Petition for Rehearing Denied

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 effects 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. Plaintiff’s do not believe the complaint is deficient but, rather the court simply wishes to impose the Governments 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.

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

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 Courts 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 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 Plaintiffs 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 citied precedent Plaintiffs were not afforded 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 courts 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. Plaintiffs 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 agreement to become judge, jury, and defendant, dismissing its own case without due process of law in violation of 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 Plaintiffs procedural rights.[5]

Justice Blackmum 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 return of money paid by them to the Government, they have asserted entitlement to money 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 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 courts 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 Blackmum 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 publics interest. When the Federal Government is the defendant in a criminal RICO case its fair to interpret the statute as expressly mandating compensation of a certain sum from the Federal Government. Furthermore, as 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 Courts 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 statue 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 its the courts 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 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 cause where the United States was 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 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 Courts jurisdiction and the misapprehended conclusion of Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Statute 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 reliance of 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 Courts 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 Plaintiffs 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 fact inconsistent with the Courts procedural rule FRCP 1. They should be construed and administered to secure the “just” determination of every action.

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

This is false! Plaintiffs claims are at bottom a request the Court of Federal Claims review whether 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 Plaintiffs by an act of Congress. Rights granted with 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 Governments action aided the Government in avoiding prosecution and effected the Governments 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 its 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 argument 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 Governments RICO enterprise is a matter between him and the Government.

[6] Emphasis altered.

[7] Emphasis Altered.

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

Advertisements
Federal Court Opinion Balances Scales of Justice With Lies!

Federal Court Opinion 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 March 10, 2016, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed 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 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 dismissal was proper. We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ claims in this case arise from dismissal of an earlier case they filed in the Western District of Vir ginia. On September 16, 2013, 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 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 Plaintiffs’ claims, with the exception of the request for 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 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 Cir. 2014), and the Supreme Court denied 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 courts 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 preform Judicial review was actually challenged. Plaintiffs objected profoundly and insisted the judge lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the conversion of a civil case filling 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, 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. Interesting they left out the predicate acts of the RICO filing.

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. 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, Plaintiffs alleged that the district court’s dismissal effectuated an unlawful “taking” of 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 limited space. 

On March 10, 2016, the Court of Federal Claims dis missed Plaintiffs’ action. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Western District of Virginia’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ earlier case and that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of contract or an unlawful taking. Order, 2016 WL 929219, at *2–3. As part of the order, Judge Damich denied Plaintiffs’ request that he recuse himself because he refused to attest to 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. Their’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, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus to this court. We converted Plaintiffs’ petition to a notice of appeal on April 19, 2016. We have jurisdiction to address Plaintiffs’ appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

5. The Court completely ignored rejection of the appearance this was inappropriate and that its inappropriateness was based on a significant appearance of perceived Biases.It is completely inconsistent with the judiciaries 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 was this opinion ignoring the Supreme Courts guidance on jurisdiction see the petition for re hearing 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 a 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 Plaintiffs’ claims. While styled as breach of contract and takings claims, Plaintiffs’ claims are, at bottom, requests that the Court of Federal Claims review the Western District of Virginia’s decision to dismiss 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 courts RICO decision. It is a review of the lower courts actions in the violation of the Plaintiffs procedural rights breaching the Government Agency responsibility to provide Due Process. Effectively the Judge criminally joined in as a participant in the RICO operation to effect the Governments  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 courts jurisdiction according to all current Supreme Court precedent. Additionally, the court has cited two cases which did not address  civil Rico statute at all. The Court must have known if they truly reviewed the case 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 courts jurisdiction. That is the Supreme Court has stated any statute. So it does not matter whether its 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 Precedent, after all they did actually express an opinion?  We shall see! If I were a traitor I would not find comfort in the Courts misrepresnetations. They are basically lies of obscurity. See the Courts Footnote 4. below.

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, Plaintiffs make clear that none of their claims “w[ere], or [are], based on violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Appellants’ 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 Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted—was likewise correct. Plaintiffs’ allegations do not establish that any contract existed between Plaintiffs and the government. 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 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 an 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. 

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 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 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 establish 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 courts citations and the objections to the ones presented in lower courts ruling in case 1:15-cv-01344 dkt 7.  7-main

Petition for Rehearing Final

Please feel free to leave a comments below.

Integrity & Independence in the Federal Judiciary ?

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 post 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 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 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 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 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, 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 a 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 filling with 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 filled suit against the United States Government, precisely because, I believe Judge Jackson L. Kiser acted with 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 believe,  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 legislations 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 courts 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 Americas 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 there family are the enemy, 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 power to change the law and nothing I say should have any bearing on its just administration!

CBJulian

Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se

Blue Ridge Springs,

Patriot Soldier of Misfortune.

@blueridgespring

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Blueridgesprings.com

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

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!

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

Mandamus Usurped Justice Usurped Impartial Hearing Denied.

Mandamus Usurped Justice Usurped Impartial Hearing Denied.

If you were to read the Writ of Mandamus Writ of Mandamus filed with the Court of Appeals for the Federal District. It should make pretty clear as plaintiffs we felt we were denied a fair and unbiased hearing by judge Edward J. Damich Because.

  • He declined to attest, he had taken the Oath of office.
  • He declined to attest, he would abide by that oath.
  • He declined to attest, he would abide by his judicial cannons.
  • He was appointed to the bench by President William Jefferson Clinton whom the complaint alleges established a racketeering enterprise in violation of federal law and the constitution.
  • Because Judge Damich refused to attest to his oath, and an intention to abide by it he has by default provided the impression he cannot be trusted to abide by his oath his cannons, or faithfully apply the law.
  • He was requested to recuse himself for the reasons stated and he declined to do so.
  • He did not disclose all the reasons nor address them with any appropriate rationale.

If a judge declines to attest, he will preform his duties in accordance with his oaths of office and according to the cannons of that office don’t you think his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” See 28 U.S.C. 455(a).

The Appellate court was requested to remove Judge Damich, vacate, his judgement and provide a judge to hear the case willing to attest and abide by their oath’s to the law and the constitution. This is the constitutional promise of Due Process, of a fair and unbiased hearing. After all your simply asking the Judge to affirm he will do the job he is paid to do as he has sworn to do.

The Federal Court of Appeals converted the Writ of mandamus and directed the clerk to log the request as a request for an appeal. See The Court Order

Plaintiffs made clear in the Writ this could not remedy the lack of a fair and unbiased hearing. It’s a denial of Due Process and the right to a fair and unbiased hearing as any appellate review is subject to the same dishonor by judges who have not committed to abide by their oaths or the fair and proper administration of the law. Take a look at who appointed the judges to this court.

By converting the Writ to an appeal the court breached the same law as Judge Damich. They have provided reason to question their impartiality, honor and integrity.

A fair and impartial hearing by a judge committed to the administration of the law, according to the constitution, is no longer provided by the U.S. Federal Court System.  Justice is not being served!

Any judge who refuses to attest to his oath of office, to abide by that oath, and to abide by the cannons of his office is unfit to preform the duties he is paid to do. Failure of the courts to provide hearings by honorable judges is a denial of the Governments constitutional obligation and indication they intend to effect their will and not the just administration of the law.

What do you think?

Since the Court converted a writ to an appeal. They obviously have arguments written for a writ and not an appeal and the court reveled with the statements of fact their intent for prevarication and obfuscation.

The Court stated  “The Julians filed suit” … .inter alia, their due process rights were violated by the district court and the court of appeals”  The courts motives are clear; obviously to deny a fair and unbiased hearing, leave Plaintiffs with a slim chance option of an expensive supreme court writ, protect a criminally corrupted Government from accountability and responsibility for failing to meet the obligations promised in federal law 18 U.S.C §1964(c)

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

Taking of the proceeds of this promise by forcing the completion of Form SF-95 agreeing to accept a sum certain rather than the promised treble damages, Attorneys fees and cost.

The original complaint listed only 2 counts one For Breach of Contract  A second for a taking without just compensation. There was no count listed in the complaint for violation of Due process or Civil rights. They were mentioned in the filing as a cause of the breach but every breach of contract has an illegal cause. The court was never asked to judge the court on the cause or review the prior courts actions regarding the cause only whether the terms of the written agreement were breached. Is it not illegal to breach a contract? Is Due Process a requirement that Government operate legally and within the law? How can a government breach of contract not be a violation of Due process?

? I believe this Country should take the courts  action as a statement by the Federal Courts, the promises of the constitution to the people can no longer be expected from the Judicial branch of the U.S Government. Treason within is currently corrupting this nation with a terminal cancer and the tumor is the ABA.

It should be noted Plaintiffs in this case believe Judge Edward J. Damich was an architect for acts of treason by Bill Clinton and Al Gore and the Chief judge of this appellate court was working right there with the Senate Judiciary as these criminal acts became law.

I don’t believe the federal courts take my laws seriously and that means they’re willing to put a great many people in jeopardy for their mis deeds. If I were a member of the pool I would be greatly concerned about how callously  the court handles my potential future. For explanation see Anatomy of a Criminal Threat Absent Malice

In my latest filing, I have drawn a judge who appears to be of a different corp. We shall see, if he has the honor to walk with me. See the blog on Wall of Injustice Street. Update 6-18-2016 Apparently Not. 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 – 5-14-2016 – I mailed the  Appellate Brief on May 11, 2016 next day delivery. USPS shows it was delivered @11 AM on May 12,2016. As of May 14, 2016, it has not been docketed? Basically, My expectation going in on the appeal was it had  a zero chance of success based on prior experience and solid evidence of the Federal Courts intent to protect the Governments criminal operations.This whole criminal enterprise exposes a significant number of powerful figures for having been involved in its establishment. So in writing this appeal I tried to make my appellate points but ,was much more interested in  shedding light on the truth of the courts deception and cronyism than succeeding in the appeal. Because I fully expect the court to railroad this appeal effecting their WILL  and not Judgement on merit. You can pretty well sum up the essence of the appeal by saying the Court lied effecting its WILL, not Judgement on the merit, or based on the law, to protect criminals in all branches of the US Government.  For the Publics purview access to a copy of the appeal filed is available here. Appeal The DOJ’s Response Here, Reply to Response here.

Update 6-26-2016 The Court issued notice of a Hearing which can be viewed Here: Notice of Hearing

A brief review of what the court should address. The Docket in the case on appeal had several procedural irregularities occur which prompted a request for the Judge who was appointed to the bench by the President  accused in the case filing of establishing a criminal enterprise. Judge Edward J. Damich refused to attest to his oath or intent to abide by his oath. It turns out not only did Judge Damich have the means, opportunity, and motive of a judicial appointment, but his career record makes him the perfect presumptive individual to have designed and implemented  USDA’s RICO enterprise for former President William Jefferson Clinton the very criminal enterprise complained of, and the catalyst of litigation. Yet Judge Damich declined to recuse himself from the case. His ruling to  dismiss the case under rule 12b 6 provided no explanation for accepting as true the DOJ’s every faulty premised argument.

The bar for a 12b 6 dismissal is supposed to be very high?

The bar for recusal is supposedly the appearance a judges: ” impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

It should be noted for the publics concern the court has repeatedly stated it does not review the decisions of district courts. This appears to leave America with a gapping whole of accountability. This was a function of congress however, Congress delegated that responsibility to the court of federal claims as agent of congress and the courts declining they preform that function?

CBJulian

Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se

Blue Ridge Springs,

Patriot Soldier of Misfortune.

@blueridgespring

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Blueridgesprings.com

Morgan Griffith

Morgan Griffith

April 9, 2016

Congressmen Morgan Griffith,

 RE: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

Two months and I see no evidence you’re doing your job. Lives are on the line! You better be doing your job representing my family, the farmers, and people of this country. Congressmen and Senators are guilty of treason on the constitution and the people. This Government started a war against my family. The rules are written but not followed. But with my rules every breach is an act of violence against me, and my family and every act of violence against us shall receive and equal and opposite reaction.

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 peoples constitution. I followed the laws of this nation. Government repeatedly has not! Those who wage war are soldiers of war which side are you on Congressman?

CBJulian

Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se

Blue Ridge Springs,

Patriot Soldier of Misfortune.

@blueridgespring

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Blueridgesprings.com