Petition for Rehearing Denied

Petition for Rehearing Denied

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This statement of the Court presents numerous issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Court of Appeals states at 4 ¶5

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

And at 5 ¶1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted by,

Christopher B Julian Pro-Se

[1] Emphasis added.

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

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

[4] Emphasis Altered.

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

[6] Emphasis altered.

[7] Emphasis Altered.

[8] To an agrieved farmer who’s business has been wipped out by government actions the prospect of being paid a reasonable attorneys fee to prosecute the offender is a very attractive offer.

[9] Emphasis added.

[10] Emphasis added.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements
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.
Federal Court Opinion Balances Scales of Justice With Lies!

Federal Court Opinion Balances Scales of Justice With Lies!

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

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

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

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________ CHRISTOPHER B. JULIAN, RENEE G. JULIAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

                ______________________

2016-1889

                ______________________

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

                ______________________

Decided: August 4, 2016

                ______________________

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

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

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

J. Damich.

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

2

JULIAN v. US

______________________

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

PER CURIAM.

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

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFFIRMED

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

Petition for Rehearing Final

Please feel free to leave a comments below.

In The War On You And Me.

In The War On You And Me.

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

It was an ACT of Treason because:

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

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

This is an  effort to usurp the constitutions separation of powers augmented by a criminal enterprise designed to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights to due process , equal justice, and taking of property without just compensation. Its a process allowing the agency to write their own laws at will to deny farmers their legal rights. I call that levying war against the constitution and against farmers. Farmers are “Them” We The People This is a plain old fashioned racketeering operation and an act of treason from with in.

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation, biased by design with the act of Treason

Hearings, biased by design in the act of Treason

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friends, Americans, Countrymen lend me your ears.

CBJulian

Not a Pro Pro Se Per Se

Blue Ridge Springs,

Patriot Soldier of Misfortune.

@blueridgespring

Blueridgesprings.wordpress.com

Blueridgesprings.com

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

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

We The People v. United States Government 1:15-CV-01344

We The People v. United States Government 1:15-CV-01344

As an agent for Congress the U.S. Court of  Federal Claims has a duty to protect the American people from Government abuses of power. Especially abuse of power by the executive branch engaged in criminal and unconstitutional activities for the depravation of constitutional rights protected by arbitrary, capricious, judicial abuses of power not in accordance with the law.

The Department of “In” Justice (DOJ) asks the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, to suppose the power of the judiciary is superior to that of the legislature.

The DOJ ask the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to accept on the pretense of a repugnancy and by violation of federal law Judge Jackson L. Kiser may substitute his own pleasure for the constitutional intentions of the legislature.

The DOJ ask the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to accept that Governments power is above that of the people and the supreme law of the land.

The DOJ ask the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to accept We The People are no longer in power but, that Government has usurped the United States for its own self interest and enrichment of its servants.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims should look to the words of Abraham Lincoln “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” Because, it is as much the duty of the Federal Court of Claims to render prompt justice against the “Judiciary” and “Executive” branches of Government, in favor of citizens as it is to administer the same between private individuals. Is the judiciary no longer a branch of the United States Government?

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims was founded under Article I., not Article III of the Constitution of the United States. Consequently, this court and its jurisdiction are representative agents of “We the People” through collective congressional representation. It is the function of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to hold Government “Both” the Executive and Judicial branches of government accountable.

If the U.S. Court of Federal Claims finds for any reason it lacks capacity to hear this case, then they must refer it as a petition for congressional hearing. As an agent of Congress, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims must ensure that the legislative will of the people is enforced. Enlightened souls are opposed to Government operating illegal enterprises for the depravation of constitutional rights to absolve themselves of crimes, accountability, and responsibility, in the jobs they’re paid and have duties to perform.

For the record, frustration and displeasure with the Governments lying, judicial abuse, corruption, and criminal operations of the Executive offices is an extraordinary understatement. Plaintiffs are tried of Governments persistent attempts through pervasive and consistent lying, corruption, and contempt for the law and Constitution, to deny justice while continually trivializing and ignoring such grotesque corruption plaguing the American farms and farmers. Real frustration comes from having to deal with lame arguments by a Government continuing to insist on abusing power, believing people should simply accept as true persistent lies and fallacy under the pretense of justice, at the hands of judges who are but pawns of the same enterprise.

Congress may condone these traitorous acts, as they have obviously turned a continuous blind eye to this heinous, despotic, and criminal enterprise operating as a wolf in sheep’s clothing against civilians they’re paid to serve. The people may be blind and in the dark but, disinfecting light is coming. I would submit the corrupt government oppressors have continually underestimated the resolve, ingenuity, and persistence of Plaintiffs intent to see this enterprise eliminated. As Clint Eastwood would say go ahead, make my day! For decades USDA has operated this enterprise without accountability or responsibility. Never did they believe a farmer would discover their scam or pursue them through federal courts. In the next rounds any attempt to obstruct swift justice by jury trial will not be tolerated by the people; darkness is fading into light.

Congressmen like representative Steve Chabot first district of Ohio, Who is on the House Judiciary Committee, the House Committee on Small Business, The House subcommittee on Economic Growth, and the House Subcommittee on Investigations, Oversight and Regulations, are intimately aware of the Governments manner of family destruction in the lives of so many African American, Hispanic, and Female farmers.

However, this to is another Government cover up, a fraud on the farmers. While numerous diversities have suffered, so to have all small farmers at the hands of government, which hit small farmers with the force of a cataclysm as they waged an invisible and unreported war on small farmers. A war waged to support large corporate agribusiness, lawyers, judges, bankruptcy courts, financial institutions, and environmental objectives lining the pockets of elected officials.

A war waged through an unconstitutional, criminal, and illegal government run RICO enterprise supported by agencies at county, state, and federal levels to intimidate small farmers, giving them faulty information, denying them loans, after having made the wolf in sheep’s clothing the lender of last resort, and harassing them from their land. A Government run RICO enterprise taking land by bankrupting and foreclosing on small farms with no need for compensation.

A Government run RICO enterprise which has protected evil, criminal, recalcitrant agents of government,who never lost their employment and are granted rich retirements and benefits after haven stolen the land, the livelihood, the health, and causing all manner of family destruction in the lives of so many. Farmers fraudulently entrapped by government agents representing themselves as servants of the people when in reality they served a criminal self serving government and the financial coffers of the peoples representatives.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims must use its Jurisdiction to ensure the peoples Constitutional rights are not subverted by any branch of government. Furthermore, The U.S. Court of Federal Claims must assure the American people they will no longer be subjects of tyranny and oppression at the hands of co-conspirators in Government.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims must pause to recognize, Plaintiffs with standing who brought the civil (RICO) cause of action against an executive branch of government and its agents, were and are uniquely granted with the legislative authority to prosecute this criminal enterprise. The judiciaries’ actions to unlawfully, convert Plaintiffs suit blocked the only path available to the American people to end the criminal enterprise operating in and by an Executive branch of the U.S. Government. An enterprise aided and abetted by the unconstitutional granting of deference in a civil cause of action, aiding and abetting tyranny and oppression of We The People!

The USDA’s RICO enterprise operating from the Secretary of Agricultures office has unlawfully destroyed the lives of thousands of farmers assisted by the Judiciaries extraordinary bias in granting the agency deference to rewrite laws at will for their own protection. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims must act for justice (RCFC 1.), to assist in dismantling the despotic, oppressive tyranny which appears designed to allow Government the unlawful taking of personal property without due compensation. Designed to enforce big corporations who line the pockets of the people’s representation to the detriment and will of the American people.

The Judiciary is but one of three original branches of Government under the constitution, If this court “Congress” does not hold the Judiciary and Executive branches accountable to the law then they join in the oligarchy of kings above the law and submit the American people to slavery of despots.

The world should then know the U.S. Government is a fraud upon the people and its Constitutional form of Government has failed!

To We The People the U.S. Government is in breach of its Agency duties, and did breach its contractual offer, and promise to the American people to contract with a private citizen to assume the role of a prosecuting attorney with the carrots of inducement by legislative act for monetary compensatory damages, with further express congressional mandate of treble damages, attorneys fees and cost. The only purpose congress had in providing such inducements to a private citizen, was incentive for a private individual with standing to contract for the position of prosecutor and entice such a prosecutor to diligently investigate and pursue the elimination of criminal enterprises negatively affecting the channels of free enterprise and commerce in the publics best interest.Especially those operated using tax dollars to do so.

If Congress had no intent to be bound to the promise only a private citizens can pursue, why offer inducements? Why did they provide a private cause of action for the prosecution of criminal acts? Why does all prior precedent find this law applicable to government agencies?

Plaintiffs contracted for compensatory treble damages, attorney’s fees, and cost to assume the role of prosecutor, to prosecute a Government agency, because Congress understood the prosecutorial gap created by governments inability to prosecute itself.

In fact the U.S Government is defended in these cases by the DOJ, employees of the very government congress intended to empower a private citizen to prosecute. Furthermore, so to are the judges of Article III courts. Would it make sense for the DOJ the so-called Department of Justice to defend the U.S. government and prosecute the U.S. Government as both prosecution and defense council? The King who judges himself can do no wrong!

The founding fathers were well aware of the usurpation of power by government for tyranny. John Adams said, “Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty.” Emphasis added. Thomas Jefferson wrote “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,” The founding fathers supported these statements in Article III clause 2 “The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury;” and in the seventh Amendment ”In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” Remember also the words of former Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone “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”

Congress and all prior precedent in RICO found RICO applicable to government agencies and the forces that corrupt them. Congress provided RICO with a civil cause of action specifically to place judgment in the hands of a jury and not in the hands of the king that can do no wrong. Which is precisely the act of treason against the people committed by Superior Federal District Court Judge Jackson L. Kiser when he converted the RICO filing in and attempt to avoid a Jury trial in case 4:13-cv-00054-JLK. 

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims as agent for Congress is duty bound as the people’s representative government not to dismiss this case. They may find the Defendants guilty, bring the case as a petition before congressional hearing, or remand it for a jury trial.

The Court cannot without breach of their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws dismiss this case or convert it for Government to Judge itself. Such an act is adhering to the enemies of life liberty and justice, an act of war against the Constitution and We The People.

Plaintiffs based their claim on a promise by the United States Government. A promise the United States Government breached through unlawful, unconstitutional, criminal acts. Additionally, while the case was brought for plaintiffs benefit, it was is and always has been fueled by the thousands of small farmers whose lives have already been destroyed, and those that will be in the future unless this enterprise is cremated.

Plaintiffs RICO claim and the Conversion thereof to a claim for torts was not dismissed with prejudice. The torts were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the rubric of the Federal Torts Claim Act. Forcing Plaintiffs to literally request from the RICO enterprise permission to sue them for being corrupt. Plaintiffs  forced to sign an agreement to accept a sum certain rather than the congressional mandated compensatory treble damages provided under RICO. Plaintiffs maintain the Constitutional right and standing to bring a new RICO claim against the USDA and a civic duty, at an appropriate time to pursue prosecution of this despicable display of unconstitutional government corruption.

A corrupted Secretary of Agricultures office running a criminal enterprise through corrupt federal and state agencies to usurp the constitutional rights of American citizens in order to avoid accountability and responsibility for crimes, or the duties they’re compensated to perform on behalf of the American people, is a travesty for justice of unfathomable consequences. For the U.S. Federal judiciary to aid these unconstitutional violations of the supreme law, with unconstitutional bias in favor of government agencies is a travesty of the United States Constitution, and the life liberty and justice for which it stands.

This combination has all too often led to the taking of private property without just compensation. So much so, it appears the U.S. Governments intent in establishing this criminal enterprise. A corrupt federal government protected by a corrupt federal judiciary is a tyrannous trespasser of the law and its people. Congress is duty bound to abolish it or otherwise “We The People” have every right, in fact a duty in the name of liberty and our sovereign rights to dismantle the government and our congressional representation by whatever means necessary.

The founding fathers were well aware from histories teachings Governments can and do become corrupted self-serving tyrannous despots. So enlightened the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the constitution were written for the very day. 1. Only through free speech could disinfecting light be shared among men, spreading the truth of a completely corrupted government. 2. Only by having arms in the hands of the people could liberty and freedom once again rise from the ashes of a government fallen to the weaknesses of the flesh.Jefferson & Tyranny & the 2nd amendment

In the words of Malcolm X ” His answer, “And I go for that. If you take up arms you’ll end it, but if you sit around and wait for the one who’s in power to make up his mind that he should end it, you’ll be waiting a long time.”

The U.S. Government DOJ defenses arguments have only wasted the Peoples and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims time and money, and justice in delaying. Every argument the Government portends to support its case is nothing less than fallacious attempts to prolong and avoid accountability and responsibility for their treasonous acts on the people and Constitution of the United States. It’s obvious that the Government is run by and thinks like lawyers in constant opposing battle over turf and never focused on the rights and needs of the people.

We The People need to understand this is not a partisan issue President Bill Clinton may have institutionalized the racket, but it was operating long before he took office. No, this operation took bipartisan support to instigate and I believe you can attribute the whole operation to the collusion of, for, and by lawyers.

 

This U.S. Court of Federal Claims should choose carefully a path to salvation. The path is narrow and sharper than the razors edge.

Chris Julian

Not a Pro Pro Se per Se.

@blueridgespring

WordPress.blueridgesprings.com