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

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

Christopher B. Julian

474 Orchard View Drive

Ararat Virginia, 24053

980-254-1295

Christopher.b.julian@gmail.com

Pro Se   Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Christopher B. And Renee G.

 

Julian

Plaintiffs(s),

V,

Bank Of America N.A. Et Al

 

)

)

 

Case Number: 3:16-CV-173

Letter to the Honorable Judge Robert J. Conrad

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

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

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

Justifications:

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Expertise and the Poor’s need for assistance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Christopher.B.Julian Pro-Se

[1] Emphasis Added.

[2] Emphasis Added.

 

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

  1. The judge must have found the case to have merit.
  2. The judge did not find the filing deficient but, we shall see the replies and how there handled.
  3. The Judge must have found the defendants owed plaintiffs the duty of care in the negligence allegations. We shall see.
Advertisements
Tom Vilsack Before Hispanic Caucus.

Tom Vilsack Before Hispanic Caucus.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) together with the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the National Appeals Division (NAD), and multiple state agricultural mediation programs operate an organized racketeering enterprise, fraudulently masquerading as an administrative appeals process. This Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) is designed to deny appellants their individual constitutional rights to Due Process and Equal Justice under supreme law while usurping the judicial system to hide incompetent administration of the people’s resources and manage legal risk for financial gain. Since this is Fraud on Farmers, it obviously has an impact on agricultural commerce.

This fraudulent unconstitutional illegal risk mitigation effort under guise of an administrative appeal process is a federal crime under title 18 chapter 96 sections 1961-1968.It cannot be squared with Governments obligation to the people to operate legally and within the law.

This enterprise protects employees of the USDA & FSA from accountability and responsibility for crimes committed on the very individuals their employed to serve, from responsibility for negligence in the mismanagement of the people’s resources, from negligent, fraudulent, and discriminatory acts in the performance of their jobs even from accountability for failing to preform, proclaimed required procedures.

This enterprise is designed to deny fair, impartial, legal, and constitutionally guaranteed judicial review. It is intentionally designed to abuse the judicial doctrine of Chevron deference, which the judiciary has come to abuse in the denial of individual civil rights by consenting to Governments usurpation of the Constitutions intentional separation of powers.

My lawsuit against the USDA RICO enterprise described above was protected by Superior U.S. Federal District Court Judge Jackson L. Kiser and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals from a Jury trial and Denied cert by the of the United States Supreme Court. I believe Judge Kiser’s intent was to block the RICO charges to protect the enterprise from dissolution as allowed under RICO.

Today Secretary Tom Vilsack at 12:00 noon, Thursday, March 3rd, will come before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to answer questions regarding the Hispanic & Women’s Civil Rights Claims process. Where Of 53,803 total discrimination claims submitted 22,163 (41%) were reviewed. Of these only 3,210 (14.4%) of the claims reviewed were approved — only 6% of the total claimants and most of these to women.

I ask you to consider the impact the RICO enterprise described above had on these appellants prior to their filing claims under this settlement. I assure you this enterprise took every opportunity to deny these appellants their constitutional rights to a fair and impartial hearing and that fact is not reflected in the Agencies case records.

I submit that an agency operating a RICO enterprise to avoid financial damages, accountability, and responsibility for the jobs their paid to perform has no business being allowed any involvement in the evaluation of these claims.

Remember, “There is no greater tyranny, than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice” Montesquieu

The Small American Farmers of this country deserve a loud and demanding call from American Citizens to end this decades old Trojan horse war by the USDA on the backbone of this country.

Justice Louis Brandeis offered this view ‘”Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen.” Racketeering is a Federal Crime!

“ In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.”

Operating a RICO enterprise in violation of Federal Law and for denial of constitutional rights to Due Process is a violation of the Constitution that borders on treason.

“Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).”

Chris Julian

Not a Pro Pro Se per Se.

@blueridgespring

WordPress.blueridgesprings.com

Thomas Jefferson Explains Path to Oligarchy! William Jefferson Clinton Perfects It!

Thomas Jefferson Explains Path to Oligarchy! William Jefferson Clinton Perfects It!

May 1788 in Federalist No. 78 Alexander Hamilton wrote :

“A Constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.” ”The constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”

”Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those, which are not fundamental. [Emphasis added]“

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.” [Emphasis added]

See [Exhibit 2].Federalist No. 78 Alexander Hamilton

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Jarvis September 28th 1820 about the constitution wrote:

“I feel an urgency to note what I deem an error in it, the more requiring notice, as your opinion is strengthened by that of many others. You seem in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our 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. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” [Emphasis added]

See [Exhibit 3].Excerpt from the writings of Thomas Jefferson.

Stop here and consider for a minute that at the time of Jeffersons letter the average life expectancy was a ripe old age of 37. Additionally, the case of Marbury v. Madison had established  precedent

“The solution he chose has properly been termed a tour de force. In one stroke, Marshall managed to establish the power of the court as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, to chastise the Jefferson administration for its failure to obey the law, and to avoid having the court’s authority challenged by the administration.”

From 1789 until 1855 all monetary claims based upon a congressional statute, an executive branch regulation, or a contract with the United States Government were handled by petitions to Congress.

In 1855 (10 Stat. 612) Congress established the Court of Claims to relieve its own workload. In 1861 at President Abraham Lincoln’s insistence congress granted the court of claims the essential judicial power to render final judgments in response to President Lincoln’s’ insistence in his annual message to congress in 1861 that

“ It is as much the duty of Government to render prompt justice against itself, in favor of citizens, as it is to administer the same, between private individuals”

See history on the Court of Federal Claims website.

The Administrative Procedures Act was born in a contentious political environment between 1933 and 1946 as detailed in the 1946 U.S. House of Representatives report detailing a “painstaking and detailed study and drafting” Based on one study, President Roosevelt commented that the practice of creating administrative agencies with the authority to perform both legislative and judicial work

“threatens to develop a fourth branch of government for which there is no sanction in the Constitution

In 1994 while the USDA was besieged with Civil and Criminal allegations President William Jefferson Clinton signed into law the Department of Agriculture Reorganization act of 1994. Subsequently, Mike Epsy then Secretary of Agriculture promulgated into law the National Appeals Divisions, See Title 7 Part 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Secretary then promulgated into law that the Federal Rules of Evidence shall not apply to proceedings under the National Appeals Division. See Title 7 CFR 11.4(b). 

Update – 3-17-2016- It’s important to note here that at the time President Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden was head of the Senate Judiciary committee. President William Jefferson Clinton’s Vice President Al Gore an environmental activist. Senator Joe Biden and Senator Barrack Obama cosponsored the Piggford v. Glickman settlements. If you don’t see the connections your blind! The good ole boy network of the ABA is at work rapping, robbing, and destroying the lives of small farmers by usurpation of the Constitution and the Judiciary.  After this legislations enactment  Judge Edward J. Damich was appointed to the Bench by William Jefferson Clinton in 1998 to the  Intellectual Property Counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. May he have assisted in the legal construction of this criminal enterprise? See :Integrity & Independence in the Federal Judiciary ?

The Secretary of Agriculture is a Cabinet Member reporting directly to the President of the United States, which at that time was notably President William Jefferson Clinton. A President I might add who was a lawyer himself and was prolific at getting Federal, State, Appellate, and Supreme Court Justices into seats on the bench.

At this point the Secretary of Agriculture, reporting directly to the President had the United States Department of Agriculture USDA, and the NAD under his direct control  having eliminated the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Now you have an Executive Branch of the US Government with the power of all three branches of Government! Thomas Jefferson is rolling over!

President William Jefferson Clinton with Executive control of the Department of Agriculture. The USDA an Agency with administrative ability to promulgate into law under the code of federal regulations with the same force of law as statutes, and the National Appeals Division (NAD) also a division of the Department of Agriculture performing the Administrative Judicial functions. Where the Federal Judiciary will grant the USDA Chevron Bias to rewrite the laws to support NAD rulings. 

The only check on their power citizens now have over the department of Agriculture is Judicial review in Federal Court.

The Judiciary had at the time already begun exploiting precedent regarding  administrative agencies giving them extraordinary powers to interpret their own rules with Auer and Chevron Deference!

America has an Executive branch with the powers of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches and more disturbing, the Judiciary on review granting them the power to simply rewrite law to avoid accountability or responsibility for their lack of compliance with the laws they promulgated. Has the Judiciary and Executive branch of government become co conspirators?

This is simply an intentional usurpation of the United States constitutional segregation of power! It is an unconstitutional act of treason. This is the Nations Food Supply, Massive Farm Loan Programs, Food Safety Inspections, Food Nutrition Services, the Nations National Forest and Parks, controlled by an Executive branch with unrestrained power! Has congress allowed such for other Agencies of Government?

Supreme Court Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas write, in their recent concurrences in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association No. 13-1041 Argued December 1, 2014—Decided March 9, 2015 that

judicial deference to agency interpretive rules cannot be squared with the constitutional structures of separation of powers, and checks and balances.”[Emphasis added]

Justice Thomas in particular provided a thorough and compelling review of the reasons why the Constitution separates powers between the three branches, and the evils that come from undivided government power.

Since the passage of the Agriculture Reorganization Act, NAFTA an signing of U.N. Agenda 21, all under William Jefferson Clinton, over 2 million small farmers have been displaced or bankrupted. Tom Vilisack of the USDA recently bragged farmers have declined by 22 million and farm land reduced by 23%. see Full Committee Public Hearing on State of the Rural Economy.2-24-2016.

Jefferson’s letter to William Jarvis in 1820 was prophetically spot on. The Judiciaries dangerous power coupled with passions for party, power, and privilege of their corps has erected and conceded us all to the hands of a single tribunal, turning them into despots placing We The People under the despotism of an oligarchy.

And I believe the true oligarchy is none other than the Fraternal order of lawyers > Judges and legislators in conjunction with their placement in Executive offices. I suggest you read my post

While a left leaning liberal, I Cannot Support Hillary 

Bernie Sanders has said after more than 25 years in office our Government is corrupt and powered by the influences of money and greed. Former President Jimmy Carter, as fine a man as I know has said our Government is no longer a Democracy but an Oligarchy. Jimmy Carter: The U.S. Is an “Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery”

This country is seriously in need of a revolution which takes back our Government from the power of greed and the fraternal order of lawyers. We need to vote in a President, Congress, and Senate with few lawyers. Some would say I’m guilty of profiling lawyers. But, the facts speak for themselves, You want to be respected even honored you need to be honest, honorable, transparent, and remove the secrecy from behind closed doors. You need to be held accountable and responsible especially where your poking your hands in the publics interest.

You won’t respect? Earn it!

Slide1Because the rules don’t require it Judge Edward J. Damich Denies a request to affirm he has taken the oath of office and intends to abide by it. I never saw him take that oath. Given 4 Federal judges and 2 State Judges have not  followed the law in my legal battles with the U.S. Government. I expect the judge to affirm his intention to abide by the law upfront I want a promise of due process before they steal more of my life.

This is not in your favor. By Order of Judge Edward J. Damich.Note: Judge Damich was appointed to the bench by none other than William Jefferson Clinton.

Most of this information was part of my reply brief to the Governments Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12b. I believe Judge Damich should recuse himself. What do you think?

Here is an interesting Federal Law 18 U.S.C.2382

Update – 2-12-2016 – Federal, State, District, and National courts are not and have not been abiding by federal law. Our government is operating criminal racketeering operation and the media will not report it. I believe they are now after me I will not wind up like Andrew Brietbart. If approached by law enforcement I will not go like the quarry slave at night sustained and soothed by unfaltering trust. Law enforcement should be after the real criminals the corrupt lawyers, legislators, running our government and our courts.

Update – 2-19-2016 – Rudy Arredondo posted enlightening information on the Hispanic & Women Farmers & Ranchers Settlement Facebook page today. I have created this PDF version for your review and information.Hispanic & Women Farmer’s & Ranchers Settlement Claimants Group

Update – 2-21-2016 – New Clear Vision a Land without Farmers

Update – 2-21-2016- BFAA President Gary Grants website interesting read on the subject.

(Irony)

(linked documentation)

Chris Julian

Not a Pro Pro Se per Se.

@blueridgespring

WordPress.blueridgesprings.com

 

The Weak

We’re a week away from the due date set by the court for the U.S. Attorney General to reply to the complaint as representation for the USDA. Unlike previously they’ve not called indicating their intent to request a further extension. Therefore, we anticipate some sort of response. None to soon after four months of awaiting a response our mental health grows weak.

The court did not and has not ruled on the Virginia State Attorney Generals offices Motion to dismiss and claim of Sovereign immunity. Given our conundrum explained in the last post. A Legal Conundrum by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(e)”  we’re just not sure really what to make of their silence. I considered a motion for summary judgement but, that would negate a gross negligence charge, and eliminate the potential for discovery. We’d really like to know Who,What,When, and especially Why?  By not providing a ruling the court is effectively delaying any requirement for a response. If the court considers the point mute, then we should expect default judgement for failure to respond to the complaint, and failure to set a hearing on the motion which is also not effective for failure to serve. Court Bias Was all of the States move just a red hearing to avoid responding to the complaint? Does that not deserve sanctions?  Did the court knowingly aid the State? Court Biased ? 

It’s 19 degrees outside. Only heat we have is the fireplace. The temperature dropped to 2 last night. My daughter is complaining of being cold. No wonder in a house without,windows and doors, a finished roof, or insulation. A government agency, grossly negligent, incompetent personnel, fraudulent and criminal behaviors. People lost their jobs, businesses, and lives destroyed; my daughter freezing all because a Government agency wants to deny a loan application because this unfinished self built self funded home is large.

For what we allege are gross negligent, fraudulent, criminal acts by Government employees and racketeering by Government agencies. The Government wants to claim sovereign immunity. We can’t be held responsible or accountable for breach of the laws we enacted because, we’re the sovereign we’re beyond reproach. The land of freedom and democracy with rights protected under the constitution unless of course the Government steals them?  Yes America what a wonderful country, or is it one of tyranny and oppression?  Just what kind of response will the Department of Justice offer. What will the court do?  Regardless we will fight! For truth, honor, and justice – may the unbending sword of truth prevail.