Character
by

Character

On the day of independence, it seems appropriate to reflect on the battles we’ve dared to fight.  To recap the impetus of our pursuit of justice. To highlight for the American people what we do for our country and what our countries have done for us.

We had years of sorted battles with government officials in Patrick County VA, as we began the development of a business in a small rural community. There were many battles, most of them Government driven obstruction to progress, all leading to lengthy and costly delays. In 2012 we learned Government’s implementation of Dodd-Frank would again place a major obstacle in front of our efforts and force us to pursue funding from a USDA farm loan program.

The way we view what happened next goes like this.

The USDA raped my family.

Stole all be it a nominal amount of money from my family.

I committed fraud and mail fraud against my family.

Lied to my family.

Put my family through a process intentionally designed to deny fair procedures.

Lied about my family.

Illegally accessed our credit files committing fraud and mail fraud again in an attempt to cover up the fact they’d not pulled a credit report as procedurally required before denying the farm loan application. An intentional premeditated act of malice and forethought to deny access to a Government funded loan program with the intent to wipe out our business.

Denied fair procedures in a hearing on these matters including the direct denial of presenting evidence the credit report was never obtained as procedurally required.

Imposed post facto law against my family in violation of the procedural rules of retroactivity and in violation of the Constitution.

Operated a racket intentionally designed for the obstruction of justice.

Orchestrated a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

They abused deference by design as part of their racket to write a law to justify the crimes they committed against us.

14 Felonies committed by Government personnel so stated the only lawyer ever to review the case assessed. A lawyer I might add declined to take the case and was later appointed by Obama to U.S. district Attorney for the jurisdiction in which the case was filed.

Federal District Court Judge Jackson L. Kiser violated his oath, the law, the constitution, and the Federal rules of civil procedure to aid and abet this government agency in avoiding accountability for their crimes.

To avoid accountability for the Gross negligent mismanagement of a Government Agency by its management and Congress.

Fourth Circuit Court Judges Clyde H. Hamilton, Robert B. King, and Barbara Milano Keenan, ignored the criminal acts of the USDA and Judge Jackson L. Kiser to protect the Government’s criminal enterprise.

The Court of Federal Claims Judge Edward J. Damich who appears had a role in the creation of this criminal enterprise refused to acknowledge he had taken an oath of office or that he would abide by that oath during proceedings. He declined to hold judge Jackson L. Kiser accountable for violating the trust obligations of his official duties.

The Court of Appeals Federal Circuit Chief Justice Sharon Prost who was Judge Edward J. Damich’s likely boss at the time the enterprise was created and also would’ve played a role in the implementation of the laws which enabled the USDA’s criminal enterprise chose to circumvent a writ of mandamus seeking to ensure our case be heard by an unbiased judge. On appeal, she and Judges Raymond T. Chen, and Kara F. Stoll justified their opinion with precedent on the criminal RICO statute and not on the Civil Statute which provided the monetary damages the filing sought to obtain.  We view this as an intentional act to obstruct justice by forcing a plea to the Supreme Court that rarely ever answered and we believe rarely answered often with the specific intent to deny justice and protect the Governments’ criminal enterprises from the laws of the land.

The American people should realize this is the Government operating a criminal enterprise in violation of federal laws, in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has telegraphed often its belief it operates unconstitutionally publicly and to Congress. Congress knows of the Supreme Courts’ views and while its made efforts to pass laws to stop the lawless abuses it has not gotten one signed into law.

The Supreme Court knowing this is unconstitutional and is being abused is guilty of treason on the Constitution and the American people by allowing it to continue even when challenged in appropriate courts and cases.

The American people need to understand the US Government is acting criminally and the Federal Judiciary is aiding and abetting them in crimes against the American People. These are acts of treason by traitors within our society. So-Called Judges!

These crimes have gone on now for decades and destroyed the life, livelihood, liberty, and happiness of hundreds of thousands of American people. Pointlessly, because, Government-Congress is grossly, negligently, and incompetently, mismanaging the American people’s resources and is unwilling to atone for its crimes and incompetence.

As simply and straightforward as I can say it:

The US Government committed numerous criminal and abusive acts against my family while the Federal Courts have gifted them unconstitutionally with the ability to create a new law to avoid being held accountable for the significant and atrocious damages they caused. Tyranny! which Thomas Jefferson defined as ” that which is legal for the government, but illegal for the citizenry”

The combination of the Governments actions with Dodd-Frank and the specific intent to deny my family access to a Government funded Farm loan have caused untold financial and emotional damages to my family and posterity.

What’s the great American Lie?

No one is above the law! Because Government is above the law when judges with absolute immunity protect them. Judges with absolute immunity are above the law when they refuse to hold one another accountable to it.

Such is the impetus for a War on Government and the Federal Judiciary protecting it from the people they’re supposed to serve. Ask yourself if these judges are aiding, abetting, and protecting a Government Agency and its personnel engaged in a criminal enterprise should they not be removed from the bench for violating their oaths of office? For Treason?

I suggest the American people demand the Government face a Jury Trial!

I suggest the American people demand to know why Mainstream Media has not reported these facts?

I suggest the American people demand to know why these Judges were not held accountable by their Appellate courts?

I suggest if any American doubts the validity of these allegations they put up a jury trial to hear the unabridged evidence and let’s have a public trial mock or otherwise to shine a light on the criminal nature of our Government.  On the oppressive, despotic, ruling tyrant it’s become.

A criminal enterprise owned and operated by the Federal Government aided and abetted by the federal judiciary is treason to the people and the constitution and the reason America must demand an end to immunity protections the Government and the Judiciary have gifted themselves.

If my allegations are true these judges are protecting treason, protecting a criminal government enterprise, protecting criminals, and protecting the hundreds of legislators who signed off on establishing a criminal enterprise to hide their incompetence.

These so-called judges have sided with the enemies of every fallen US soldier and thus have blood on their hands; indelible stains on their integrity, their independence, and their character.

These facts and those surrounding the precursor of Dodd-Frank the subprime financial collapse of 2009 are now before Federal District Court Judge Robert J. Conrad in the Federal District Court of North Carolina Western District case 3:16-cv-173. Judge Conrad has been almost totally silent since this case was filed on April 15,2016, now fourteen months on the docket.

The Government continued denial of fair hearings, of justice; The continuous arbitrary rulings by Government officials “Traitors” is persistent and unrelenting psychological rape. It must be stopped and eliminating immunity protection is key. As Montesquieu said, “there’s no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.”

They claim it’s unfair to attack a judge because they can’t defend themselves. In this case, it doesn’t matter, there simply is no defense for treason, no defense of the Judiciary becoming a coconspirator with congress against We The People. We The People  should not blindly trust and accept the actions of any branch of Government because as Thomas Jefferson said “all history hath shown to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots”

Fourth of July 2017 and we have no independence from the despotism of our corrupted Government kings who’ve gifted themselves and each other to be above the law.

Chief Justice John Roberts on Character; on all the things the Federal Judiciary has given my family.

John Roberts.png

I look forward to the days of enjoying my BBQ.

CB Julian

@Blueridgespring

@blueridgesprings.brsinv.com

Petition for Rehearing Denied
by

Petition for Rehearing Denied

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“to the extent that Plaintiffs now argue that the RICO Act is, itself, a money-mandating statute conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims,4 we hold that it is not.[1] See Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009).“ [2]

This statement of the Court presents numerous issues.

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

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

It was further discussed in Plaintiff’s responsive reply brief Dkt. Item 7 (C) p. 20-23. Second, by implication, the Court appears to concede RICO is a money-mandating statute but contends its one that does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims.[3] The Court has then cited precedent that Plaintiffs were not afforded the opportunity to address. If it’s the Courts contention, the Federal Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to hear a criminal RICO case plaintiffs would agree that’s true, however, if it’s the court’s contention the Federal Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction with regards to RICO’s civil cause of action as another separate source of law mandating compensation by the Federal Government when paired with the Tucker act; Plaintiffs would argue that’s not in accordance with the Court of Federal Claims mandated jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1), or with the Supreme Courts interpretations which Plaintiffs relied on in filing the complaint. The plaintiff’s Complaint alleges Jurisdiction under the Tucker Act of 1887, codified at 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1), which allows the Court of Claims to entertain claims against the United States “founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress. 18 U.S.C §1964(c) is an act of Congress and a Federal statute. The Supreme Court stated: Justice Anton Scalia United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009);

““Neither the Tucker Act nor the Indian Tucker Act creates substantive rights; they are simply jurisdictional provisions that operate to waive sovereign immunity for claims premised on other sources of law (e.g., statutes or contracts).” Quoting United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538, 100 S.Ct. 1349, 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980) “The other source of law need not explicitly provide that the right or duty it creates is enforceable through a suit for damages, but it triggers liability only if it “`can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government.” (quoting Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 599, 607, 372 F.2d 1002, 1009 (1967)) [4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Court of Appeals states at 4 ¶5

“ Dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper only when a plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”

And at 5 ¶1.

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

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

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

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

“[i]f private citizens are to be able to assert their civil rights, and if those who violate the Nation’s fundamental laws are not to proceed with impunity, then citizens must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rights in court.”

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

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

The Court’s reliance on Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465–66 (1985) (quoting Dodge v. Bd. of Ed., 302 U.S. 74, 79 (1937)). ).“ Is a Misapprehended assumption for injustice and to the extent the Court relies on the case as precedential Plaintiffs seek to have it overruled in this instance.

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

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

“Plaintiffs’ claims are, at the bottom, requests that the Court of Federal Claims review the Western District of Virginia’s decision to dismiss Plaintiffs’ earlier action.”

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

Submitted by,

Christopher B Julian Pro-Se

[1] Emphasis added.

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

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

[4] Emphasis Altered.

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

[6] Emphasis altered.

[7] Emphasis Altered.

[8] To an aggrieved farmer whose business has been wiped out by government actions the prospect of being paid a reasonable attorney’s fee to prosecute the offender is a very attractive offer.

[9] Emphasis added.

[10] Emphasis added.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judging the Judges of a Judge.
by

Judging the Judges of a Judge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Judge Jackson L. Kiser breached his fiduciary duty by dismissing the charges for failure to state a claim while denying a single amendment to the Complaint by a Pro -Se his court instructed not to make legal arguments, cite cases, or statutes. This is a case alleging a government conspiracy to deny due process and equal justice, A felony, and when done as a racket an act of treason on the constitution and the American People. How seriously did Judge Jackson L. Kaiser take his oath to uphold the law and the constitution?
  2. The Statute promises treble damages, Attorney Fees, and court costs to the successful litigant. The supreme court has stated these are economic damages for economic injury see Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates][107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987)]: “RICO and the Clayton Act are designed to remedy economic injury by providing for the recovery of treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. Where the Federal government is the defendant it  can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government.”

There’s a solid case Judge Jackson L. Kiser failed faithfully to perform his fiduciary and agency duties in the application of a federal statute which can fairly be interpreted as mandating treble damages, court cost, and attorney’s fees as compensation by the Federal Government. Understand Judge Jackson L. Kiser Lied. He made up alibis and manipulated the true nature of the evidence to dismiss the charges in the first place. see: Corrupt Federal District Court Of Federal District Judge Jackson L. Kiser – Traitor

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

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

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

CB Julian

@blueridgesprings

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Not a Pro Pro-Se Per Se.

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

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

Christopher B. Julian

474 Orchard View Drive

Ararat Virginia, 24053

980-254-1295

Christopher.b.julian@gmail.com

Pro Se   Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Christopher B. And Renee G.

Julian

Plaintiffs(s),

V,

Bank Of America N.A. Et Al

 )

)

 Case Number: 3:16-CV-173

Letter to the Honorable Judge Robert J. Conrad

Requesting the Court ruling on the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis                             

Letter requesting the Courts ruling on the prior motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Plaintiffs Christopher B. and Renee G. Julian; here and after referred to as Plaintiffs, respectfully request the Honorable Judge Robert J. Conrad rule on the motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Docket item 2 based on the following justifications.

Justifications:

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

 If the court finds the Plaintiffs financially eligible and the complaint meritorious Plaintiffs believe they have a fundamental right under the 7th Amendment for the case to continue and the court should require issuance and service of process. If the court finds for any reason the complaint is deficient then the court should allow for amendment of the complaint unless its deficiencies cannot be cured. Plaintiffs would request if the court finds for any reason the complaint deficient Plaintiffs be granted a request for leave of Court to amend the complaint.

This Case has the potential to assist Plaintiffs with legal aid in the Prosecution of another Federal case in the Publics interest.

 Plaintiffs informed the Court in the Complaint “C” Docket (DKT) Item # 1 at p.6 footnote 1. Plaintiffs would again bring Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) charges against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Additionally, in “C” p.41 footnote 17 RICO Provides for a civil cause of action and places the Plaintiff into the role of a prosecutor. And at “C” p.47 footnote 18 Defendants in this instant case may site the USDA for contributory negligence. Consequently, the Plaintiffs believe Counsel for the Defense in this instant case would have a compelling reason and standing to assist the Plaintiffs, in the RICO prosecution of the USDA.

The Initial predicate acts of the RICO filing occurred in October of 2012 and the Supreme Court has shortened the RICO statutes, the statute of limitations, to four years. See Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000). Pro Se Plaintiffs have concerns about the Statute of Limitations for refiling the RICO Complaint and the effects of the RICO’S continued operation on others. True, the Plaintiffs originally filed in September 2013, and believe the Courts should grant equitable tolling for the statute of limitations but, that remains a concern, and Plaintiffs believe the Defense Counsel in this instant case could provide significant legal expertise in the prosecution of the RICO case in the Publics interest.

Legal Expertise and the Poor’s need for assistance.

The importance of legal expertise in protecting civil rights laws and assistance with the Legal cost is detailed in the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976. Where legislators stated see: S. Rep. 94-1011 p.6 (1976).

“In many cases arising under our civil rights laws, the citizen who

must sue to enforce the law and has little or no money with which to hire a lawyer. If private citizens are to be able to assert their civil rights, and if those who violate the Nation’s fundamental laws are not to proceed with impunity, then citizens must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rights in court.”

“Congress has instructed the courts to use the broadest and most effective remedies available to achieve the goals of our civil rights laws.”

“If the cost of private enforcement actions becomes too great, there will be no private enforcement. If our civil rights laws are not to become mere hollow pronouncements which the average citizen cannot enforce, we must maintain the traditionally effective remedy of fee-shifting in these cases.”

As a Pro Se with little or no money, as the motion for IFP purported; Plaintiffs have found the cost of private enforcement actions too great, and the Civil rights laws protecting the people’s fundamental rights hollow. Taking on the U.S. Federal Government in legal action was of no interest to law firms who insisted on compensation rates from $200 to $800 dollars an hour to look at the case’s potential. Consequently, Plaintiffs were and are monetarily prohibited from shopping the RICO case, and legal firms are not willing to review a case’s potential, free of charge, nor were they interested in long-term potential litigation efforts against the U.S. Government for potential future compensation. Consequently, Plaintiffs have handled all the legal efforts as Pro – Se now for more than 3 years against the largest law firm in the Nation. The benefit of legal assistance cannot be understated, which brought the Plaintiffs to realize this instant case creates a common interest with the Defendants’ legal counsel to pursue prosecution of a Government-run criminal enterprise. The Court’s delay in responding to the Motion to proceed IFP denies Plaintiffs potential access to much greatly desired legal assistance if the court finds the case meritorious.

Prompt litigation to combat racketeering is an obvious objective against the legitimate business activities of organized crime.

The Supreme Court’s justification for the shortening of the Statute was that eliminating racketeering the sooner the better is a proper objective see Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549(2000) and Footnote 3 of ¶557

“This objective of encouraging prompt litigation to combat racketeering is the most obvious answer to Rotella’s argument that the injury and pattern discovery rule should be adopted because “RICO is to be read broadly” and “ ‘liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes,’ ” Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Impex Co., 473 Pub. L. 91–452, § 904(a), 84 Stat. 947).”[1]

Furthermore, in the Supreme Court decision of Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates][107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987)]: The Supreme Court stated:

“The antitrust laws now provide a well-established vehicle for attacking anticompetitive activity of all kinds. They contain broad discovery provisions as well as civil and criminal sanctions. These extraordinarily broad and flexible remedies ought to be used more extensively against the `legitimate’ business activities of organized crime.” 113 Cong. Rec. 17999 (1967).[2]

And of particular interest should be the citations of the congressional intent. “be used more extensively against the `legitimate’ business activities of organized crime.” And “Congress has instructed the courts to use the broadest and most effective remedies available to achieve the goals of our civil rights laws.”

The plaintiffs request the court rule on the Motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis, effecting the process of service or alternatively, to dismiss the case for lack of merit, or identify the Complaint’s deficiencies and grant the Plaintiffs leave to amend. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs request the court’s acknowledgment of the connection and intent for equitable tolling in the Plaintiff’s RICO case. The continued delay, is a delay of fundamental rights, inflicting further emotional distress, continued financial distress, delaying potential access to legal aid, further potential harms to discovery, and prescribing an appearance of prejudicial treatment. Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court realize, Plaintiffs assume, had the court found the complaint significantly lacking in merit the Court would have already dismissed the case.

Respectfully Submitted,

Christopher.B.Julian Pro-Se

[1] Emphasis Added.

[2] Emphasis Added.

Up-Date 10-7-2016- On September 27th Judge Robert J. Conrad denied after more than 5 months on the docket, A friendly nudge of the court clerk at 3 months, and a month after receiving this letter the request to proceed in forma Pauperis. This is interesting for both its timing; the day after the court of Appeals in the Federal Circuit made their lies final. see federal-court-opinion-balances-scales-of-justice-with-lies & petition-for-rehearing-denied AND On three prior occasions the Federal Courts granted In Forma Pauperis status, the last one was granted 2 days prior to this filing, with the same financial information. Go Figure? Today the Court Fees were paid and the summons issued. Yesterday,  morning the court received via certified mail see USPS Confirmation a motion for the court to reconsider its ruling. It’s interesting and reeks of impropriety that the court docketed the motion as received on 10-7-2016 when USPS confirmed delivery on 10-6-2016. and the Signed receipt for delivery shows received 10-6-2016 Interesting, it was docketed and stamped received 10-7-2016 today after the court fees were paid. The facts unfolding in this court suggest we are once again destined to be treated with impropriety. This ruling while not what we would have liked does suggest three key things. Note: we paid the filing fee after submitting a motion to reconsider the IFP order because we believe the IFP order to have been a function of the will and not one of judgment. A judge can never change his will only an inappropriate judgment. The Court for all the aforementioned events has forfeited rights to respect. 

  1. The judge must have found the case to have merit.
  2. The judge did not find the filing deficient but, we shall see the replies and how they’re handled.
  3. The Judge must have found the defendants owed the plaintiffs the duty of care in the negligence allegations. We shall see.
Wanted Hard Money R/E secured loan 10% on 2 year commitment of 365,000
by

Wanted Hard Money R/E secured loan 10% on 2 year commitment of 365,000

4 Years of legal battles with the Federal Government when Dodd Frank locked Small Businesses out of the mortgage market followed by denial of a Farm Loan because, my house was not modest in size cost and design, leaves me unable to obtain a mortgage. The Death of my mother leaves me with her residence and her loan debt. I’m seeking private funding for a Real Estate secured loan. I will establish and place the property into an LLC

Property                                  Tax Value            Book Value        Rented   / Potential   /For Sale

474 Orchard View Drive

Ararat VA Land 23 Acres     113,900.00            176,000.00

Improvements                      113, 000.00          334,000.00

Total                                          226,900.00          510,000.00                                     FS 300,000.00

 

This is a 22.75 acre farm with great vineyard potential click for more photos.

8908 Sharonbrook Drive March 10 2017 Appraised value of 135,000.00 

Charlotte, NC 28210

Land                                         19,100.00

Building                                   56,100.00                                                                                N/A

Total                                       75,200.00           75,000.00          Rental Value                P 1,200 Mth

8910 Sharonbrook Drive

Charlotte, NC 28210

Land                                        19,100.00

Building                                   74,800.00                                                   R 750. + maint   P 1,200 Mth

Total                                        93,900.00          75,000.00                      750.00 mth

Total Total                              396,000.00          660,000.00                      750.00                 2,400.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is residential duplex 1/2 rented near light rail click for more photos

 

Use of Funds

Purchase Cost                           268,000.00

Rehab                                          97,000.00

Total Cost                                   365,000.00

ARV                                             565,000.00

Current Tax Valuations           396,000.00

Total Cost to Tax Value            268/396 = .67

Total Loan to ARV                     365/565 = .64

268,000.00 Purchases property, establishes LLC holding property, Borrower will then place 60,000.00 in cash/equity into the Company which will fund initial rehab expenditures.

See more specifics here. See the Funding Proposal worksheet here. You may need to download it.

Contact Me.

Chris Julian christopher.b.julian@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________ CHRISTOPHER B. JULIAN, RENEE G. JULIAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

                ______________________

2016-1889

                ______________________

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

                ______________________

Decided: August 4, 2016

                ______________________

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

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

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

J. Damich.

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

2

JULIAN v. US

______________________

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

PER CURIAM.

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

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFFIRMED

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

Petition for Rehearing Final 

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

Please feel free to leave a comments below.

Integrity & Independence in the Federal Judiciary ?
by

Integrity & Independence in the Federal Judiciary ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CB Julian

Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se

Blue Ridge Springs,

Patriot Soldier of Misfortune.

@blueridgespring

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Blueridgesprings.com

Morgan Griffith The Tree of Liberty
by

Morgan Griffith The Tree of Liberty

August 9, 2016

Congressmen Morgan Griffith,

RE: The tree of liberty.

Congressman on April 9,2016 I wrote to you regarding the tree of liberty. This letter was one of numerous communications between your office and me over the last 4 years. In that letter, I told you

“You are responsible and accountable. I will not tolerate my family being victims of government tyranny and oppression. I will not tolerate a Government warring against the people and the people’s constitution.”

The United States is supposed to be a republic based on the rule of law. The Constitution of the United States is the law. It proclaims itself as such, in Article V. clause II. “The Supremacy Clause is “the Supreme Law of the Land”. There is no Law without a sovereign, and the Sovereign, the supreme lawgiver is “We The People” collectively through our state representative. That would be you!

The constitution of the United States mentions only one law twice the Due Process clause. Due Process is the requirement that Government operates legally and within the law. Due process commands that no man be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

I have for many years now followed proper procedures in Federal Courts of Law to have justice served for my family under the law and to pursue putting an end to the USDA’s criminal enterprise which is specifically and intentionally designed to deny the people their constitutional rights to due process.

Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution Treason. The Supreme law defines it as “ Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them”(Them would be We The People!) “or in adhering to their enemies” ( Enemies of We The People).

The USDA’s enterprise designed to deny the people’s rights to due process is an act of treason, which wars against the constitution of the United States.
The Federal Courts have been aiding and abetting the USDA’s act of treason for decades with the unconstitutional doctrine of deference. I applaud congress in its recent action H.R.4768 to eliminate this unconstitutional usurpation of judicial authority. I sincerely hope this legislation will be signed into law.

However, when I filed charges against the USDA for Racketeering the Federal Judiciary aided and abetted the USDA in protecting its criminal enterprise from prosecution. The court’s rulings were filled with deceit, deception, misrepresentation, and outright lies, the actions were biased, arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law. This was woefully inconsistent with the judicial oath of office, judicial cannons, the law, and an act of treason in adhering to the enemies of We The People. A Government enemy turned tyrant actively warring against the constitution to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights and now protected from prosecution by a Federal judiciary charged with protecting the rights of We The People. That is the essence of a traitor; another act of treason! And was the impetus for my second major contact with your office.

I sued the U.S. Government in the Federal Court of claims because the U.S. Federal Judiciary violated the performance terms of the contract as defined in the RICO statute and the Federal Rules of Civil procedure, which defines the terms for the prosecution of all federal statutes. Once again the Federal Court has intentionally subverted and denied justice with deceit, deception, misrepresentation, and again with outright lies. The fact judge Edward J. Damich an individual who appears to have played a major role in the design and implementation of the USDA’s criminal enterprise was assigned to this case seems highly unlikely to have been a mere coincidence. Having Chief Justice Sharon Prost a collogue of Judge Damich at the time of the enterprise’s creation and implementation drawn for appellate review of Judge Damich’s 12b(6) dismissal is also a highly unlikely coincidence. I previously discussed her involvement in the creation of the enterprise with you in my letter of March 21, 2016.

This letter will be published on my blog at blueridgesprings.wordpress.com followed later by the opinion of the appellate court in case 16-1889 which will be critiqued for its obfuscation and lies. I sincerely hope you will review in detail the factual allegation of the court’s lies and deceit on my blog.

The Federal Court of Appeals’ biggest lie; I contend is this. The Treble damages, attorneys fees, and court costs defined in Federal Statute 18 U.S.C §1964(c) which the Supreme Court stated in numerous opinions are mandated compensatory damages and the carrot of incentives. The Federal Court of Appeals ruled is not a money-mandating statute, which confers jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims. The Court justified this by arguing for the first time ever in the final opinion ” is that a fair procedure? not that it’s not money mandating as previously, but that the court lacks jurisdiction because it’s a criminal statute. Dismissing this case without allowing the opportunity for any argument to this pure BS finding.

Jurisdiction under the tucker act only requires that a contract be paired with a money-mandating statute (any Statute) not that the statute also must also be within the court’s jurisdiction. The precedent cited by the court is from two prior cases where the court stated it lacked jurisdiction to hear criminal RICO cases. This case is based on a breach of contract by judicial personnel, in an appropriate court, in the application of a money-mandating criminal statute, where a Government agency was the defendant. The Government is liable for those damages and the Courts Breach of fiduciary duty.

“Section 1491 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows the Court of Claims to entertain claims against the United States “founded either upon the Constitution or “ANY” Act of Congress”

18 U.S.C. §1964(c) is a Federal Statute and an act of Congress.

All the current supreme court precedent on this issue reflects the Tucker Act can be paired with “ANY” statute that specifies a money mandate.
See Justice Anton Scalia United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009);

“The other source of law need not explicitly provide that the right or duty it creates is enforceable through a suit for damages, but it triggers liability only if it “`can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government.” And the Government was the defendant in the RICO case.

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

“It follows that the asserted entitlement to money damages depends upon whether “ANY” any federal statute “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained.”

Please take the time to look at this railroading by a chief Federal Court judge who should know they supported this decision with a lie. It’s simply despotic for the courts to take 8 months on a case to dismiss it with an outright lie!

When Federal Judges intentionally balance the scales of justice with deceit, deception, misrepresentation, and outright lies. They become the greatest, thieves, rapists, murderers, and criminals known to man, and yet even when it’s done with obvious intent and malice they’re protected by absolute immunity while they leave their victims for dead. The Judicial system in the United States is an absolute mockery of justice. One only needs to Google “Judicial Abuse” to see the large number of institutions focused on corruption in America’s Courts. If not addressed this cancer of corruption will inevitably lead to terminal anarchy? I’m sick and tired of a Federal Judiciary, which acts with malice and specific intent to corruptly protect Government criminals and incompetence.

On April 15, 2016, I filed suit against Wall Street in this matter case 3:16-cv-173. It was after all their negligence and fraud, which forced me into the lair of the USDA’s criminal enterprise. This suit too, the Federal Court is handling with judicial abuse, failing for more than a hundred days to rule on a simple motion to proceed in forma paupris.

You cannot win in any court of law that does not adhere to the law or its fair and proper administration. The Federal Courts are corrupted and in bed with protecting a Government turned tyrant. They are in fact adhering to an enemy of We The People – A Government operating in its own interest and against that of the people it’s designed to serve. They are protecting a despotic tyrant King.

I have previously informed you of my laws regarding this matter. I intend to die a man of my word. I intend to die with honor. You must see that justice prevails in these matters or accept that I will. The Governments actions and those of the Federal Courts in these matters have granted numerous licenses for a patriot to take action against tyrants. The People need to know; I’m a patriot, not a terrorist. I’m a patriot pursuing traitors. I gave the system numerous opportunities and years of my life to do right and repeatedly and consistently encountered a government corrupted in all its branches and my every petition was answered only by repeated injury leaving me to serve my own justice. My personal resources, time, money, and patience with a corrupted system are all but gone and once again my family is facing homelessness again as a direct result of Government corruption. Trust me this makes a man very unstable.

Congressmen Griffith, I have discussed this journey with your office almost since the time it began, at least since my first pleas to the Senate to address the issue of Dodd-Frank; which forced us to seek assistance from the USDA. Passage of H.R 4768 while nice does nothing to relieve the pain and suffering my family continues to endure at the hands of a corrupt and despotic Government. The Government is not listening nor appropriately responding; nor following the laws of this nation. The world needs to know I did all I could to be heard, by Congress, the Senate, The Federal Courts, the President, and the media to no avail. Any and all consequences are the responsibility of the U.S. Government, which should be held accountable and liable for damages.

UpDate 8-20-2016  Wall Street Law Suit has been on the Federal Court Docket for 126 Days and they have not allowed it to move forward? See Wall of Injustice Street

UpDate 8-22-2016 Today the Clerk of Court replied in the Case filed against the Too Big To Fail Banks of Wall Street
” Mr. Julian,
upon review of your case, it appears that the motion is still pending at this time and is still waiting on a decision from the Judge. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office at 704-350-7400, thank you.”

Just a note: on this Court clerk, When I filed this case he had me escorted from the building by 6 Federal Marshalls for raising my voice to him after he butted into a conversation I’ll inform you.

UpDate 8-20-2016 – A petition for Rehearing was filed with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit exposing the courts lies see related post-Treason & The Good Ole Boy Network; The ABA Within Read the Petition: Petition for Rehearing Final. 

UpDate 8-29-2016 – I have not written the President in some time. He has not responded to my prior letters see. Mr. President, You Are an Imposter & Mr. President All that’s necessary for the triumph of Government evil is for those in power to do nothing! But I receive a letter from the White House and I don’t know to what they are replying. Perhaps Morgan Griffith shared this letter to him with the White House. In any event, what the White House letter is referring to is unidentifiable. See the letter at this link. Mr. President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by,

Christopher B Julian Pro-Se

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

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

Thank you Congressmen Griffith!

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Christopher B. Julian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only a Jury can provide the appearance of fairness.

Heres a linked list of the judges and their appointee.

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

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

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

CBJulian

Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se

Blue Ridge Springs,

Patriot Soldier of Misfortune.

@blueridgespring

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Blueridgesprings.com

Wall of Injustice Street!
by

Wall of Injustice Street!

 

March 18, 2016 I filed suit against Wall Street in the Federal District Court of North Carolina Western District ,Charlotte NC.Case 3:16-cv-00173 Complaint for poisoning the nations mortgage market, the financial collapse, the regulatory impact-Dodd Frank, and the disappearance of mortgage credit availability that followed. Specifically the extinction of ALT A stated income loans. Please see the most recent updates in this case below 10-1-2016 & 10-7-2016.

The premise of the case is pretty simple. Wall Street, specifically the subprime 25, their financiers, and  rating agencies were negligent and fraudulent when they flooded the mortgage markets with bad loans. The financial collapse that ensued resulted in financial reforms namely Dodd Frank.Dodd Frank legislation which extinguished the mortgage products known as ALT A stated income loans. See New Law Ability to Repay tightens mortgage regulations.

Loans are products, there are many mortgage loan products with differing characteristics ALT A among them. ALT A Stated income loans were an available product in the pre financial collapse market. The Federal reserve bank of St. Louis did a study on ALT A mortgage loans from 1998 – 2007 and the data shows the product had tolerable default rates prior to the subprime bubble between 2004 – 2007. Here is an excerpt from the federal reserve banks conclusions of that analysis or you can read the analysis here. Alt A The Forgotten Segment of The Mortgage Market.

” The summary data indicate a shift of Alt-A originations toward a greater share of owner-occupied properties, adjustable-rate products, and cash-out refinances. This is accompanied by a deterioration of underwriting standards for a greater proportion of mortgages with lower documentation and higher loan-to-value ratios. Serious delinquencies on Alt-A originations rose sharply in 2006 and 2007, primarily for originations after 2003.”

“In their handbook chapter on Alt-A mortgages, Bhattacharya, Berliner, and Liber (2006, p. 189) remark that “the demarcation between Alt-A and subprime loans has been blurred. Over time Alt-A has expanded to include loans with progressively less documentation and lower borrower credit scores. At the same time, subprime loans have, on average experienced a slow but steady rise in average credit scores. A result of this convergence has been the creation of the so-called Alt-B sector”

Product negligence law says “A claim in negligence is based on the assumption that the manufacturer owes a duty of care to all those who can reasonably be expected to make use of its product”

I had a project and business development effort I began in 2007. In 2008 and again in late 2009 I obtained loan commitments on this project. Project delays as well as numerous other variables prompted funding the development efforts without borrowing. Thats putting your own capital and equity at risk on a project. But, it was also a simple conversion of the capital into a capital asset.

In 2012 personal capital began to run out and the need arose to borrow against the real estate holdings to continue the development work. However, financial institutions which had previously been willing to provide funding now stated Dodd Frank Reg B prevented them from mortgaging the property. Paying yourself to work on capital improvements was no longer an acceptable source of income. Dodd Frank Reg B would prevent us from borrowing against assets in which more than a half million had already been invested.

This forced a turn to, the only available source of rural credit, the USDA Farm Service Agency. A government run criminal enterprise which has provided three years and counting of living despotic tyranny and oppressive hell.

Had Wall Street subprime lenders not negligently poisoned the mortgage market, had they not seriously undermined the underwriting standards of the ALT A mortgage market, Dodd Frank would not have occurred, credit markets would not have contracted so significantly, and the little guy in this case with a half million invested in a viable business, and debt free property development, with a blemish free credit history would have been able to obtain funding on a low ratio loan to value farm winery business development effort and paid himself to work like any small business owner.

But For the negligence of Wall Streets subprime lending there would have been no need for Dodd Frank legislation and but for Dodd Frank and the credit crunch this small business would be up and running and not destroyed. How much has the DOJ claimed to have been awarded in damages for the actions of these firms? How much has been provided in restitution to individuals who got locked out of mortgage markets because they had solid credit and assets and no mortgage when these institutions brought the house down?

The journey has been a very long a painful one resulting in significant financial hardship. As of 4/25/16 the Federal court has not approved a request for In Forma Pauperis and the suit against Wall Street sits on the court docket having not been served. Since legal battles started more than 2 years ago request for In Forma Pauperis have been granted in all suits against the USDA, leading one to the conclusion the court is wondering if Wall Street should be held accountable for the negligence which caused a mortgage products extinction and the consequential damages to an individual who could reasonably have been expected to make use of the product.

Update 4-29-2016 As of this evening the court has not approved the In Forma Pauperis status. On three other separate fillings it was approved. What does that mean? Has the court been too busy? Did someone drop the ball? Usually they’ll deny an application if they believe the suit lacks merit however, they have not denied the application either, so are they having a difficult time with the question of merit or a difficult time with the truths about the courts it exposes?  Or do they just plan on being instruments of tranny and despotic oppression? Who is is truly running the US Government? They say if you really want to know who the oppressor is look for the one who can’t tolerate true criticism.

Update 5-6-2016 As of this evening the court has not approved or denied the In Forma Pauperis.

Update 5-13-2016 As of this evening the court has not approved or denied the In Forma Pauperis.Therefore the court has not acted on the Complaint though its been in their possession for a month. This topic is worth a post all its own. Perhaps even a chapter in the book on how Un cvil the courts really are but that will have to wait. In the Federal Rules of civil Procedure  Rule 1 states:

“They should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”

There is nothing just or speedy about a court leaving a proceeding waiting a month on approval for In Forma Pauperis status.

Rule 4 Summons (c) Service 3. By Marshall or someone specifically appointed states:

“The court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915”

The court can dismiss a case at anytime if it deems the case malicious, frivolous, lacking in merit, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Three separate courts have already found us eligible to proceed In Forma, one very recently.  The Courts inaction appears based on effecting the judges will from some outside influence rather than making judgement on the facts of the case before them.Holding a case you intend to dismiss is intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Judges as I understand from the rules and Pro Se guides are not supposed to be influenced in their decision making by information outside that presented through proceedings to the court. Would reading this blog be outside the proceedings? While my blog generally gets daily activity I found the activity of April 6, 2016 interesting. Because Judge Robert J.Conrad has 3 magistrate judges. He had on his calendar for May 6, 2016 a scheduled status Conference, and on April 6, 2016 3 individuals heavily investigated the blog in search of information on me and my legal cases. See the blog activity.

Justice delayed is Justice denied.

Update 5-20-2016 By end of this 5th week the court has still not ruled on the motion for in forma pauperis. If the court finds Plaintiffs financially eligible and the complaint meritorious then Plaintiffs have a fundamental right for the case to continue and the court should require issuance and service of process. If the court finds for any reason the complaint is deficient then the court should allow for amendment of the complaint unless its deficiencies cannot be cured.

Justice delayed is Justice denied.

Update 5-28-2016 By end of this 6th week the court has still not ruled on the motion for in forma pauperis blocking process of service. Why would a Federal Court choose to hold motionless a case against Wall Street by a private citizen? Why would the court leave a private citizen tortured by their inaction? How powerless are the American people to hold  Federal Courts accountable? Someone has been looking at various aspects of the RICO case and should be aware of 2 things 1. All known facts have not been disclosed and of significance 2. ” The Law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided”

Justice delayed is Justice denied.

Update 6-3-2016 By end of 7 weeks the court has still not ruled on the motion for in forma pauperis blocking process of service. Why? If the court finds Plaintiffs financially eligible and the complaint meritorious then Plaintiffs have a fundamental right for the case to continue and the court should require issuance and service of process. If the court finds for any reason the complaint is deficient then the court should allow for amendment of the complaint unless its deficiencies cannot be cured.

Justice delayed is Justice denied.

Update 6-10-2016 By end of 8 weeks the court has still not ruled on the motion for in forma pauperis blocking process of service.

Update 6-13-2016 If the Court was granting Government notice as a potential defendant 60 days are up!

Justice delayed is Justice denied.

Update 6-18-2016 By the end of 9 weeks the court has still not ruled on the motion for in forma pauperis blocking process of service. As I’ve said many times. If a Federal Court wishes to ignore your civil rights – you have none.

Update 6-26-2016 The court is still stalling the proceedings it appears we have a vexatious refusal of a constitutional right by the government institution responsible for protecting them.

Update 7-04-2016 I saved my week 11 update for today Independence day. Many people believe the war of independence was about independence from Britain however,  justification for the war, its root cause was the Kings denial of Due Process as promised in the Magna Carta. Which is precisely the root cause of all my legal proceedings against the U.S. Government.

“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Declaration of independence Thomas Jefferson.

The denial continues V va la revolution!

Update 7-09-2016 – Denial of Service continues. It’s said of all things Due Process is fundamental fairness. Is this Due Process. The  FRCP requires process of service in 90 day’s which will be up in 6 day’s; The court has never ruled on the motion to proceed in-forma which had it been granted required the court to process service. So if they fail to rule on the motion and then dismiss the case for failure to serve is that Due Process?

Update 7-16-2016 – 91 Day’s on the docket and Senior Judge Rober J. Conrad has yet to affirm or deny the case against Wall Street has Merit. Do you believe he has been unable to make that determination? Will he dismiss the case now with an unanswered motion to proceed informa for failure to effect service? 

Update 7-23-2016 – 98 Day’s no change.

Update 7-23-2016 – 105 Day’s on the Docket Stalled by the Courts inaction. 

Update 8-20-2016 – 126 Day’s on the Docket Stalled by the Courts inaction.

Update 8-22-2016 – From the Clerk of Court-

” Mr. Julian,
upon review of your case it appears that the motion is still pending at this time and is still waiting on a decision from the Judge. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office at 704-350-7400, thank you.”

Update 8-27-2016 – 133 Day’s on the Docket Stalled by the Courts inaction.

Update 9-10-2016 – 141 Day’s on the Docket Stalled by the Courts inaction. Note the Letter to Judge Conrad requesting a ruling to proceed this case was Docketed on 9-7-2016 but no ruling has yet occurred.The letter is on the blog as Letter to Judge Robert J. Conrad August 29, 2016

Update 9-24-2016 5 Months on the Docket and still stalled by the courts inaction. The only case filed in April assigned to Judge Robert J. Conrad which has not progressed in the court system. The letter of August 29, (see above) requested he either allow the case to proceed or dismiss it for lack of merit. He has done neither.  To understand why we believe the court is stalling this case see the blog post Treason & The Good Ole Boy Network; The ABA Within

Update 10-1-2016 5 Months on the Docket and on September 27th 2016 Judge Robert Conrad denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Why did it take 5 months to determine this? First on three other separate occasions including February and March of 2016 the Federal Courts granted plaintiffs in forma pauperis status. The court is well aware of the Plaintiffs debt stresses lack of employment, obstructions to employment and reliance on government assistance but denies the request. Plaintiffs can see no other justification for such action by this judge than a blatant attempt at obstruction of justice by the court. The Motion to this court  filed 4/15/2016 was almost if not identical to the one granted by the Court of Appeals for the Federal district on 4/13/2016. 

Update 10-7-2016 – After filing a motion on 10-6-2017 for reconsideration of the Courts denial of In Forma Pauperis status, Plaintiffs paid the Court cost and filed summons for issue with the Clerk of Court. Summons issued. Plaintiffs are in process of having these summons served.If this case has issues with merit, is deficient, or fails to state a claim, as the Federal Government has consistently pled and been granted. Then this Court has failed to abide by FRCP1 as the expended cost in this case just skyrocketed!   

Update 4-10-2017-

Boni Judicis Est Ampliare Jurisdictionem

Update 6-29-2017 14 Months on the Docket and the only conclusion a Plaintiff can draw is justice delayed is justice denied. The Federal Courts aiding Government tyranny. 

CBJulian

Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se

Blue Ridge Springs,

Patriot Soldier of Misfortune.

@blueridgespring

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Blueridgesprings.com