In The War On You And Me.

In The War On You And Me.

For more than a decade now the U.S. Government has waged war on my family, American Citizens, a secret war started in 1994 with a legislative act of treason by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Biden, and Patrick Leahy. My family is by no means the first casualty of this war, and will not be the last unless the People stand up and demand it.

It was an ACT of Treason because:

  1. With the establishment of the National Appeals Division (NAD) It put Executive, Legislative, and Judicial power in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture reporting directly to the President and altered the Administrative procedures Act for its criminal purpose.
  2. It abolished the Federal Rules of Evidence in USDA Administrative appeals and eliminated precedent. Two keys of fair procedure built from the lessons of more than two thousand years.
    1. The elimination of precedent denies appellants equal treatment under appeal, under the law.
  3. It set up a racketeering enterprise to deny appellants their constitutional rights to due process and equal justice under the law.
    1. Conspiracy to deny constitutional rights is a felony crime under 42 U.S.C 1983.
    2. Racketeering to avoid Financial loss is designing a racket for financial gain as is the goal of taking personal property.
    3. Racketeering that affects agriculture impacts local, state, national and even international commerce.
    4. Policies and procedures to avoid allegations of negligence, fraud, and discrimination mask commission of racketeering predicate acts like obstruction of justice, denying due process, fair hearings, and equal treatment under the law.
    5. Every effort is made procedurally in this conspiracy to obstruct justice for the protection of Government negligence, fraud, conspiracies to defraud, discrimination, basically any crimes committed by USDA personnel in the performance of their jobs.
    6. The objective of this operation is four fold.
      1. Avoid Financial liabilities for crimes.(Primarily the criminal negligence of agency management.)
      2. Avoid accountability abusing sovereign immunity to protect agency personnel from being held responsible for criminal violations or failing to perform statutorily required procedures.
      3. The Process is designed to separate crimes from the financial damages they cause thereby allowing the agency to claim no harm no foul damages on  criminal acts. see related items 4 & 5 below.
      4. Operation of a racketeering enterprise which grants the Agency Slide1the ability to selectively discriminate against farmers for the furtherance primarily of UN Agenda 21 goals, conservation, EPA, BLM , objectives. Its effectively used to reduce farm land and farmers, protect water resources, wet lands, and forest resources, and effect the taking of farm land without just compensation from farmers.  Government is  acting in its own self interest waging financial war on farmers where it wishes to force bankruptcy onto farmers so they can  take the land without compensation and  avoid  a violation of the fifth amendment takings clause.
  4. It sets up generally every appeal as a matter of regulatory interpretation.
  5. By design the Agency is rigging and scamming to write laws to fit their objective with each farmer by claiming  a right to deference of interpretation of the regulations they put into law. Should an appellant challenge that in Federal Court the courts are prepared to abuse Auer, Seminole rock, and Chevron deference to oblige the agency. All of which has been recognized as unconstitutional by numerous members of the Supreme Court and until recently the most outspoken of jurist Anton Scalia.
  6. In my case while we demanded a jury decide the jury demand was unconstitutionally circumvented and the court granted deference to rewrite the law, contrary to Supreme court guidance, contrary even to the plain language of the statute.
  7. Racketeering for these objectives in not Risk Management it’s a Criminal racketeering enterprise by design affecting inter, intra and international commerce for financial gain.
  8. It’s an enterprise blatantly violating numerous Federal, State, and even Supreme laws.

Due process requires Government operate legally and within the law. Even the President SCOTUS! You cannot be sworn to uphold it and to protect it and gifted to violate it. The promise of Due Process is that Government will abide by the laws it dictates to its citizens.

This is an  effort to usurp the constitutions separation of powers augmented by a criminal enterprise designed to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights to due process , equal justice, and taking of property without just compensation. Its a process allowing the agency to write their own laws at will to deny farmers their legal rights. I call that levying war against the constitution and against farmers. Farmers are “Them” We The People This is a plain act of treason by our elected representative’s and the Federal Court judges who’ve with congressional blessings have literally violated their oaths of office, violated federal laws protecting constitutional rights, violated the Constitutions requirement of the people that Government operate legally within the law which includes the Constitution. They’ve knowingly conspired to established a war against the Constitution.  A war against the American people a war on fundamental legal foundation on which the country was founded.

Call yourself a patriot? Well this your screaming at the Government to adhere to the law, to adhere to the principles of the Constitution, to abide by your demands. Your no patriot your a traitor.

This act of treason is a war on you and me. This treason was born from many objectives within both political parties. So much so, only a single senate vote by a decorated soldier of Vietnam is recorded cast in opposition. Each and every yes vote cast abolished provisions of the constitution protecting  The People from tyranny and oppression. Each and every vote was a vote to strip American Citizens of their rights to due process, equal justice, fair hearings before unbiased tribunals, and equal justice under the law.This was an ACT to empower a deceitful, despotic, criminal unconstitutional tyrant. This was an act of war on We The People and the Constitution of the United States of America. This was an ACT making the President King.

In passing this legislation with Bi Parisian support, Congress and the Senate agreed to allow the U.S. Government to war against We The People and abolished the people’s Constitutional protections. Indeed, Congress and the Senate allowed Government long established to be changed for light and transient causes most notably managements incompetence.  Take note each and every Senator voting yes on this legislation is guilty of Treason there were 98 yes 1 vote of no and 1 who did not cast a vote from a Senator who switched parties that year. Each and every congressional vote of yes was an act of treason but interestingly there’s no record of the Congressional votes. Who sets the punishment for treason?

Today Congress is unwilling to admit their transgressions or to stop the war. Yet they have on numerous occasions swept truth under the rug with 4.4 billion in payouts to date. Interestingly most of which went to lawyers. This war is run from the office of the Secretary of Agriculture a cabinet member of the President of the United States, a President who is working hard to expand this war and its weapons. Will you be its next casualty? It has already taken life, liberty, and property from tens of thousands and reaped destruction on tens of thousands more. May the next Supreme Court Justice be a true servant of the people, another originalist to protect the sanctity of the constitution.

Nominations and appointments build the Federal Judiciary from the legislature and President. These judges have ties through party and corps to those who grant them gifted seats of long-term power. Knowingly or not, all of the Judiciary has assisted with the usurpation of its power to aid this war for decades. Today the Judiciary ignores the constitution, federal law, and civil rights, which command it to address these crimes. They too have committed the Federal Judiciary to Treason against the Constitution and We The People. The very judges now presiding over cases I brought against this racket were at the table for its design. They were given powerful seats in return for willingness to transgress the law and the supreme law. This is another area America has serious problems that need addressing.Lawyers are a major corp of the treason with in.

I have tried now for years as a victim of this heinous crime to stop it through proper channels with:

Mediation, biased by design with the act of Treason

Hearings, biased by design in the act of Treason

Lawsuit in an Article 3 Federal Court, Jury trial demanded and denied.

A Request to the President under Article 2 clause 3 to uphold the law and Constitution, NO reply.

Lawsuit in an Article 1 Court of Federal Claims.” Conscience of the Nation” Where a Judge with significant ties to treasonous legislation refused to honor his oath of office.

A direct petition to Congressional representative for redress before Congress. No response!

A Writ of Mandamus to the Court of Appeals in the Federal District, Chief of whom was appointed by a traitor and who sat at the table as traitors plotted this  treasonous legislation.

“In every stage of Oppressions (I) We have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson.

Every repeated injury an act of despicable dishonorable rape, robbery, and  assault, all acts of vicious violence committed against me, my family, my friends, my countrymen by a roque Government tyrant. Remember Clarence the humane of it all.

With each crucifixion Government believes it wins. However, they fail to realize they have already lost. History will write truth it cannot be changed. What follows is merely an exorcist of demons lifting the shroud before the bones are interred. With honor I shall perish, the truth be known, and  traitors shall for all time be traitors. The evil men do lives forever after them.Let this evil be known.

Yes America as I challenge these criminal acts of treason in the highest courts in the land the cases are presided over by judges appointed to the bench by these very traitors, even judges  who assisted in designing this very legislative act of war on We The People. Call me a Liar Sue me for Liable the best defense is truth.  I will apologize to know one and accept only the views of an honest unbiased jury trial bestowed with  all relevant evidence. I have many goals but only one mission the end of oppression “Enough is Enough”

When I started this quest I did so having discovered the treason and learning of its prior victims. I believed in the power of the law and the constitution, unaware all branches of the peoples Government had become enemies of the people joining in this treason on the Constitution and the Sovereign people.

For these acts of Treason what punishment shall Congress bestow upon itself?

Each Vote for this legislation was an act of treason,an act of war, each vote that of a traitor. Those who sought this legislation are known and are Traitors. Every traitor of the Constitution of the United States is an enemy of Freedom an enemy of We The People, an enemy of mine. Every individual who protects a traitor or enforces his acts of treason on the people is an enemy of the people. As traitors you have committed acts of war on the people of this nation, you have become soldiers of oppression and as soldiers you are  subject to becoming casualties of the war on you and me. View the list of traitors here.S. 1970 (103rd): Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994

Through all of this, I have blogged the experience, twitted, posted to Facebook, Google, Tumblr, instagram, created petitions, seeking help of my fellow citizens, Help from any media light, all to no avail. Only when We The People demand Government follow our laws will they. History has repeatedly shown Governments left to their own will become tyrannous oppressive despots. Sleeping or awake you are a victim of this war; you are the power of this war. Only a fool powers the destruction of his own rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and only tyrants seek to dispose of them.

“all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” Thomas Jeferson Declaration of Independence.

The Founding fathers segregated Government power by design, knowing what history had thought them. Today that segregation has been usurped the Government has become but one single oppressive despotic entity warring against the people its supposed to serve for its own self-interest. We The People must demand Government abide by our law that our freedom remains.

I had the great misfortune to unwittingly become both a causality and a solider in a war perpetrated by traitors against me, my family, my friends, and my countrymen, by a Government, created to protect the life liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness of the same. Government for, of, and by the people, has made itself  a “TRAITOR” and mine enemy.

While I have fought this battle alone, I fight for We. I cannot win a war against a completely corrupted and evil Government in all its branches without the help of a Nation and the shine of medias light. Turn on the light! Where is the light? Although, I will do what I can until my soul is free. They care not for the lives of anyone, only for their transient power and passions. How many Senators, Congressmen, Judges, Government employees would like this information to remain hidden from the public? I can tell you all major media is refusing to disclose this truth. Without light and without the commitment of WE stopping the oppression will be quixotic.

At the very least history must reflect the truth of this treason the criminal unconstitutional acts of violence on the American Farmer called the Agricultural Reorganization act of 1994. While I battle with civility, that civility, all to soon must end, and take more of me than anyone should ever be asked to suffer. I have, and do declare my Independence. Government has chosen to nullify the peoples social contract. They now must kill me or fear me or atone for their sin.

Einstein  told us there are three kinds of people Good, Evil, and Stupid. Which one are you?

My deepest sympathies to all those who have suffered the terrorism, abuse and oppression of this  Government, which has stolen the peoples, power for evil. Piggford, Garcia, Love, and especially Paxton to name a few. At some point for all the sooner, the better, the evil will become insufferable and the inevitable revolution will ensue. It should be obvious why terrorist target US this Government is likely at war with them for its own interest as well and not the will of the people.

This Government Constitution has failed at the hands of treason from with in. At the hands of traitors seeking  to conform the world to their desired views for its future. At the hands of fools with egos to grand to atone for their mistakes.The people’s representation as traitors allowed the mutilation of the constitution. Grand superciliousness by the peoples representation to undermine the Constitution of the United States. The U.S. Constitution was a noble effort and the lesson of its failure, people must stay vigilante to protect their rights from those who would rule the world if we let them. Such power in the hands of a cabal can only bring oppression making  us all servants in a war on you and me.

The reality of these treasonous acts leaves me with affiliation to but one party, the party of Patriots. A party for truth, honor, justice for all, A party of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. I call for creation of a new party politic, a militia of patriot soldiers must unite in a quest to regain freedom from traitors and tyrants.

The next American Revolution is coming and farmers have every right even an obligation to target the list of traitors who saw fit to dismantle a constitution built on a thousand years of lesson.

Friends, Americans, Countrymen lend me your ears.

CBJulian

Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se

Blue Ridge Springs,

Patriot Soldier of Misfortune.

@blueridgespring

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Blueridgesprings.com

U.S Government Breaches Contract With We The People

U.S Government Breaches Contract With We The People

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

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

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

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

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

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

In regards to this Federal Law the United States Supreme Court and US appellate courts have held the following as precedent: 1. A Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) enterprise animated by an illicit common purpose can be composed of an association-in-fact of government entities and human members when the latter exploits the former to carry out that purpose. 2. The language of §1961(4) unambiguously encompasses governmental units. 3. The substance of RICO’S provisions demonstrates a clear congressional intent that RICO be interpreted to apply to the activities that corrupt public or governmental entities. 4. Congress intended as inducements to achieve the objectives in both the Clayton and Rico acts the provision for the recovery of treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees and bringing to bear the pressure of “private attorneys general” 5. The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, “private attorneys general,” dedicated to eliminating racketeering and a further purpose of encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was right!

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

 CBJulian – Pro Se

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

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

Brietbart

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now Consider This!

Now Consider This!

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

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

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

Consider this on the house.

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

Consider this on farming.

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

Consider this overall.

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

Consider this about me.

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

Consider this when USDA denied me a farm loan.

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

Consider the Mortgage Collapse.

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

Consider the outcomes.

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

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

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

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

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

NOW consider this!

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

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

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

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

Threatening

Threatening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Tonight,

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

I meant it then, I mean it now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

@blueridgespring

blueridgesprings on instagraham.

Dumb and Dumber,  Judges Don’t Know English!

Dumb and Dumber, Judges Don’t Know English!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 764.151   Farm Ownership loan uses.

 FO loan funds may only be used to:

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

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

(c) Promote soil and water conservation and protection;

(d) Pay loan closing costs;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets try a little substitution shall we:

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

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

“JACUSTOMER-ec2m6j9z- :

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

ScottyMacEsq :

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

ScottyMacEsq :

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

JACUSTOMER-ec2m6j9z- :

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

JACUSTOMER-ec2m6j9z- :

off premise

ScottyMacEsq :

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

ScottyMacEsq :

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

ScottyMacEsq :

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

ScottyMacEsq :

So an alternate reading would not make any sense.

JACUSTOMER-ec2m6j9z- :

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

End

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

Tell me America which interpretation do you believe is correct?

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

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

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

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

  • 1923. Purposes of loans

 (a) Allowed purposes 

(1) Direct loans

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

(A) acquiring or enlarging a farm or ranch;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Julian – Pro-Se

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

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

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

Any doesn’t mean Any Anymore!

Any doesn’t mean Any Anymore!

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

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

A Visit with RICO:

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

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

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

See the following link for complete text:

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

This argument makes these primary points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Text Body.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                    A 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which would be me my friends and family! 

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

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

Private Attorney General:

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

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

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

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

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

RICO’s civil enforcement provision provides:

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

  • Both RICO and the Clayton Act are designed to remedy economic injury by providing for the recovery of treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. Both statutes bring to bear the pressure of “private attorneys general” on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate; the mechanism chosen to reach the objective in both the Clayton Act and RICO is the carrot of treble damages. Moreover, both statutes aim to compensate the same type of injury; each requires that a plaintiff show injury “in his business or property by reason of” a violation.

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

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

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

  1. That the RICO and Clayton acts are both designed to remedy economic injury by providing for the recovery of treble damages, cost and attorney’s fees.
  2. Both the Clayton and RICO acts bring to bear the pressure of “private Attorneys General” on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate.
  3. The mechanism chosen to reach the objective in both the Clayton Act and RICO is the carrot of treble damages.
  4. The Court expressed the Opinion that the extraordinarily broad and flexible remedies ought to be used more extensively against the legitimate business activities of organized crime.

Perhaps not when the organized criminal is the Government?

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

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

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

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

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

In the Footnotes the Supreme Court stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RICO and the Private Attorney General

In the Supreme Court decision of Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates][107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987)] The Supreme Court Opinion indicates both RICO and Clayton Acts are designed to remedy economic injury by providing for the recovery of treble damages, cost and attorney’s fees. That both the RICO and Clayton acts bring to bear the pressure of “private Attorneys General” on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate. The mechanism chosen to reach the objective in both the Clayton Act and RICO is the incentive of treble damages. The Court expressed an opinion that the extraordinarily broad and flexible remedies ought to be used more extensively against the legitimate business activities of organized crime.

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOT WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED!

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

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

The “Federal” Courts decision

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

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

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

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

Christopher Julian

Pro-SE

Capitalism, Democracy, Justice, and Civil Rights

Capitalism, Democracy, Justice and My Civil     Rights!

Blue Ridge Springs Orchard | By, CB Julian
November 18, 2013

Why is my story important to anyone? Because, it’s about the failing of an American dream. Government’s involvement in destroying the dream, it’s potential, jobs and rural and economic development. A dream that began failing at the hands of corrupt local officials and businesses, its destruction aided by Congresses passage of Dodd-Frank, help denied from the SBA, and alleged illegal acts by government employees. When done by ordinary citizens these alleged torts have legal remidies. However, employees of the USDA and the University of Virginia State Agricultural Mediation Program have protection under sovereign immunity. In this case now in the Federal Court, we ask the court to decide if racketeering under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations act ‘RICO’ by an agency and employees of the State of Virginia and the US Government can be absolved by Sovereign Immunity?

What makes this story relevant is the Government’s impediment to small business. The pain created by the mortgage mayhem, financial firms destruction of wealth, how Dodd-Frank has been bad for those who had done everything right and now suffer because of the recklessness of others. Three decades of corruption in the USDA and how we allege the Government is abusing power to avoid accountability or responsibility for inept, negligent, corrupt management of the people’s resources. It’s about a difficult labor market and age issues, about whether the judicial system will truly render justice or protect corruption in the bowls of government.  It questions how the Department of Justice reconciles the irony of prosecuting citizens for crimes while defending with immunity government employees for the same offenses.  How all of this is stealing life, liberty, and happiness from my family and friends.

I never wanted to tell this story. I tried unsuccessfully now for some time to find a writer to do this for me. I really don’t have the time to be doing this at all, although, I still have hope the story ends well and having written it down will help pander some business success. Furthermore, I hope it will someday provide my young daughter with a picture of her parents trials in these difficult days. I don’t think much of my writing abilities. I find it hard work, and in the end, I never find I’ve done it well and all wish I had paid more attention to grammar in school. Over the last year I’ve been relegated to do much more of it, for reasons no one wants to have. I have the last year acted as my own attorney, attending mediation, pre-hearing conferences, hearings, doing  my own legal research, writing briefs and presenting this case. Consequently, I’ve spent a great deal of time researching the law, writing briefs, and documenting facts to cross my t’s and dot my I’s. On September 16, 2013, I filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court of Virginia, Western Division, as a Pro-Se plaintiff i.e. representing myself and my family.

This story spans most of the last decade but I would like to start with some of the most recent events. The end of last week I contacted the 4th circuit Federal court of appeals. I asked, how I might file a complaint about the court or judge?  I was quickly directed to this website
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/rules-and-procedures/judicial-conduct-disability. See Page 2 of Judicial Rules of Conduct.  It did not take much reading to tell the Appellate court is not interested in making complaints easy for the average citizen you should check it out. This is one of the most double speak, most difficult to comprehend set of rules I’ve ever met with. It’s as if to be intentionally stated, to be so confusing it cannot be understood. Just consider the fact stated by the site itself.  “Almost all complaints in recent years have been dismissed because they do not follow the law about such complaints.” Perhaps the court should consider whether it has anything to do with the ability of the average Joe to understand the complaint process?

I was able to glean two facts from the site. if you had a complaint it needed to be either about inappropriate behavior by the Judge or it needed to show he lacked faculties to preform his duties. However, my complaint was neither. Best I could tell the court had not acted inappropriately and I have yet to meet the eighty-four year old judge.

My complaint is, as a Pro-Se plaintiff unfamiliar with the courts regular character, I found repeated actions by the court I felt were prejudicial. To understand this you need a little background. First the clerks office had informed us, Pro-Se plaintiffs in a civil case were not given access to file electronically nor did the Judge ever grant them representation. Second as mentioned above the defendants in this case are State and Federal employees and therefore, represented by the Virginia State Attorney Generals office, and the Virginia Division of the US Attorney generals office, an agency of the US Department of Justice.

We filed our complaint September 16th 2013 and waited to receive notice of the defendants representation, we expected them to respond to the complaint in 60 days. Did you know Government employees get almost 3 times as much time to respond to a complaint as a civilian?  On October 24th in the mail we received a Roseboro notice from the court. Basically, this notice informs us, if we fail to respond, or reply with an issue outside the complaint it will be subject to summary judgement. Very interesting! What motion we’ve not filed any, nor had we been served with any?  A quick check on pacer.gov the electronic system for case management reveals the VA State Attorney General has filed notice of appearance, motion to extend the time to respond, and motion to dismiss the case and declare the defendant has sovereign immunity and the case should be dismissed. Now the thing is they did this and the court approved the motion to extend time, as well as, sent the Roseboro notice without us ever being served with the motions.

The State Attorney General had certified to the court we had been served electronically? However, the court and the clerk should have known this was not possible since they had told us we would not likely be granted access nor had we formally requested it. In the courts defense these filings were done electronically.

This, then put us in a bind, request an extension of time to reply, thus extending the defendants time to respond, do nothing and ask it be dropped because of failure to serve even though the court had made us aware of it’s existence, or quickly try to respond appropriately, cover all the basis, and maintain the deadline to file an answer. So we choose the latter responding to the motion and delivering it on the last day the court gave us Friday, October 8th.

On Friday, October 8th the VA, US Attorney General files a motion to extend the time for Federal defendants to file an answer to January 14th, 2014, another 49 days of waiting. He properly served us and we got it in the mail Saturday as we were leaving town. I believed at the time I had 5 days to respond with an opposition. I should mention weeks earlier the assistant attorney general asked if I would object, I informed him I would. The filing reflected this fact. Well, in this case the court counts days beginning with the day after the filing and counts everyday including holidays. This meant our response had to be in the clerks hand by Wednesday Oct 13th. Monday was a holiday so how could we mail it and ensure it was received in the clerks office? Bias Note 1

I wrote the objection, mailed everyone copies on Saturday night, but, I made the post office in Charlotte, NC at around 7:25pm and the last pickup on the box was supposed to be 7:30 pm, holiday and all who knows for sure when it went out.

On Sunday Oct 17th I sent the clerks office an email and asked if they could possibly let me know if the motion was received by Wednesday and if not, I would drive to Danville to get it filed, in time for the dead line. I waited until about 1:00pm on Oct 19th for a reply from the clerks office, generally they’re quite responsive to our questions. Well, not this time, I never did get an answer. That afternoon I drove to Danville to ensure my opposition got recorded in time. Mind you I believed at this point, I’m a day ahead of the deadline. As I gave the motion to the clerk and explained they should ignore the one coming in the mail, I was handed an envelope by the clerk I had written the email to, in it was the Judges order approving the US Attorneys motion to extend time. Bias Note 2 the motion showed we had an objection, but the court approved it without giving us a single day open at the clerks office to file an objection. Bias Note 2

A review of local court rules says the Judge can approve whenever he wants to and you need to file a motion to have any orders reconsidered. Once, again it was as if the court were giving preferential treatment and ignoring any objections we might pose out right.

From our perspective the State Attorneys response’s were interesting as was the US Attorney’s filing notice of appearance after getting the motion approved and our contacting the Appellate court. As of today we are awaiting the courts, decision on the State Attorney’s motion to dismiss and our objection thereto although, we would not be surprised to see the State motion for another extension after all the Government got one until January 14th 2014. This will of course depend on the courts ruling on their motion.