If America’s political dichotomy shifts from left-vs-right to populist-vs-establishment, watch out!

Read through my blog and you will find how very real this is!!

Robert A. Vella's avatarThe Secular Jurist

The recent scandals surrounding the NSA surveillance operations and the DOJ crackdowns on whistle-blowers, confidential leaks, and journalistic sources, are providing common ground between the political forces usually opposed to each other – the progressive left and the libertarian right.  Both are taking sides against the federal government’s abuse of constitutional authority after revelations about its omnipotent surveillance apparatus, and intimidation tactics against anyone who would reveal its secrets, have been made public.  While the principled outrage of progressives and libertarians is not yet generally shared amongst the larger, more pragmatically-oriented population, their impromptu confluence on these issues must be of great concern for those who occupy the seats of power in America.

Revolutions don’t happen when either the political left or right gain enough strength to overthrow the current government.  When that does happen, as it did in 1930’s Germany and on countless other occasions, it is more akin…

View original post 509 more words

Did The Federal Courts Lie  Abusing  Juris My Diction Crap!

Did The Federal Courts Lie Abusing Juris My Diction Crap!

Have you seen the Matrix? In the movie humans are asleep truly living their lives in a dream world created and controlled by the MATRIX, a fantasy world created by super computers running at Quantum speed. The people sustained, in a constant state of sleep, while the computer uses them as a source of thermal energy.

The irony of this is just how much it mirrors the current state of existence for all Americans. Americans live in a country where they believe their protected by the rule of law, and the Government is protecting them, and their free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

The reality though is the media controls all that we know. They control what is reported on the nightly news, what stories we read and hear. They feed US all with grand illusions of truth and justice or of imminent threat and fear. However, the reality for most is like the movie, really something quite different. This is an example of a true story of criminal corruption in the highest levels of government and the Federal Courts, A story the media will not report. Why ?

The US Government has for decades now kept the bulk of society in a downward spiral of prosperity. Declining standards of living and opportunity, increasing debt loads and ever higher and higher taxation. We are the thermal fuel of the US Government Matrix suffering extortion at ever accelerating rates of taxation on lower incomes and continually declining buying power.

The Federal, State, and Local Governments are extorting from all of us through taxation. Those in power and the 1% get ever more decadent, ever more rich, while 99% of us grow ever poorer and dependent on crumbs.

An early line in the Matrix is “If your gonna give me that Juris my diction crap you can cram it” where the sun don’t shine! This piece is all about the US Federal Courts use of that Juris my diction crap and how in the Matrix the law is not really applicable. Just like Trinity right after that line, she defies the rules of gravity, time, and space. In our Matrix, its the rule of law, the Constitution, and Justice which are inexplicably inapplicable and inaccessible in the U.S. Federal Courts against Government corruption.

This whole story is a long and complex, and it’s yet to have played out. However, as I blog about the issues I’m building a record for the book. This piece covers why I say the Federal Courts have perpetrated a lie about their lack of jurisdiction to aid an abet the USDA’s criminal racketeering operations.That’s correct folks I believe the Federal District Court and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ignored federal law in violation of federal law to protect a criminal unconstitutional racketeering enterprise run by the USDA.

In September 2013 I filed a civil lawsuit case # 4:13-cv-00054 WDVA against the USDA and seven federal employees of USDA and one employee of the University of Virginia mediation program for racketeering under Chapter 18 1961,1962.1964.1968. I alleged the USDA is operating a criminal conspiracy designed to usurp individual constitutional rights and to protect employees from accountability and responsibility for crimes against civilians avoiding financial damages resulting from their criminal activities and torts.

In March 2014 The Federal District Court Judge Jackson L. Kiser ruled he lacked jurisdiction to hear these allegations because, I failed to invoke the Federal Tort Claims Act “FTCA” and had not requested permission from the racketeer influenced corrupt organization “USDA”, permission to sue the USDA et al  for being corrupt. Although, I had in writing from the agency all administrative requirements had been exhausted.. see Mr. President all that’s necessary for the triumph of government evil is for those in power to do nothing. 

I allege, this was a criminal act by the Federal district court and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, intentionally ignoring federal law, federal precedent, and the federal rules of civil procedure, as well as, a breach by these Judges of their judicial oaths of office.

It amounts to an intentional act to aid and abet a criminal enterprise operating in the highest levels of the Executive branche of Government. This operation is owned, operated, and maintained by the Secretary of Agriculture! Currently Tom Vilsack!

First Chapter 18 U.S.C. 1965(a) states “Any civil action or proceeding under this chapter against any person may be instituted in the district court of the United States for any district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.”

Second to quote the Department of Justice”DOJ” guide to civil RICO: Page 79

” Section 1331 of Title 28, United States Code, provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” and hence confers subject matter jurisdiction upon federal district courts to hear a claim arising from an alleged violation of a federal law or statute(i.e., a federal question). Therefore,federal district courts are empowered to hear civil claims arising from and alleged violation of the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. section 1961 . See e.g., Rolls-Royce Motors, Inc. v. Charles Schmitt & Co., 657. Supp. 1040, 1055(S.D.N.Y. 1987).”

Third. The 10% of the case that proceeded unlawfully did so under 5 U.S.C. Section 701 to the plaintiffs objection as the case was not filed nor contained argument for this intent. The Court however, ignored what the law actually said and granted the USDA deference to change the word “or’ to “and”. In other words they choose to ignore the letter of the law.

Supreme Court justices have documented their believe this is unconstitutional and is the prevue of the Jury or Judge in Civil and Criminal proceedings. The very challenge our case made to the Supreme Court..

The original case filing requested that a jury decide whether the USDA followed its own regulations. A constitutional right to a jury trial. A constitutional right for the people to judge not only if the law was broken but if the law is fair and just. A prime intent of the founding fathers to maintain checks and balance on Government tyranny.

Furthermore, 5 .U.S.C 702 states the right of review under Section 701 states: “A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.” 18 U.S.C. 1961 is a relevant statute when the crimes have been committed!

The Supreme court stated in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp 397 U.S. 150(1970) ID. at 153-54. that it interpreted the Administrative Procedure Act provision that “any person aggrieved” can seek judicial review as creating a right to appeal as a private attorney general. A civil suit brought by a private individual under Chapter 18 1961 is provided with private attorney general status.

“The Congressional Statement of Findings and Purpose underlying RICO explains that, among other things, RICO was designed to combat activities that weaken the stability of the Nation’s economic system, harm innocent investors and competing organizations, interfere with free competition, seriously burden interstate and foreign commerce, threaten the domestic security, and undermine the general welfare of the Nation and its citizens . . . . Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat., at 922, 923. Indeed, Congress created RICO to provide new and expanded criminal and civil remedies to vindicate the public’s interest in combating racketeering activity and “to free the channels of commerce” from such unlawful conduct.”

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

The law clearly states that a suit under this chapter is for injury to an individuals business or property. It is not a suit for the Negligence, Fraud, and Obstruction of justice, and theft of constitutional rights that are the TORTS in this case. It is therefor a suit for the conspiracy to operate and engage  in a criminal racketeering enterprise. How then does an individual lack jurisdiction for failing to invoke the Federal TORT claims ACT?

I told the court the premise itself is unconstitutional. When a plaintiff alleges the Agency is operating a racketeer influenced corrupt organization. It’s unconstitutional to require that the plaintiff ask permission, as required by the FTCA, of the racketeer to sue the racketeer for operating a racketeer influenced corrupt organization. This is simply unfair and beyond common right or reason and therefore a violation of due process!

It’s also unconstitutional because, it results in a taking of the personal property rights to treble damages and attorneys fees granted by congress to private citizens under rico. A right provided as an incentive for private citizens to undertake pursuing this type of crime in government where prosecutorial gaps exists.The  DOJ is prohibited from undertaking action aganist a government agency. It is a conflict of interest since their required to defend them. Private attorney general is a right granted only to civilian non attorneys.

The courts have consistently held in all prior precedent that a RICO enterprise is not protected by sovereign immunity as the FTCA would imply see:  The Words of Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in United States of America v. Lawrence E. Warner and George H. Ryan, Sr. (2007) p 72-75 

See 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 the activities that corrupt public or governmental entities.”), cert . denied, 455 U.S. 910 (1982); See also G. Robert Blakely, 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. See also 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 that was the victim of corrupt office holders’ pattern of racketeering activity.

Similarly, the Supreme Court has explained, in the context of a private right granted by federal statute, “Where a private right is granted in the public interest to effectuate a legislative policy, waiver of a right so charged or colored with the public interest will not be allowed where it would thwart the legislative policy which it was designed to effectuate.” Brooklyn Savs. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 704 (1945). See also Tompkins v. United Healthcare of New England, Inc., 203 F.3d 90, 97 (1st Cir. 2000) (“[a] statutory right may not be disclaimed if the waiver could ‘do violence to the public policy underlying the legislative enactment.’”)

As a General Rule RICO is Not Preempted by Other Statutes.(i.e. FTCA) The issue whether other statutes pre-empt RICO charges has arisen in both civil and criminal RICO cases. This issue is addressed in OCRS’ Civil RICO Manual (Oct. 2007) at 272-82. Briefly, RICO was designed to augment existing civil and criminal remedies, and therefore, RICO, as a general rule is not pre-empted by other, even more specific statutes. See at 273-74, 276 and notes 289 and 291.

I allege that Federal District Judge Jackson L. Kiser of the Federal District Court of VA Danville knowingly violated Federal Law 42 U.S.C. 1983 “ with his ruling and opinion in this case on March 24th 2014. 

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, 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, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

I further Allege Judge Clyde H. Hamilton, Robert B. King, and Barbra M. Keenan of the fourth circuit court of appeals in their supporting opinion of Judge Kisers ruling have intentionally also violated Federal Law 42 U.S.C. 1983 ” and have done so intentionally adding and abetting  a criminal racketeering operation owned and operated by the U.S. Government for the tyranny and oppression of the people for the sole purpose of preserving the enterprises criminal activities.

The operation of a criminal enterprise specifically designed for the Obstruction of Constitutional rights which violates multiple federal statutes is an act of treason on the Constitution and in this instant case Americas farmers. These judges have supported a war on the constitution and are also guilty of treason not just misprision of treason U.S.C 2382.

I Find nothing more hypocritical, despotic, or insideous than a Judge protecting criminals in Government interfering with free competition, seriously burdening interstate and foreign commerce, threatening the domestic security, and undermining the general welfare of the Nation and its citizens! But, Most of all is the blatant undermining of the the Constitution of the United States and the Judiciary’s obligation to protect the people from tyranny by enforcing the Governments laws on the Government that enacts them.

In Supreme Court petition 14-1051 question one was

  1. Is a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) enterprise operating in and by a Federal Agency protected from civil suit for violation of the RICO act Chapter 18 §1964(c) for violations of  1961 and §1962 (a-d) by sovereign immunity or provisions of the Federal Tort Claims FTCA?

The Supreme court denied petition 14-1051 which presented a federal question to the court it has never addressed. Furthermore, I believe the court knew the plaintiffs constitutional rights had been violated, but, denied the petition to protect the Governments continued criminal enterprise. An enterprise that has operated with federal courts support of deference for decades now. You can see more on the courts recent opinions on deference in this blogs post  How do you justify calling the Supreme Court Justices Traitors of “We The People” So much for JUSTICE! 

Justice Louis Brandeis offered this view ‘”Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).”

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

-Declaration of Independence, 1776

The U.S. Government is breaking it’s own laws aided and abetted by corruption in the Federal Courts! They have in effect supported a U.S. Government operation for the despotic  tyranny and oppression of the American Farmer.

I stand by calling the Supreme Court Justices Traitors to “We The People” !

Chris Julian – Pro-Se

Do you know the one thing, The one thing you always know?

Do you know the one thing, The one thing you always know?

I’ve been working lately assimilating factual information about presumptions, assumptions, and lies. There’s been no shortage of these inspirations for blogging provided by the Federal District Court experience; in my lawsuit against RICO USDA for racketeering. Continuing efforts to sue the USDA for racketeering in Federal District Court has provided far more inspiration from presumptions, assumptions, deceit, deception, and outright lies and obstruction than I would’ve ever imagined in a court of law. Reading through the Court’s latest Opinions inspired me to preempt my many blog additions under draft with this editorial.

Once many years ago my brother asks me a silly question. While I’m not clear on its relevance here it comes to mind. He said: Is it presumable to assume that assume assimilates presume or does presume to assimilate the assumption or is it all just presumptive?

Presumption

How naively I’ve walked through life, brainwashed by television, believing court was about facts, truth, honor, and justice. Then believing court offered an opportunity to address grievances with facts, present your evidence, expose the truth with honor, and have justice prevail with those who broke the law being held accountable. It never dawned on me that a Federal District Court would allow for the scales of justice to be shifted by the injustice of presumption without evidence, assumptions, deceit, deception, and misrepresentation along with outright lies rather than the presentation of factual evidence and the truth. After all, Judges sit on the bench and ask witnesses to swear to tell the truth the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Right? Judges I believe and expect to have, hold and honor the highest in moral and ethical standards, Judges are expected to base their decisions on facts, not fiction, on truth and not lies, and on the presentation of evidence to support reasonable grounds for a presumption rather than purely on assumption.  On sound solid logic, not assumptive and fallacious interpretations.  Judges are expected to demonstrate the utmost diligence in finding of facts to conclude the truth and adherence to the law in enforcing justice. Judges are expected to remain neutral.

Assumption

Perhaps Courts might be far more bastions of truth and justice if we opened the door and exposed them to the public light, exposing judges’ actions to public scrutiny, requiring all court hearings to be recorded and taped. After all, are Judges not civil servants who should be held responsible, and accountable to the people, and the society they serve? Would not the presence of cameras and recorders simply incent them to greater accountability for truth, justice, and equal justice for all? Would it also not protect them from the human condition to succumb to their own egos, biases, and corruption?

Assimilate Truth

Like all of those individuals named in my lawsuit against the USDA for racketeering, the U.S. Attorney, the Virginia State Attorney, the Judge, his court, and the Virginia State University employees involved, are civil servants. All are accountable to the people, all subject to public scrutiny while they rely on public funding to provide them jobs in civil service. I find it a civic duty to expose them one and all, to hold them one and all publicly accountable and responsible for their every misrepresentation, every lie, and every deceitful and deceptive action they take in their public service. I have no tolerance for liars, no tolerance for injustice served on the people by servants who take sustenance from the public trust and use it against the public they are paid to serve. I will relinquish no restraint in publicly naming these individuals now or in the future or in exposing anything I find unethical or any transgression of service. I intend to combine the contents of my blog and the entire story with full disclosure of all relevant facts from every source I have in a future publication. Any individual holding a job through Local, State, or Federal employees should expect to have their name disclosed along with a factual representation of their deeds and my personal opinions and observations of how a preponderance of the factual evidence might be interpreted.

I’ve worked with executives of major financial institutions, and migrant workers who’ve spent their whole lives in the field, I’ve worked with Fishermen, Carpenters, Electricians, Accountants, Programmers, Doctors, Nurses, and migrant workers. I’ve personally known and worked with very wealthy people and very poor individuals and I’ve encountered good and bad people from all walks of life.

The best mentor, I ever had was a veteran serviceman who taught me to take pride in my work, to be the best I could be, to do the best job I could do, and to be honest no matter what others did and I would always be able to have respect and honor for myself. He also taught me a saying I truly believe to be an esoteric truth, all men should learn to heed. He said: “There’s one thing you always know and that is you never know”. People who grew up wealthy can’t know the challenges of truly being poor, poor people can’t know the challenges of being rich. No one can ever know what it’s like to stand in your shoes or ever have more than a glimpse of the history that makes you, who you are. So before making assumptions, before you get to presumptive before you pass judgment you should always ask yourself the question, what is it that I may not know, what is it I might need to know because everyone should remember they can’t ever really know unless they’re blind in which case they never see the light to know what they only thought they knew. I call them Egidiots, egos so large it gets in the way of their intellect making them do idiotic (stupid) things.

The Truth can be told. Lies once written never erased. Facts can allude to the truth or lead to assumptions not grounded in truth, only, by disclosure of all the facts does one learn the truth. We all know the old saying when you assume you make an ASS out of You and ME. But, neither facts nor the truth go away, simply, because they are ignored.

So before you make judgments about people or situations best to have as many facts as you can and ask yourself the question; what is it, I may not know, because you never know too much, you never know everything, and you should know you never know. Don’t be an ASS. Don’t be an Egidiot. You just might not know everything.

You know

Everyone is free to believe what

Everyone is free to believe what he or she tells himself or herself to believe. But facts don’t lie. So be sure before you lie to yourself that you know the facts.

Federal Court is not what you would expect. Let’s take a look at a few prime examples provided by the U.S. Attorney General’s Office of Western Virginia represented by Kartic Padmanabhan in the Federal District Court of Virginia Danville Division. Mr. Padmanabhan recently represented the USDA defendants in a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization RICO lawsuit. Mr. Padmanabhan made a number of statements, which were very interesting to a Pro-Se victim for the first time ever in a courtroom.

Is a lie, a lie if you don’t know it’s a lie? Is it a lie if you claim you did not know you were lying? Ask a Federal Court Judge but find one that’s not a liar. Don’t ask an attorney they have to be liars they never know which side of a case they’ll be representing.

Mr. Padmanabhan has a job with an interesting parody to it. On the one hand, the DOJ prosecutes civilian criminals and occasionally government employees when they come under the scrutiny of Congress or the Senate. However, on the other side of the coin, the DOJ defends civil servants and Government Agencies who commit crimes against the people.

Interesting parody prosecutes criminal civilians and defends civil servants for the same crimes.

So here are a few questions to consider? Is it a crime for an attorney from the DOJ to lie to a federal court judge in a hearing? Is it a lie if you really don’t know you lying? How about, is it a lie if you sure as hell; should have known the truth about a material fact in a case?

Interesting because I’m not sure whether Mr. Padmanabhan was just outright lying to a Federal Court judge, or he simply had done a criminal job of reviewing the case! Maybe he had a bad memory or perhaps that’s just the way the DOJ operates in protecting bad government actors. Here are a few examples of Mr. Padmanabhan’s performance.

Example 1.

Mr. Padmanabhan made the following statements to the judge you may review the court transcripts here. See the first one is on page 7 top of the last paragraph. The second is on Page 10 center paragraph.

Judicial Review

More Judicial Review

But let’s take a look at what the complaint actually said about judicial review. This is taken directly from the complaint you can view it here see pleading with cover sheer this excerpt is on page 15.  Just how could it be stated any more clearly? But the Government did me a favor by assuming that was the intention.

Complaint Judicial Review

Example 2.

Mr. Padmanabhan tells the Judge plaintiff argues the house is not on the farm property. And the Judge explains that’s a problem with the plaintiff’s argument. Excerpt from the court transcript page 8 last paragraph.  see it here in the Court Trans script Motion Hearing.

House is not on the Farm

House not on farm the court

Court 2 not on the farm

Apparently, more than 7 months after filing the complaint, Mr. Padmanabhan did not read the complaint documents and exhibits or listen to the hearing tapes. The Judge apparently did not read or listen to them either. Why else would they be wrong about a material fact of the case? Yes, this is a material argument falsely represented by the NAD Director Roger Klurfield.

Take a look at this issue in the complaint filing on page 15 item 21. See it Here in Pleading as filed with Coversheet. House is on the FArm

That the house is actually on the farm is documented no less than ten times in the complete filing with exhibits.

Perhaps they got it wrong because the USDA NAD director attempted to justify a major portion of his position with this lie or perhaps this is the lie the NAD director etc. wanted the public to see. After all, only his summary of events goes on the public record.

Example 3. I love this one most of all. “ They acted clearly within the scope of their employment” See it here in the court transcript page 6 center paragraph.

Acted within the scope of their jobs

They’re accused of multiple acts of negligence, fraud, perjury, illegally accessing a credit report, providing inaccurate FOIA responses, discrimination, and violating the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, orchestrating a conspiracy effort to cover it all up. and running a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization.  But “they acted clearly within the scope of their employment.”

The complaint details the date time and major events in order of occurrence. FRCP 9(f) States: “TIME AND PLACE An allegation of time or place is material when testing the sufficiency of a pleading” The pleading provided solid evidence of Fraud, Mail Fraud, and Perjury- Obstruction of justice with exhibits supporting the allegations. It detailed a multitude of other despicable acts involved in protecting the enterprise and the chronology is a pattern all in itself. It provided detail on the Predicate acts for a RICO filing and alleges a conspiracy to do so. It meets every requirement of a RICO filing although, it is not described as such because the court’s instructions were not to make legal arguments and cite cases or statutes. As a Pro-Se I don’t know how you meet the filing requirements of a RICO without making legal arguments and citing appropriate statutes? Can you?

Example 4.

The complaint has a one-line throwaway alleging a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization and no other allegations. See that here in the court transcripts. Page 10 near the bottom.

No mention of RICO

No allegation is other than Negligence, Fraud, Mail Fraud, Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, discrimination, denial of service, FCRA violation, and FOIA violations. A conspiracy and a scheme to still constitutional rights. Look again at the paragraph that states USDA is operating a RICO and keep in mind a RICO is defined by the prerequisite of certain crimes. Mail Fraud and obstruction of justice. That a sequence of events and recurring criminal acts make a pattern and a conspiracy is conducted. And as a matter of FACT, this suit was filed on the docket as a RICO charge on day one.

Pr 24 RICO no other Allegations

This is what the supreme court said was required to state a claim.

State A claim

Everyone is free to believe what he or she tells himself or herself to believe. But facts don’t lie. So be sure before you fool yourself you know the facts. Because this court and this Attorney do not show any evidence of grasping them.