-cv-01344EJD the court of No Conscience!

I have from the beginning sought help with these crimes against my family from all of the major media outlets, the  ACLU, FBI,CIA, HomeLand Security, my congressman, my senator, the Inspector Generals office other congressmen and senators and even written the President of the United States multiple times. The White house has not responded now after 5 months to my most recent communication. Read the letter on the blog also posted on Whitehouse.gov.

Not one Agency, Not one Media outlet, has attempted to discuss the facts of these allegations with me or anyone in my family. Just like FSA personnel never asked a single question or even pulled a credit report before denying the loan application on a farm I already owned and had put 5 years of work into. Just like the “USDA”Office of inspector General which conducted and closed an investigation of Fraud, Negligence, and discrimination without ever asking me or my family a single question. There’s  always two sides to every story!!

I have have been raped by the U.S. Government, robbed by the USDA and the Federal Judiciary the evidence of these facts can be found in the court filings on the dockets for the Federal District Court of Virginia Western District Danville, the fourth circuit court of appeals, and the Supreme court filings. Additionally, I have written and provided evidence of many, but, by no means all of them on this blog.

The USDA, The Federal Courts, and the District courts have committed  numerous Federal  criminal offenses against me and to date. I have been denied my constitutional rights repeatedly.

  • To a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal
  • To Due Process
  • To Equal Justice Under the law
  • To a Trial By Jury as is my constitutional right.

My family and I are suffering daily under these criminal and unconstitutional actions of the U.S. Government and the U.S. Federal Judiciary. I’ve seen the degree to which they’re willing to ignore my constitutional rights and willing to commit criminal acts to do so. I intend to face the Government in Federal Court numerous times in the months, weeks, and years ahead. So I make this threat although, not a criminal one, Ironically for the express purpose of attempting to prevent more crimes against me and my family.

Does this post rise to the level of a criminal threat? Well it’s  certainly done in writing and by electronic means. However, It will not be directed at any specific individual, and it will be seriously questionable whether it can be taken as a believable threat. Read on for defense of this argument.

I respectfully request if you’re going to read more of this post you be fair and commit to reading one other Dumb and Dumber Judges Don’t Know English

Continue reading

Threatening

Threatening

January of 2014 it seemed clear, the Federal District Court of Danville VA was not a neutral participant as one would expect a Federal Court to be in a civil suit between a civilian and Government employees. Countless circumstantial transgressions of expected decorum had occurred adding up to a lack of fair procedure and the impression due process nor the Federal Rules of civil procedure were being observed. You can see by the blog post in January “Legal Conundrum by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(e)” , “The Weak“, and  “Op Ed for the Federal Courts“, not only suspicious of the court’s actions but, actually researching how to file a complaint. A note on the Op Ed. The Wall Street Journal declined to print it. I went back to look at the court’s instructions not long ago and they appear to have been greatly improved since the Op Ed blog post. Hmm?

If you read the blog post beginning with “Corrupt Federal District Court” to “Dumb and Dumber Judges don’t know english” or is that American, you’ll see the belief firmly held the Federal Court was corrupt, biased, arbitrary, capricious and “NOT” in accordance with the law. Additionally, you’ll find examples, precedent, and evidence supporting this fact. Don’t be fooled either these post don’t come close to telling the whole story.

Federal Judges it seems, with life appointments, absolute immunity, and a complaint process no one can figure out, where review falls to peers, are pretty much free to be just as corrupt and fallacious as they wish. This is why, I believe the courts eliminated public rights to, outside the judicial system, convene a grand jury. Judges, lawyers, prosecutors, all in the same fraternity,  I’m not sure if it’s true but, I’ve read the origin of the word lawyer came from professional liar.

If you read through the post The Weakyou will see, at the time my family was struggling to stay warm, fed, and dry. I had just started a new job, first job working for someone other than myself, in just over ten years.

My dogs are family to me. I find most dogs more loyal, friendly, honest, and comforting than most people. With our struggles financially we had long dropped regular visits to the vet. One furry child Panda had begun having frequent epileptic attacks. While this concerned us, and we thought he should see the vet, vet bills seemed a luxury we could not afford. Pandas grandfather had epileptic attacks which eventually subsided with age and had all but gone away. Yes, Panda was a third generation Boston Terrier member of our family.

January 20th 2014 was a cold night spent huddled in front of a roaring fire with knee deep snow on the ground when Panda began having an attack. This one though was different, it did not stop. Usually, they would at least have a brief pause or two before they ended. This was different, no pause at all, everything possible was done to comfort and care for my little buddy Panda, I tried hard to let him know how much I loved him and the pain I was feeling for him. There was no way down the mountain in the dark with knee deep snow, could not have gone anywhere had I been able to get out. Nothing was available to sooth his pain. For over an hour his fit held him non stop, as I held him  loving him and attempting to comfort him and keep him from hurting himself his last breath was taken quivering in my arms gasping for air. I placed Panda on his bed from his puppy days, wrapped him in my favorite dog blanket, placed him in a plastic box, and carried him out into the night cold. There would be no burial until the ground thawed.

Absolutely, furious with the criminal, corrupt, heinous malicious way the Government had treated us. From the moment they fraudulently denied the loan application till more than a year later, after more fraud, constant lying by Government personnel, numerous intentional efforts to deny due process, ignoring the law and their own rules, even committing perjury See the blog post Lies, Lying, Liar all in a days work at the USDA. Then a court in which the judge acted and ruled like their defense attorney. I wasn’t sure then, but; I knew something didn’t smell kosher. I had all I could take at the minute, I believe the degree with which I held my composure was actually impressive. After much contemplation I fired off an email addressed to the three  individuals who had been negligent, fraudulent, and criminal in the denial of the Farm Loan. It said:

“Tonight,

I lost a family member and will for all eternity hold you all personally accountable!!!!! ” 

I meant it then, I mean it now.

Within a week I was getting calls from HomeLand Security. I had all the Government relations I ever cared to encounter, still mad and suspect of the judge,I was afraid I might lose my composure so I simply ignored the calls. Then came the threatening one, Mr. Julian the email you sent to FSA could be considered a criminal threat, I want to talk with you. Don’t make me “hunt” you down. We had to put all FSA offices in lockdown.  I responded to that call by blocking the phone number permanently. Although, that was not the last time I would hear from Homeland Security. I had absolutely no trust left in Government, or the Judiciary. It had all come to look like a big mafia extortion operation where a civilian’s constitutional rights where just a big hoax and when it comes to the Government the law simply doesn’t apply. It’s quite frightening to find a Federal Judge criminally protecting individuals for crimes.

Having never set foot in a courtroom as anything other than an observer, I was nervous and intimidated by the Court. Judge Jackson l. Kiser made sure I was. I might say something here I’ cannot prove because, I contend the court’s transcripts are not accurate. Specifically, I believe many things Judge Kiser said were intentionally left out or altered in the transcripts. When I went through the transcripts looking for a few specific items which had really caught my attention during the hearing they were not there. I called and asked about what I could do, if I believed they were not accurate and was told, I would have to take that up with none other than Judge Jackson L. Kiser. Well, I knew then this judge was interested in protecting the government and making the claim his words had been altered was not going to improve my standing, I dropped the issue then and there although, I pointed my believes out later.

When Judge Kiser released his first opinion it was obvious the extent he would go to protect criminals in government. The entire opinion was from my perspective written as if by the defendant’s attorney. The thing is entirely written for deceit, deception, intentional misrepresentation and dotted with outright lies and numerous pointed attempts to be intimidating and condescending even when the statements are lame and not in accordance with the law. See the blog post : “A Question of Corruption?” It concerns me greatly to contemplate, how may judicial clerks Judge Kiser taught his criminal methods and behavior to.

Judge Kiser got ticked off when he ASS U ME D  I  called him a criminal corrupt liar. see blog post Response to Reply for Sanctions. He assumed it then, now I stand by that as a fact, as long as I get to present my evidence to a jury. The way I understand it the greatest defense for libel is that it’s true. But, I won’t settle for letting a judge decide that, the 4th circuit has already shown just what a buddy system the judiciary is.  He accused me then of making a veiled criminal threat when I said “May each of you find your place in Hell much sooner than you thought!”  see the blog post: Today a special Warm Christmas Cheer!

After Judge Kiser’s assumption, he sent a U.S. Marshall with a summons to appear in court. Interesting thing, spend taxpayer dollars for the sole purpose of intimidation. See, thing is the summons he sent was for a date, and time, for which a court appearance was already scheduled and confirmed. This can be proven by the court docket, unless Judge Kiser has  altered that too. Furthermore, If you look at the photo I took of the Marshall delivering that summons you can see I’m holding another court document that shows I was due in court on the same day as the summons in from the Marshall. I also recorded our conversation on the matter. See the blog post “Judge Jackson L. Kiser sends U.S. Marshall with comments on my Blog.” 

Well, I have to say heading to court for that final appearance was actually quite frightening, I believed then as I do now, Judge Jackson L. Kiser is a criminal and a corrupt judge. Not much fun to face a Judge you know is venomously mad, and has the power to put you in prison. He used his power – cowardice  to repeatedly threaten me with contempt every time I pointed out his transgression of the law and justice. I told the court to make sure that transcript was completely accurate, they responded by not delivering it in time for me to use any of it in my Appeal. Intentional delay? I had requested express delivery but did not receive the transcript timely, were they just being careful ? Love to know the behind the scenes reality of that fact.

The point to this post  and the last is setting the stage for the next and then the next, when is a threat actually a criminal offense? These facts, homeland security stating I made a criminal threat, judge Kiser’s statement my christmas cheer could be taken as a veiled criminal threat, sending a U.S. Marshall as intimidation, repeated warnings for contempt, and especially the numerous calls from Homeland Security had me lookup what I could find on what makes a threat criminal?

Hope you’ll read the next post, anatomy of a criminal threat. I promise I’m building up to make an interesting point.

blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

@blueridgespring

blueridgesprings on instagraham.

Dumb and Dumber,  Judges Don’t Know English!

Dumb and Dumber, Judges Don’t Know English!

There’s a long story on how and why I came to apply for a Farm loan with the Farms Services Agency (FSA) / USDA and I’ll leave that for another post. It was the only financing option available as a result of the mortgage crisis when the application was made. Important to note, in addition to three years farming experience, it’s also a condition of eligibility for an FSA Farm loan to be unable to obtain credit-financing elsewhere.

Two and half years later and still not able to secure financing to finish a half built house on 24 acres of land, that’s debt free. All the work that went into six years of business development, is all but lost. It would take a minimum of three years to restore the lost effort although it can now never be recovered. There’s simply no way to ever recoup the lost opportunity

I allege that in processing of the loan application FSA/ USDA personnel were negligent. That they failed completely to follow their required procedures. That they attempted with fraud and mail fraud to have the application dropped for compliance issues and when that failed they drafted a declination letter with fraudulent explanations expecting they would never be questioned. However, they were mistaken an I will not stop my pursuit to hold them accountable and responsible until I have justice and vengeance.

Just about everything that’s occurred after that’s been a conspiracy of the USDA’s racketeering enterprise “by design” to cover up the agencies negligence and the criminal acts of Farm Service loan officer James Rigney and Farm Service Loan Manager Ronald Kraszewski. Herein after referred to as dumb and dumber. This conspiracy and cover up is to avoid accountability and responsibility and financial damages caused by the criminal acts of these two individuals and the extraordinary negligent mismanagement of FSA personnel by USDA management.

I read all the loan requirements I was aware of, and as an accountant, the explanations being given for denial of the application were highly dubious, suspicious. Basically, the three reasons given for denial were:

  1. I wanted to pay myself to work on capital improvements, which dumb and dumber termed as a request for living expenses.
  2. My house was not modest is size cost and design ”i.e. too big”.
  3. I was trying to refinance debt I did not have.

Basically this is how the denial explanations of dumb and dumber have been justified through mediation, pre administrative hearing, administrative hearing, director review, federal district court, fourth circuit court of appeals, and denial of certiorari by the supreme court of the united states.

The first reason was found to be erroneous by the hearing officer in the administrative hearing, although, we’re certain that determination occurred even before the hearing. We pointed out to dumb and dumber at mediation the farm service loan handbook covered a loan recipient paying himself to work on capital improvements and the agency referred to it as the borrower method. Dumb and dumber at the time appeared completely caught off guard by that fact. Interesting. it’s a reference line in the handbook directing the loan officer to refer to another handbook.

The third reason was dropped in the administrative pre hearing. Dumb and dumber believed if I paid myself to work on capital improvements, I was paying myself living expenses, and somehow that was refinancing debt. The accountant in me found this extremely laughable but, also incredibly ignorant and negligent of the agency and the loan officer; negligent of the agency for putting individuals in the position of loan review without proper training. Ignorant of the loan officer because, he had never obtained the credit report which I paid an upfront fee for the agency to acquire and which showed I had no outstanding loans.

From these items, the fact these individuals had not been properly trained, the fraudulent nature of the declination letter, the prior attempt to fraudulently dismiss the loan application, the failure to follow their prescribed procedures, the specifics around the logic for item two which I researched. It’s seemed apparent it was just a point blank effort to find fraudulent justification for denying the loan.

The handbook reference dumb relied on for reason two is badly written, technically based on the English language incomprehensible, furthermore, it was taken out of context and simply does not say what the enterprise says it does. The enterprise has conspired in order to protect themselves from monetary damages for all the torts committed by dumb, dumber, the USDA, and others.

So when it comes right down to it in a court of law. What should really matter is what does the law say that would be Title 7 section 1923 and how has the Agency interpreted the law with their promulgated regulation which is 7 CFR 764.151. With regard to my house not being modest in size cost and design there is nothing in the law or the regulation stating that. The administrative hearing officer, the National Appeals Division (NAD) director, and four Federal judges[1] have relied on the agencies interpretation of the law, which is promulgated for public reference and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as 7 CFR 764.151 which states as follows:

  • 764.151   Farm Ownership loan uses.

 FO loan funds may only be used to:

(a) Acquire or enlarge a farm or make a down payment on a farm;

(b) Make capital improvements to a farm owned by the applicant, for construction, purchase or improvement of farm dwellings, service buildings or other facilities and improvements essential to the farming operation. In the case of leased property, the applicant must have a lease to ensure use of the improvement over its useful life or to ensure that the applicant receives compensation for any remaining economic life upon termination of the lease;

(c) Promote soil and water conservation and protection;

(d) Pay loan closing costs;

(e) Refinance a bridge loan if the following conditions are met:

(1) The applicant obtained the loan to be refinanced to purchase a farm after a direct FO was approved;

(2) Direct FO funds were not available to fund the loan at the time of approval;

(3) The loan to be refinanced is temporary financing; and

(4) The loan was made by a commercial or cooperative lender.

Here is a link to this government regulation on the ecfr.gov site.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=038c46f00a6aab43f60688a7f2625bfd&mc=true&node=se7.7.764_1151&rgn=div8

Specifically, as it relates to my case the hearing officer, director, and four federal judges have upheld that the USDA is entitled to “deference” to interpret the regulation at 7 CFR 764.151(b) to say making capital improvements to my house with farm loan proceeds is not allowed because the size of my house makes the improvement not essential to the farming operation. In the words of Superior Federal district court judge Jackson L. Kiser in his memorandum opinion docket # 78 08/15/2015 on the bottom of page 7. Judge Jackson L. Kiser justifies his opinion and granting the USDA deference in interpretation of this promulgated regulation as follows:

“The applicable regulations state that FO funds may only be used on “improvements essential to the farming operation.” 7 C.F.R. § 764.151(b) (emphasis added).”

This interpretation was upheld by the 4th circuit court of appeals!

I state for the record unequivocally and given a trial by jury will defend the allegation this is nothing short of an intentional lie to protect the criminal acts of Government employees and to protect the racketeering enterprise operated by the USDA. Understand folks the financial and personal losses caused by this are equivalent to terrorism, torture, and rape.

I contend the Federal Judiciary has criminally and unconstitutionally aided and abetted the USDA’s racketeering enterprise with the use of unconstitutional deference as in this case for decades. [2]

I further contend this goes beyond deference its an intentional misrepresentation and false statement of the plain language of the regulation and the relevant statute it represents.

The regulation plainly says “OR” here it is again abbreviated

“Make capital improvements to a farm owned by the applicant, for construction, purchase or
improvement of farm dwellings, service buildings or other facilities and improvements essential to the farming operation.”

For the enlightenment of these criminal federal judges the definition of the term “OR” by Merriam Webster online dictionary is:

“ 1 —used as a function word to indicate an alternative , the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases , or approximation or uncertainty 2 archaic : either.”

It means you can do this or that, not this is dependant on that.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/or

Lets try a little substitution shall we:

“Make capital improvements to a farm owned by the applicant, for construction, purchase alternatively improvement of farm dwellings, service buildings alternatively other facilities and improvements essential to the farming operation.”

When I first looked at this regulation, I did not believe it meant all capital improvements, construction, purchases, or improvements to farm dwellings needed to be essential to the farming operation. I consulted with numerous individuals prior even to requesting mediation and starting with ask.com. Ask a lawyer. Here is the actual text of that conversation and I will add that two more lawyers, an English major with a masters in English, and two farmer advocates, all affirmed this interpretation before we had ever attended meditation.

“JACUSTOMER-ec2m6j9z- :

Does 151b indicate that if the FO is for a farm already owned it can be used for basically any capital improvements?

ScottyMacEsq :

Yes. One of the rules of statutory construction is to look for “and” and “or” signifiers. “Make [capital improvements to a farm owned by the applicant], for [construction], [[purchase] or [improvement] of farm dwellings, service buildings or other facilities] and [improvements essential to the farming operation].” Basically any of these can be the basis for Farm Ownership Loan

ScottyMacEsq :

So capital improvements to a farm owned by the applicant is one such possibility, as is construction of farm dwellings, as is construction of service buildings, as is construction of other facilities… and so on and so forth….

JACUSTOMER-ec2m6j9z- :

Does the last statement and improvements essential to the farming operation mean that all of the above must be essential or that those of premise must be?

JACUSTOMER-ec2m6j9z- :

off premise

ScottyMacEsq :

No. It’s more of a “catch all” provision, that “improvements essential to the farming operation” is an additional category that can have an FO loan. That is, there could be improvements that are not farm dwellings, service buildings or “facilities” that could still be “improvements” essential to the farming operation.

ScottyMacEsq :

So the FO loan can still be used for improvements that might not fall under a dwelling, service building, or other facility…

ScottyMacEsq :

For instance, farm dwellings are not “essential” to the farming operation, as farming operations don’t require anyone to live on the premises.

ScottyMacEsq :

So an alternate reading would not make any sense.

JACUSTOMER-ec2m6j9z- :

That was my interpretation as well thank you for your confirmation.”

End

So you tell me why did the USDA personnel and four Federal judges come to a different conclusion? Who benefits from their false and erroneous interpretations? Government ?

Tell me America which interpretation do you believe is correct?

PLEASE  Leave a comment in the reply box on the bottom of the blog and Vote: For ask .com or For Federal Government employees. Which source do you believe? 

As you consider this question America keep in mind that failure to follow the law, and failure to provide due process are a violation of Federal Law. Yes a felony and so would be aiding and abetting a criminal racketeering enterprise in the commission of its stated objectives.

I say Indeed, Anti-Federalists who sought limits on Article III for much the same reason they sought a bill of rights (especially those protections relating to judicial procedures) were right when they feared that courts—especially courts of the new and powerful national government—could become instruments of tyranny. Elbridge Gerry, who refused to sign the Constitution, said that his principal objection was “that the judicial department will be oppressive.”[3]

In further support of my argument its well established law that provided a promulgated regulation is ambiguous the Federal Courts are to place reliance on the plain language of the relevant statute as written by the legislature. Here is the plain language statute that 7 CFR 764.151 is designed to interpret codified in Title 7 section 1923.

  • 1923. Purposes of loans

 (a) Allowed purposes 

(1) Direct loans

A farmer or rancher may use a direct loan made under this subchapter only for-

(A) acquiring or enlarging a farm or ranch;

(B) making capital improvements to a farm or ranch;

(C) paying loan closing costs related to acquiring, enlarging, or  improving a farm or ranch;

(D) paying for activities to promote soil and water conservation and protection described in section 1924 of this title on a farm or ranch; or

(E) refinancing a temporary bridge loan made by a commercial or cooperative lender to a farmer or rancher for the acquisition of land for a farm or ranch, if-

(i) the Secretary approved an application for a direct farm ownership loan to the farmer or rancher for acquisition of the land; and

(ii) funds for direct farm ownership loans under section 1994(b) of this title were not available at the time at which the application was approved.

Please make note this statute as written makes absolutely no mention of any requirement that any use of funds be essential to farming. Nor does it suggest a use for “other facilities and improvements essential to the farming operation” !

Here is a Link to this title and sectionhttp://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title7/chapter50/subchapter1&edition=prelim

Yes I allege that these four Federal Judges are corrupt and have committed a crime of injustice. I have asked the President to preform his duty under the take care clause as the only way to hold Federal Judges accountable to the law. Why would they do this. To protect their own? To protect the Judiciary which has been granting this type of deference without allowing for jury review as the constitution requires? Because the DOJ aided this enterprise as well? Because this enterprise includes NAD another bunch of lawyers. Or was it simply because they know who pays their salary?

Corrupt Federal Agencies aided by Corrupt Federal courts. This is not Constitutional not Democracy! Not American!

I’ll have Justice and Vengeance “or” Justice or Vengeance but according to these four federal judges there really isn’t “Any” deference oh and “Any doesn’t mean “Any” Anymore! See my blog posts for clarification on that and more.

Chris Julian – Pro-Se

[1] Hearing Officer Jerry L. King, NAD director Roger Klurfeld, Superior Federal judge Jackson L. Kiser, 4th CA Senior judge Clyde H. Hamilton, 4th CA judge Robert B. King, and 4th CA judge Barbara Milano Keenan

[2] See the recent blog post blueridgesprings.wordpress.com Supreme Court sells out constitutional obligation to the American People. Also see SCOTUS comments on deference in Whitman v. United States, 574 U.S. (November 10, 2014), Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (March 9, 2015) and United States V. Kwai Fun Wong (April 22, 2015)

[3] Quoted in Charles Warren, New Light on the History of the Federal Judi- ciary Act of 1789, 37 Harv. L. Rev. 49, 54 (1923).

Any doesn’t mean Any Anymore!

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 to 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 American’s. 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, who 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 complete text:

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

This argument makes these primary points.

  1.  An enterprise can be an association of any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.
  2. The Supreme Court has admonished courts to construe RICO and in particular “Enterprise” expansively.
  3.  With few exceptions the circuit courts of appeals adhere to this admonition.
  4. 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 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:

  1. 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.
  2. The largest category of criminal RICO prosecutions involved political corruption.
  3. The Supreme Court in Angelilli viewed the RICO language as unambiguously encompassing governmental units.
  4. The Supreme Court found 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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:

  1. The Supreme Court articulated the evidentiary criteria of an associated-in-fact enterprise under RICO in Turkette, 452 U.S. at 580-593.
  2. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 foot notes 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).2 This 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:

  1. Unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise.
  2. The Statute does not define the outer boundaries of the “enterprise” concept but states that the term includes any —-.
  3. Included enterprises “is obviously broad, encompassing any” ensures that the definition has a wide reach.
  4. 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 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 Employees 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.

  1. The Supreme Court believes it was Congresses intent with the use of self-conscious expansive language to imply RICO was to be read and applied broadly.
  2. RICO is to be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes.
  3. The Supreme Court of the U.S. believes the statutes “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 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 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 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 severly 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 Wikipiedia has a nice overview and the provisions use 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. The mechanism chosen to reach the objective in both the Clayton Act and RICO is the carrot of treble damages.
  4. The Court expressed the Opinion that the extraordinarily broad and flexible remedies ought to be used more extensively against the legitimate business activities of organized crime.

Perhaps not when the organized criminal 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 5th 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.3  Id., 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 Opinon 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 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Civil RICO specifically has a “further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate”).
  4.  The provision for treble damages is justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity.
  5. Eliminating racketeering should be pursued the sooner the better.
  6. 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 its run by the government.

In Summary of this quoted precedent on the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act ‘RICO’ lets begin by reviewing the statements, 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 have great flexibility in its use which congress dictated by the use of the word includes. Blakey further emphasized that a 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 be 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 sub committee 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 it’s 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 the 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. Its would be counter productive 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’s 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 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 5th amendment to the constitution.

This is the “Federal” Courts 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 are traitors to the people for allowing the evocation of the FTCA with it’s theft of my private property rights and granting the opportunity for this RICO “enterprise” which is designed for the usurpation of the courts 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!

Its 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

  1. 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 Governments 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