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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by,

Christopher B Julian Pro-Se

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

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

Thank you Congressmen Griffith!

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Christopher B. Julian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only a Jury can provide the appearance of fairness.

Heres a linked list of the judges and their appointee.

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

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

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

CBJulian

Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se

Blue Ridge Springs,

Patriot Soldier of Misfortune.

@blueridgespring

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Blueridgesprings.com

Wall of Injustice Street!

Wall of Injustice Street!

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice delayed is Justice denied.

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

Justice delayed is Justice denied.

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

Justice delayed is Justice denied.

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

Justice delayed is Justice denied.

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

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

Justice delayed is Justice denied.

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

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

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

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

The denial continues V va la revolution!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update 4-10-2017-

Boni Judicis Est Ampliare Jurisdictionem

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

CBJulian

Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se

Blue Ridge Springs,

Patriot Soldier of Misfortune.

@blueridgespring

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Blueridgesprings.com

Treason from Within Via the ABA!

Treason from Within Via the ABA!

A criminal enterprise curtesy of the ABA treason within the United States Government!

The Secretary of Agriculture is a member of the Presidents cabinet consequently; he’s a member of the Executive branch of Government. Note both were or are members of the ABA.

Congress unable to handle their duties allowed the establishment of Agencies with both Legislative and Judicial authority which established entities not contemplated by the constitution and usurping separation of constitutional powers. For more information on that See Thomas Jefferson Explains Path to Oligarchy William Jefferson Clinton Perfects It! Slide1

The USDA is an Agency reporting to the Secretary of Agriculture and it, and its subsidiaries like the Farm Service Agency (FSA) have authority to promulgate regulations interpreting congressional legislation and having the full force of federal law. These regulations are prescribed to the public in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

The Secretary of Agriculture by Executive authority promulgated into law the National Appeals Division (NAD) with authority to administer all administrative hearings of agencies under the Secretary of Agriculture. Subsequently, he promulgated into law the National Appeals Divison would not be required to adhere to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rules of Evidence derived from centuries of precedent defining Due Process. See Tom Vilsack Before Hispanic Caucus Slide1

A Summary of these facts shows the Secretary of Agriculture has Executive, legislative, and judicial power in direct contradiction to the constitutional intention for checks and balances in Government by maintaining separation of power.

  1. The Secretary of Agriculture utilizing this unconstitutional power is running an enterprise designed to deny individuals the constitutional guarantee of Due Process and Equal Justice under the law. This Enterprise is contrary to the Governments due process obligation under the Supreme Law, the constitution of the United States to operate legally and within the law.
  2. The Department of Agriculture uses this enterprise to avoid being held accountable or responsible for violations of Federal Law and Federal regulations they have promulgated into the code of Federal regulations. In other words they use the enterprise to protect themselves from being held accountable to Federal Law or responsible for violating Federal Law.
  3. The USDA/FSA has for decades used this criminal unconstitutional enterprise to inflict all manner of despotic tyranny, torture, and terrorism for all manner of destruction in the lives, livelihoods, health and causing all manner of family destruction in the lives of thousands including my family.

B. Federal Courts have aided and abetted this criminal enterprise by granting agencies like USDA, FSA, NAD the ability to interpret their regulations with any arguable interpretation, even interpretations contrary to the plain language of the regulation and it’s underlying statute as my case demonstrates and is discussed in Dumb and Dumber Judges Don’t Know English!

  1. Today the Federal Judiciary protects this criminal enterprise by granting them sovereign immunity protection from their constitutional obligation to operate legally. Additionally, they aid and abet this enterprise by freely granting Chevron deference.
  2. In this manner the Federal Judiciary has become a co conspirator with the Executive branch in a criminal enterprise granting them power above the law, the supreme law – The constitution of the United States, and in opposition to the true sovereign We The People.
  3. Effectively, the Executive and Judicial branches of Government are acting in their own interest above the law waging war on We The People. What are the United States, if not the embodied representation of We The People? Corrupt Federal Agencies Aidded By Corrupt Federal Judges

C. Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution – Treason.

  1. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them“ (We The People ? ), “or in adhering to their Enemies.” Enemies of (We The People)
  2. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason”
  3. Is the Court of Federal Claims the agent of Congress?

On the receiving end of numerous acts of negligence, fraud, discrimination, and other criminal acts meeting predicate requirements for a civil action against the USDA/FSA for racketeering under Title 18 Chapter 96 sections 1961 – 1968; I filed a civil suit against the responsible individuals and enterprises in Federal Court on September 16, 2013. Case #4:13-cv-00054 JLK RSB.

  1. I relied on the promise of congress in Title 18 Chapter 96 section 1964(c) as an individual with standing, I would for compensation of my time as an attorney and cost, assume the role of prosecutor to remove this criminal enterprise from the legitimate operations of Government. To which I was promised a reward of treble damages for the prosecution.
  2. Under the constitution Article III Clause III Federal Crimes must be tried before a jury. The Defendants right in this case.
  3. Under the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, Civil claims in Federal Court must be tried before a jury. The Plaintiffs right in this case.

I say Superior Federal District Court Judge Jackson l. Kiser violated his oath of office, my constitutional rights, federal laws and unconstitutionally converted the lawsuit in D for operation of the RICO enterprise described in A. to a cause of action for torts under the FTCA. Furthermore, he proceeded in violation of my constitutional and procedural rights into judicial review and decided for himself over valid objections to his jurisdiction and my constitutional rights to decide a material issue of law which had specifically been requested left to a juries purview as provided in D 2 & 3. May I have a day in court to put these issue before a jury? Because the puppet judges of Government serve only the corruption of their master. See We The People v. United States Government

  1.  This case was filed with a RiCO civil cause of action.
  2. This case was not brought under FTCA or U.S.C 5 Section 702.
  3. If Judicial review were to be performed then it was inappropriate to proceed barring the same requirements as demanded under the FTCA because as USC 5 702 States “A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.”
  4. To quote Justice Scalia in National Law review 12-4-2014 “I doubt the Government’s pretensions to deference. They collide with the norm that legislatures, not executive officers, define crimes. When King James I tried to create new crimes by royal command, the judges responded “the King cannot create any offence by his prohibition or proclamation, which was not an offence before.” James I, however, did not have the benefit of Chevron With deference to agency interpretations of statutory provisions to which criminal prohibitions are attached, federal administrators can in effect create (and uncreate) new crimes at will, so long as they do not roam beyond ambiguities that the laws contain [internal citations omitted]. . . .”
  5. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone said the juror “ is voting on the justice of the law according to his own conscience and convictions and not someone else’s. The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided.”
  6. “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution,” a Virginia lawyer wrote around the same time. His name Thomas Jefferson.
  7. Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas write, in their concurrences in Perez, that judicial deference to agency interpretive rules cannot be squared with the constitutional structures of separation of powers, and checks and balances.
  8. And for the very reasons stated by Thomas Jefferson, Justice Harlan F. Stone, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas deference in civil and criminal trials is the jury’s purview and not the agencies or a judge.

Case #4:13-cv-00054 JLK RGB was upheld by the 4th Circuit court of appeals case 14=1480 and 14-1925 and denied cert by the Supreme court Petition 14-1051.

On April 14, 2015 I requested The President of the United States abide by his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and the Laws of this nation under the Take care Clause 5 of Article 2 and I submitted my form SF-95 under the requirements of the FTCA. See Mr. President all thats necessary for the triumph of Government evil is for those in power to do nothingAlbert Einstiend World Destroyed

On November 9 2015 I filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims for breach of contract and a taking without just compensation. Because, Judge Jackson L. Kiser unlawfully converted the RICO cause of action and separated for his personal review the material question of law that belonged in the juries’ purview. Case # 1:15-cv-01344 EJD EGB See We The People v. United States Government

Cog Dis

On January 19, 2016 Because numerous Federal & State judges had ignored federal laws and my constitutional rights on numerous occasions I motioned for Judge Edward J. Damich of the Court of Federal Claims to state in writing: 1 he had taken the judicial oath of office 2 would adhere to that oath during proceedings 3 abide by the Judicial cannons of his office.

  1. Why if you took an oath of office to uphold the law and the constitution might you hesitate even a minute to affirm it?
  2. Why if you took an oath of office to uphold the law and the constitution might you hesitate for even a minute to affirm your intent to abide by that oath?
  3. Why if you took the oath of a judge would you hesitate to affirm your intent to abide by the canons of that office?

Surely an honest judge would have no problem with any of that?

Canon 1: A Judicial Employee Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary and of the Judicial Employee’s Office

A Federal Judge  must  honor an offer as an official of the United States Government he cannot decline acceptance by a private citizen the offer of Constitutional rights. Denying a request to affirm  his oath, intent to adhere to it, and his judicial canons, Judge Edward J.Damich  declined acceptance of the Governments offer to a private citizen. Common law says once an offer is accepted a contract is binding. “Contracts make the law – all law is contract.” Declining to attest, is  breach of contract under common law and constitutional intent of the United States.

The reason for asking judge Edward J. Damich to attest he took an oath of office and intends to abide by that oath of office and his judicial canons, is to ascertain beforehand, the honesty, fairness and integrity this total stranger “intends” to display during the course of the hearing.

Remember, this stranger holds enough power over Plaintiffs and has the potential to disrupt Plaintiffs life and remove their liberties. Which numerous Judges have already done to  Plaintiff(s) Furthermore, and of great importance is the role prior judicial breaches  of the laws, the oaths, and canons played in the proximate cause of the complaint at issue.

Plaintiffs had a due process right to know their going to be treated in the prescribed manner by this unknown stranger and getting access to the law, Plaintiffs are entitled haven given up some natural freedoms? Plaintiffs opted into being subject to the Constitution and allowing the Supreme Law to have [legitimate] control over them. “Contracts make the law – all law is contract.

“The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature: being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will. But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish.” – William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.

“The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court to decide according to law. Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirements or to undermine public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court” – Lord Diplock in Att-Gen v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974]

Once laws are made it’s the job of the judge to listen to and make judgments when there are disputes and allegations of wrong doings. This position as you would expect requires the holder to be of impeccable character and hold the highest moral standards and unshakeable integrity. There can be no lesser qualifications for a position in society of such great importance and power.

You should ALWAYS get a positive answer from an honest judge, how could you not?  What do you think? 

In an ideal world no one would even dream of questioning a judges integrity. It would go without saying that if that man or woman took a solemn oath to perform and act in a certain way, there would be no way on Earth that that solemn vow would be welched on or forgotten when suited. Men and women who are honest develop a reputation for that honesty and so there is very little if any natural motivation to question that honesty.

For Judge Edward J. Damich to confirm his intention gives the people and Plaintiffs confidence in this complete stranger to act fairly, honestly and with integrity and to be TOTALLY IMPARTIAL His denial of the motion for said relief the antithesis.

This is a NORMAL request for someone to ask in a situation as alien to him as this and having a case based largely on Federal Judges failure to observe the same.

For judge Edward J. Damich to decline a request to confirm being bound by his oath did not foster confidence, judge Edward J. Damich would act as professional as one would expect, and so there was no trust in judge Edward J. Damich judicial abilities and integrity when the responsive pleading was written.

Plaintiffs have found judges lacking in honesty, fairness and integrity, a requirement demanded by their “noble” profession. It’s these judges that appear to have abandoned their oath and honor, and it’s these judges’ prior actions that demanded Plaintiffs ask Judge Edward J. Damich if he would be bound by the principles of his oath with the intention of getting a positive answer.

Consider the Words of Thomas Jefferson: “judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps, Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.” SeeThomas Jefferson Explains Path to Oligarchy! William Jefferson Clinton Perfects It!                                                                        

If I was appointed to be a Justice by President William Jefferson Clinton and later was  assigned a case accusing President William Jefferson Clinton of establishing and operating a criminal unconstitutional enterprise waring against We The People I should I recuse myself on the grounds presiding over such a case might appear to lack independence or worse an intent to protect a criminal enterprise involved in treason. An enterprise accused of denying individuals the constitutional rights a judge has a  sworn  oath to uphold? See Thomas Jefferson Explains Path to Oligarchy! William Jefferson Clinton Perfects It! 

Canon 2: A Judicial Employee Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities

Presiding over a case in which President William Jefferson Clinton who appointed you to the bench as a judge with a 15 year plus appointment is accused of establishing a criminal unconstitutional enterprise and you do not recuse yourself. I state for me unequivocally presents the  significant appearance of impropriety. What do you think ?   

February 4, 2016 Judge Edward J. Damich Denied a request to attest:

  1. he had taken the judicial oath of office,
  2. would adhere to that oath during proceedings,
  3. would abide by the Judicial cannons of his office.

Judge Edward J. Damich denial of attestation of  is calculated obstruction of justice 18 U.S.C 1505 and so, a common law contempt of court, a broken oath 28 U.S.C. 453 and, a common law breach of contract,  a violation of 28 U.S.C 455(a) and 18 U.S.C. 242! And quite plausibly 18 U.S.C. 1621 & 18 U.S.C 2382 42 U.S.C 1986

If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution, and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Furthermore, since this Plaintiffs case involves treason judge Damich has chosen to War against We The People and to adhere to the enemies of We The People.

If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.

These are hardly what can be characterized as Judicial functions or the expectations society has on such a high office and an officer sworn to uphold the constitution under 28 U.S.C 453.

Judge Damich the Constitution of these united States of America is the supreme law of the land. No other law, rule, regulation or code including contract can supersede it, nor can your authority as a judge, or an imposter acting as a judge. You did not confirm your oath you violated it and you have violated 28 U.S.C. 455(a) you are an imposter, you are unlawful in the office, in violation of 18 U.S.C 912. You should have recused yourself and you should step down. You sir I contend are a traitor and should be tried for treason.

Failure to confirm your oath of office suggest judge Edward J. Damich does indeed intend to prejudice your the Plaintiffs  rights to equal access to justice. Consequently, I will no longer consider myself bound by the social contracts of law because, the U.S. GovernmentThe Pick Poem is in breach of its agency duties and has become a law breaker. I denounce as valid any control local, state, and federal governments have over my personal sovereignty. I no longer under my free will grant you any power and will resist with full and uninhibited force any attempt at control over my person in any manner whatsoever. Until such time as my constitutional rights are observed and justice served on the traitors.”

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 punishment set for breaking the law. Prior to this controversy the rules were set in : Anatomy of a Criminal Threat Absent Malace

January 27, 2016 I contacted my congressional representative because the judge had not only not responded but  several items I believed should be on the courts docket had not been docketed. I requested, since the court of federal claims was an agent for congress my case become a petition for a congressional hearing on my allegations. See item C(2).

February 4, 2016 The response brief to the DOJ’s motion to dismiss under 12(b) was filed with the Court and at the same time the motion of January 19, 2016, appeared on the docket followed February  10, 2016, by other items the court should have long ago docketed.

February 11, 2016 I had a personal come to Jesus discussion with the office of my worthless  congressional representative Moron Griffith. I believe as the Executive and Judicial branches of Government are co conspirators in this treason on We The People it is Congresses duty to bring the traitors to justice. See C(2) & C(3).

February 13. 2016 News of this case was just to much for Antonin Scalia to bear!

Because:

A(3) The USDA/FSA has for decades used this criminal unconstitutional enterprise to inflict all manner of despotic tyranny, torture, and terrorism for all manner of destruction in the lives, livelihoods, health and causing all manner of family destruction in the lives of thousands of We The People.

B (3) Effectively, the Executive and Judicial branches of Government are acting in their own interest above the law waging war on We The People. What are the United States if not the embodied representation of We The People?

C. (1) “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them“ (We The People ? ), “or in adhering to their Enemies.” Enemies of (We The People)?

C. (2) “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason” Is this then not the responsibility of the Court of Federal Claims?  They don’t think so. They have responded to this law suit precisely as predicted in.Any doesn’t mean Any Anymore!

Slide1

March 10, 2016 in a perfect example of a reasonless summary order Judge Edward J. Damich denied the Government, We The People had any intention in legislating this law to contract with a Plaintiff for  the prosecution of these criminals and denied the promise  presented in title 18 Chapter 96 Section 1964(c)  entitled plaintiffs to the compensatory damages the U.S Government promised. Attorney fees for my time and effort, Cost of brining the suit, and treble damages as incentive in contrast see the intent of this law as stated by the Supreme Court in:

Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates][107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987)] : “RICO and the Clayton Act are designed to remedy economic injury by providing for the recovery of treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.[1] 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”

It’s astonishing to discover the Federal Courts do not find a RICO enterprise operating from the Office of the President a serious national problem. But they’re going to do everything in their power to protect it from a jury. I can tell you from experience and I suspect the tens of thousands of farmers before me believe congress had every intent to contract with a private individuals to rid our Government of the Mafia style corruption it operates under.

While the court labeled the Opinion not for publication you can read it here as Item 13 opinion.Please feel free to review any of the other court filing documents you like. The Key Documents Chronologically  

America where should we go from here?

The Executive Branch of Government is operating criminally aided and abetted by the Federal Judiciary and the Court of Federal Claims as agent of Congress claims to have no authority to review the actions of  the Judiciary as it conspires with an Executive office against We The People.

Yes America the Treason within is perpetrated by members of the judiciary and the ABA of Liars.

Update 4-9-2016 Every American has a civic duty to watch this film: WHO STOLE THE AMERICAN DREAM I challenge you to discredit its facts. After you watch this film answer the questions. Who Started, What Professional/Organization were they in, When did it start, and Where did the war on the American dream began. Who’s running and controlling the war on the American Dream? Lawyers working with Bankers?  You should also watch this film as well The American Dream What Happened

If Congress refuses to assume power to hold these branches accountable for treason; they too, join in tyranny and oppression of We The People and We The People have a duty to freedom and our fore fathers to see the traitors, and those who aid and protect them hang in the fires of hell.

America should understand, I write this blog as a record for the world to see, just what a hypocritical nation the American Government has become. A nation touting its respect for justice, the rule of law, and for democracy while itself being a serious oligarchy run by the ABA engaged in despotic, tyranny,  oppression and extortion of We The People!

The US Government is completely responsible for the consequences of their criminal actors

cbjulian

Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se.

@blueridgespring

WordPress.blueridgesprings.com

blueridgesprings.com

Un American Express !

Un American Express !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMG_2458

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

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

Ararat Construction Begins 00046

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back Camera

Back Camera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bank Of America 16.65 billion

JP Morgan Chase 13 billion

AIG 960 Million +

Wells Fargo 175 Million + 560 Million +

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMG_4475 IMG_4474

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

IMG_4473

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.blueridgespings.com

blueridgespings on Instagraham

blueridgespring on twitter

blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

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.

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

Corrupt Federal District Court Of Federal District Judge Jackson L. Kiser – Traitor

America This is the Federal District Court of Virginia Western District Danville making false statements in defense of criminal activities by a racketeering enterprise, run by the USDA.

Why? Because Courts have rules about Fraud “No Harm No Foul”  eliminate any financial  harm and they can dismiss the Multiple counts of fraud and mail fraud. Thats why Federal Judge Jackson L. Kiser wrote this BS. To fraudulently dismiss the predicate acts of the government run racketeering enterprise alleged.

This is just one of dozens of examples of corruption in the ruling of our case by the Federal District Court of Danville VA.  Are they making arguments for the defense, or looking at the facts provided in the evidence?

  • Truth in lending laws require lenders to provide an applicant with a copy of their credit report, when they paid for and request it.
  • Yes we only requested a copy after the loan denial  because we knew James Rigney FSA/USDA had not preformed the requirements of his job by obtaining one.
  • FSA denied the loan for requesting to pay off debt we did not have.
  • Our credit report proved the allegation was false.
  • Every educated lender knows an individual can obtain their own credit report without damaging their credit, why would we want them to pull one for us two months after they’d denied the loan?
  • We were monitoring our credit monthly with MYFICO. That’s how we knew they had never pulled a report.
  • How do you deny a loan without ever looking at the applicants credit especially when your rules expressly specify you do so?
  • Double click the image below to read the facts supporting these statements.
Corrupt Court

Federal Court corruption

Update 2-19-2016 Look at USDA Farm Loan Guide at the Description of use for a Credit Report Fee on page 39. “So FSA can obtain your credit history” a so called required procedure never performed’ Money taken for a purpose never carried out. Money stollen from the plaintiff and never returned. Such integrity from our courts and government.

FSA Guide on Credit Report FeeThe court has absolutely no argument, nor evidence, or anything contrary to the evidence provided, to support the contention this was an application fee. The FSA documents stated its a Credit Report Fee and the fee is based on the type of credit report to be obtained. America This is a Federal District Court making false statements in defense of criminal activities protected by an unconstitutional  criminal Racketeering USDA run enterprise. See FSA application checklist Exhibit L & M here

Think about it this way too. If it truly is an application fee then it was collected on false pretense as the documentation said it was a credit report fee. That too would be fraud!

Note L is depicted above as Untitled 2.  Here is M from the FSA handbook on loan request processing. Note the last bullet point.

Processin of Loan Application

Update 4-21-2017 This was a Federal District court Judge Jackson L. Kiser in violation to his oath of office, in an act of treason, protecting a criminal enterprise run by the USDA in direct violation of the Constitution waring against America Farmers, and the Constitution of the United States. This is Treason as blatant as it gets.

This was a failure of a duty to provide due care, a failure to preform a required duty, a failure to provide the process due.   A failure to preform a service for which they had demanded compensation. The USDA fraudulently took compensation for a statutory duty they never preformed.