What is Supposed to Happen when Justice Works the Way it is Supposed To Work!

DISCLAIMER: The depiction above must not and cannot be construed to be a veiled threat of any kind. The use of the image above is strictly intended to facilitate editorial commentary on the Checks and Balance System of our Republican form of Government as provided by the construction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – that no one is above the law. The FEDS are chomping at the bits to arrest me for my Citizen’s Arrest Warrant activities! They wouldn’t hesitate to use this posting as evidence against me that is how out-of-control our U.S. Government really is! They want to silence political dissent! They want to silence criticism of the U.S. Government at all cost!

The wolf = The U.S. Government trampling the rights, freedoms, duties, and responsibilities that are supposed to be “guaranteed” by the Bill of Rights and breaching the guarantee of a Republican form of Government as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution.

The rabbit = The innocent U.S. citizen victimized by an out of control U.S. Government (i.e., the various federal law enforcement agencies terrorizing the American people).

JUSTICE: What the rabbit can do if the Federal Courts and the Rule of Law worked the way they are supposed to work! 

Song Lyrics: 

I Won’t Back Down

Written by: Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne 

Well I won’t back down, no I
Won’t back down you can
Stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won’t back down

Gonna stand my ground, won’t be turned around
And I’ll keep this world from draggin’ me down
Gonna stand my ground and I won’t back down

(Chorus)
Hey baby, there ain’t no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I won’t back down

Well I know what’s right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin’ me around
But I’ll stand my ground and I won’t back down

Hey baby, there ain’t no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I won’t back down
No, I won’t back down

The Huffington Post: Alberto Gonzales = A Horse’s Ass!

I have a Second Amendment case that has been obstructed by attempted extortion at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, and the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, and now Krista Jaffe, U.S. Supreme Court Police, Threat Assessment Unit, by all appearances, refuse to investigate, or to even correspond with me by email on my allegations!

Hamrick, pro se v. President Bush, 8th Circuit, No. 07-2400; appeal from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, No. 06-0044. Second Amendment case employing the RICO Act against the U.S. Government.

You can download court documents from here. Just check my earlier postings further down.

A Horse’s Ass by Association?

Extrapolating the “Horse’s Ass” analogy below it stands to reason that the U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service, and even now, Krista Jaffe, U.S. Supreme Court Police, Threat Assessment Unit, believed to be toting the party line by obstructing Second Amendment cases from proceeding to trial while the U.S. Department of Justice advocates the Second Amendment as an individual right, (see online at: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf) makes all involved a bunch of “criminal assholes” suitable for lawsuits for civil rights violations, fraud, and racketeering an unlawful and an unconstitutional protection scheme over the Second Amendment under the RICO Act! See online at: http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_08_26_archive.html#8927161511740167830 :

This Is An Interesting Claim…

Red’s Trading Post, which has been having some problems with ATF about what sounds like trivial errors with a few of the Form 4473s, mentions something a bit worrisome:

As I have stated before ATF DIO Richard Van Loan has stated that he would have never revoked our license if we had purchased a computerized system. He neglected to contact us to find out that we had purchased 2 software systems that could not handle the amount of volume that we do. A third system we looked into was $9,000 just for the software. We then tried out other firearms software that we offered from one of our distributors, which we had issues with as well. We finally settled on a system from ARS Solutions. It is a $12,000 system that has just been make available for lease. Yet the ATF has now deemed this system before our judge, that is so widely used and touted…inadequate. Our Box Store Competitor has just developed a Million Dollar system.

If Red’s is permanently closed by ATF, they will have to turn over the last 20 years of Form 4473s–or about 40,000 gun purchase records. Red’s is concerned about the possibility that ATF is using the combination of requiring a computerized system and putting stores like Red’s out of business to create a de facto gun registration system.I understand their concern (although realistically, even all the 4473 forms in the U.S. wouldn’t give even a 30% complete gun registration list), but I think there’s another issue that should be looked into: is it possible that some sort of corrupt deal has been made by some ATF bureaucrat to require a particular software vendor’s system? If you don’t buy a system from a particular vendor, you get extra special scrutiny, and then get closed down for trivial errors on paper forms?

==========================

“Going Back to Texas to Be One More Horse’s Ass”

by Peter Smith
Posted August 27, 2007 | 12:03 PM (EST)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-smith/going-back-to-texas-to-b_b_61968.html

“So paste a tail upon my nose and point me toward the grass. I’m going back to Texas to be one more horse’s ass.” — Shel Siverstein

When an army withdraws from a battlefield, it doesn’t just turn and run. It slips away one or two units at a time, leaving other units in place to cover the exit. It’s called strategic withdrawal.

Like Rove’s, Gonzales’ departure from Washington should be seen as part of the greater Bush administration strategic withdrawal from Washington. He is, in Shel Siverstein’s words, “Going back to Texas to be one more horse’s ass.”

Better a strategic withdrawal now than a wholesale retreat in January of 2009. A trickle of departures, followed by presidential pardons on the way out of town, will be smoother and more historically graceful somehow.

(For pure symmetry, it would be fun to see the Bushies conclude the whole sorry show with one last James Baker and Theodore Olson appearance in front of the Supreme Court. Then Baker could leave D.C . for Texas aboard the Enron plane the Bush’s lawyers took from Texas to Florida in November of 2000.)

In true George W. Bush fashion, this strategic withdrawal leaves the rest of the Republican Party — and the rest of the nation — holding the bag. With the country in a shambles, with our civil rights shredded, with Iraq eternally SNAFU’ed, and players like Rove, Gonzales, and who-knows-who-else safely back in Texas, the Bush administration can take the theme for the rest of its term from National Lampoon’s Animal House:

“You F’ed up. You trusted us.”

So, bye-bye Karl. So long Alberto. Take care of Texas until Cheney and Bush get there. And don’t worry. They’ve got your withdrawal covered.

My Citizen’s Arrest Warrant for Federal Judges & Court Clerks for Extortion

Citizen’s Arrest Warrant
For Extortion and Racketeering Activities

FROM:  Don Hamrick, pro se
            In the Capacity of a Private Attorney General
            5860 Wilburn Road
            Wilburn, Arkansas 

TO:  Chief Justice, John G. Roberts 
            U.S. Supreme Court
            One First Street, NE 
            Washington, DC 20543 

TO: The Chief Judge
    Of the Below Named Courts

 TO: FBI & U.S. Marshals Service 
 
PRESENT CASE:  

      8th CIRCUIT, CASE NO. 07-2400

PREVIOUS CASES:  

U.S. District Court/DC, No. 02-1434 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
U.S. District Court/DC, No. 02-1435 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
U.S. District Court/DC, No. 03-2160 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
U.S. District Court/DC, No. 04-0422 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
U.S. District Court/DC, No. 04-2040 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
U.S. District Court/DC, No. 05-1993 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
U.S. District Court/Charlotte, NC), No. 04-0065 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
U.S. District Court/Charlotte, NC), No. 04-0344 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
● DC Circuit, No. 02-5334  (VIOLATED THE LAW)
● DC Circuit, No. 04-5316  (VIOLATED THE LAW)
● DC Circuit, No. 05-5414  (VIOLATED THE LAW)
● DC Circuit, No. 05-5429  (VIOLATED THE LAW)
● U.S. District Court/Little Rock, No. 06-0044. (VIOLATED THE LAW)
● U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 03-145 (VIOLATED THE LAW)
● U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 04-1150 (VIOLATED THE LAW)
● U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 04M56 (VIOLATED THE LAW)

Case Law 

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, at 11 (1991):  ”. . . a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S., at 227 -229; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S., at 360 .  

Chandler v. Judicial Council, 398 U.S. 74, at 140 (1970), Chief Justice Berger:

“If [judges] break a law, they can be prosecuted.” 

 

      I, Don Hamrick, sui juris, citizen of Arkansas and of the United States under the Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, am the unrepresented civil Plaintiff acting in the capacity of a Private Attorney General with a civil RICO Act case against the United States Government (President George W. Bush, et al) and against the United Nations for breach of the United Nations Charter, Article 2, Clause 7, in defense of not only my own rights under the Second Amendment but also for the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of the United States at large, and under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, hereby warrant that probable cause exists to justify the immediate arrest and arraignment of federal judges and their court clerks so named or implicated above on formal charges of participating as principals (18 U.S.C. § 2) in racketeering activities (18 U.S.C. § 1962) as accessory after the facts (18 U.S.C. § 3) and misprision of felony (18 U.S.C. § 4), of an unlawful and an unconstitutional protection scheme over the Second Amendment and for felony extortion (18 U.S.C. § 872) and conspiring to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities and related RICO “predicate acts” in connection with the above Civil RICO action, in violation of the criminal statutes at 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(A), “Extortion” of exempted filing fees from the unrepresented civil Plaintiff Don Hamrick, a fully documented U.S. merchant seamen in violation of the Seamen’s Suit law (28 U.S.C. § 1916).

Miranda Warning

      Pursuant to the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the above named or implicated persons have previously been informed, in writing transmitted via first class U.S. Mail and/or by email, that they have the Right to remain silent; that the above named or implicated judges and court clerks have the Right to effective assistance of Counsel;  and that anything which they may say, or do, from that point forward, can and will be held against them in a court of Law.

      I hereby verify also, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America that I am the victim of felony extortion (18 U.S.C. § 872) under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242) in retaliation for participating in Federal Protected Activities (18 U.S.C. § 245) of the federal judicial system as a U.S. merchant seaman and as an unrepresented civil Plaintiff acting in the capacity of a Private Attorney General in defense of not only my own statutory, civil, and constitutional rights as a U.S. merchant seaman and as a U.S. citizen but also the same statutory, civil, and constitutional rights of all U.S. merchant seamen as a class of citizens and all U.S. citizens at large, and also as an eyewitness to, the criminal violations enumerated above.

      Please make all necessary arrangements to execute the arrest of the above named or implicated judges and court clerks, and/or to schedule on-site assistance from the FBI and/or the U.S. Marshals Service to the victim, Don Hamrick, for purposes of executing a proper Citizen’s Arrest, at a time and place convenient to the victim and to your office.

      Thank you, in advance, for your immediate cooperation in this matter

Sincerely yours,

Don Hamrick 

.

 

Case Law 
 

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, at 220 (1882): 

“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.” 

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, at 404  (6 Wheaton 264) (1821) 

“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.” 

Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894): 

“[T]he privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States protected by the fourteenth amendment are privileges and immunities arising out of the nature and essential character of the federal government, and granted or secured by the constitution; and due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government; . . .” 

Wilson v. State, 33 Arkansas, 557, 560 (1878) (striking a ban on unconcealed carry).  

“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be pre vented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.” 

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993) [PLAINTIFF’S NOTE: “I CAN PROVE MY CASE!] 

“[A] complaint should not be dismissed unless `it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’“ McLain v. Real Estate Bd. of New Orleans, Inc., 444 U.S. 232, 246 (1980) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 -46 (1957)). 
 

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) 

“Following the simple guide of Rule 8 (f) that “all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice,” we have no doubt that petitioners’ complaint adequately set forth a claim and gave the respondents fair notice of its basis. The Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits. Cf. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197. (1938)  (Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end.) 

United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, at 16 (1976) 

“ . . . it is deeply distressing that the Department of Justice, whose mission is to protect the constitutional liberties of the people of the United States, should even appear to be seeking to subvert them by extreme and dubious legal arguments. It is gratifying that the Court today unanimously rejects the Government’s position.” 

Chandler v. Judicial Council, 398 U.S. 74, at 140 (1970), Chief Justice Berger: 

      “If [judges] break a law, they can be prosecuted.” 

Chandler v. Judicial Council, 398 U.S. 74, at 140 (1970), Justice Black and Douglas in their dissenting opinion, 398 U.S. 74, at 141-142, agreed with Chief Justice Berger on the point above: 

      “While judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted, and punished for crimes . . .” 

Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988):  

This Court has never undertaken to articulate a precise and general definition of the class of acts entitled to immunity. The decided cases, however, suggest an intelligible distinction between judicial acts and the administrative, legislative, or executive functions that judges may on occasion be assigned by law to perform. Thus, for example, the informal and ex parte nature of a proceeding has not been thought to imply that an act otherwise within a judge’s lawful jurisdiction was deprived of its judicial character. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 363 , n. 12 (1978). Similarly, acting to disbar an attorney as a sanction for contempt of court, by invoking a power “possessed by all courts which have authority to admit attorneys to practice,” does not become less judicial by virtue of an allegation of malice or corruption of motive. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall., at 354. [484 U.S. 219, 228]   As the Bradley Court noted: “Against the consequences of [judges’] erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort.” Ibid.  

Administrative decisions, even though they may be essential to the very functioning of the courts, have not similarly been regarded as judicial acts. In Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880), for example, this Court declined to extend immunity to a county judge who had been charged in a criminal indictment with discriminating on the basis of race in selecting trial jurors for the county’s courts. The Court reasoned:  
 

“Whether the act done by him was judicial or not is to be determined by its character, and not by the character of the agent. Whether he was a county judge or not is of no importance. The duty of selecting jurors might as well have been committed to a private person as to one holding the office of a judge. . . . That the jurors are selected for a court makes no difference. So are court-criers, tipstaves, sheriffs, &c. Is their election or their appointment a judicial act?” Id., at 348.  

Although this case involved a criminal charge against a judge, the reach of the Court’s analysis was not in any obvious way confined by that circumstance.

Likewise, judicial immunity has not been extended to judges acting to promulgate a code of conduct for attorneys. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719 (1980). In explaining why legislative, rather than judicial, immunity furnished the appropriate standard, we said: “Although it is clear that under Virginia law the issuance of the Bar Code was a proper function of the Virginia Court, propounding the Code was not an act of adjudication but one of rulemaking.” Id., at 731. Similarly, in the same case, we held that judges acting to enforce the Bar Code would be treated like prosecutors, and thus would [484 U.S. 219, 229]   be amenable to suit for injunctive and declaratory relief. Id., at 734-737. Cf. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984). Once again, it was the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it, that informed our immunity analysis.  

“The Substantial Benefit Doctrine”

A.K.A. “The Private Attorney General Doctrine” & the RICO Act

To improve my education on the RICO Act as an unrepresented civil plaintiff, this past week I purchased by mail order directly from Thomson/West, the Annotated Manual for Complex Litigation, 4th Edition (2006) by David F. Herr. Citing Chapter 35, Civil RICO, p. 792-793. From that book:

Congress enacted the 1920 Racketeer (Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to respond to the “infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce.” Congress targeted organized crime through a broad statutory scheme that included severe criminal penalties, fines, imprisonment, asset forfeiture, and civil remedies in an effort to undermine the economic power of racketeering organizations. The statute further enabled private litigants to act, in effect, as private attorneys general to sue for injury to their businesses or property caused by a RICO violation.

Civil RICO claims have alleged wrongs actionable under state and common law, as well as other federal statutes. Although the statute was targeted at organized crime, courts have broadly construed RICO’s provisions, and its scope has extended well beyond its original aim. Early efforts by lower courts restrict claims that appeared to exceed RICO’s original goals were overruled by Supreme Court decisions that broadened the statute’s reach. RICO claims can now be found in a variety of contexts, including insurance and business disputes, anti[-]abortion and other protests consumer financial services litigation, family law, and whistle-blower actions. Although the nontraditional uses of RICO have continued to expand despite significant criticism by commentators and the courts, Congress has shown little inclination to narrow the state’s focus or reach.

“Private attorney general? What the hell is that?!” (I wondered). A quick search on the Internet and I found one case law from the Supreme Court of Indiana giving a brief overview on the Private Attorney General Doctrine. Bolding, underlined text, and the indexing dots are my emphasis as directly applying to my case:

I. The Private Attorney General Doctrine: An Overview

As a prelude to analyzing Indiana law, we note that there are two basic attorney fee schemes: the English rule (“loser pays”) and the American rule (“every man for himself”). W. Kent Davis, The International View of Attorney Fees in Civil Suits: Why Is the United States the “Odd Man Out” in How It Pays Its Lawyers?, 16 Ariz. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 361, 399, 403 (1999). Both schemes are grounded in statute. Id. at 400, 404.

Some view the English rule as more fair, arguing that a legal victory is not complete if one is out of pocket for attorney fees. Id. at 405. Proponents of the American rule respond:

[S]ince litigation is at best uncertain one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit, and [] the poor might be unjustly discouraged from instituting actions to vindicate their rights if the penalty for losing included the fees of their opponents’ counsel. Also, the time, expense, and difficulties of proof inherent in litigating the question of what constitutes reasonable attorney’s fees would pose substantial burdens for judicial administration.

Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 718 (1967) (citations omitted).

Courts in various American jurisdictions have sought a middle ground by using their inherent equitable powers to carve out exceptions to the American rule. See Saint Joseph’s Coll. v. Morrison, Inc., 158 Ind. App. 272, 279, 302 N.E.2d 865, 870 (1973). The most common exceptions are:

● The “obdurate behavior” exception, in which courts impose costs upon defendants as a punishment for bringing frivolous actions or otherwise acting in bad faith. Andrew W. Hull, Attorney’s Fees for Frivolous, Unreasonable or Groundless Litigation, 20 Ind. L. Rev. 151, 152-53 (1987).

● The “common fund” exception, in which an award benefits members of an ascertainable class, and the court reimburses the prevailing litigant’s attorney fees out of that pool of money to prevent the unjust enrichment of free riders. Id. at n.11.

● The “private attorney general” exception, where courts award fees to litigants who bring actions to protect important social policies or rights. Id.

Judge Jerome Frank coined the phrase “private attorney general” in 1943, to describe a private person acting to “vindicate the public interest.” Associated Indus. v. Ickes, 134 F.2d 694, 704 (2d Cir. 1943). In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a federal circuit split by declining to reallocate by judicial decree the burdens of federal litigation under the private attorney general doctrine. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 247, 270 n.46 (1975). The Court expressed concern that without statutory authorization, authority to make fee awards would leave courts free to “pick and choose among plaintiffs and the statutes under which they sue and to award fees in some cases but not in others, depending upon the courts’ assessment of the importance of the public policies involved in particular cases.” Id. at 269. The Court recently reaffirmed its commitment to the American rule, citing Alyeska, in Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 121 S.Ct. 1835, 1839 (Rehnquist, C.J., for majority), 1856 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (2001).

. . .

III. Other Jurisdictions Have Mixed Views

States Adopting the Exception.

A number of state high courts have adopted the private attorney general exception. One widely-cited case is Serrano v. Priest, 569 P.2d 1303 (Cal. 1977), in which the California Supreme Court recognized the exception because:

In the complex society in which we live it frequently occurs that citizens in great numbers and across a broad spectrum have interests in common. These, while of enormous significance to the society as a whole, do not involve the fortunes of a single individual to the extent necessary to encourage their private vindication in the courts. Although there are within the executive branch of the government offices and institutions (exemplified by the Attorney General) whose function it is to represent the general public in such matters and to ensure proper enforcement, for various reasons the burden of enforcement is not always adequately carried by those offices and institutions, rendering some sort of private action imperative. Because the issues involved in such litigation are often extremely complex and their presentation time-consuming and costly, the availability of representation of such public interests by private attorneys acting pro bono publico is limited.

Id. at 1313.

New Hampshire was among the most recent to adopt the private attorney general doctrine, in Claremont School District v. Governor, 761 A.2d 389 (N.H. 1999)(fees sought following declaratory judgment that the state public education funding system was unconstitutional). The New Hampshire Supreme Court observed that proportional and reasonable taxation is one of the core constitutional foundations of this State” and held that “[t]he public interest in preserving constitutional rights against governmental infringement is paramount. Only private citizens can be expected to ‘guard the guardians.’ Because the benefits of this litigation flow to all members of the public, the plaintiffs should not have to bear the entire cost of this litigation.” Id. at 393-94.

ADDITIONAL READING:  
 
Pamela S. Karlan, Disarming the Private Attorney General, Univ. Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2003, No. 1. pp. 183-209.  
http://home.law.uiuc.edu/lrev/publications/2000s/2003/2003_1/Karlan.pdf

In Disarming the Private Attorney General, Professor Karlan describes how the Supreme Court has created a significant regulation remedy gap by critically undercutting one of the primary mechanisms Congress has used for enforcing civil rights: the private attorney general. Professor Karlan identifies a series of techniques the Court has used to strip private individuals of their ability to enforce civil rights laws. On the one hand, the Court has expanded the scope of sovereign immunity under a new “Eleventeenth” Amendment jurisprudence and the scope of compelled arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. On the other hand, the Court has contracted the availability of implied rights of action and attorney’s fees. The overall effect of the Court’s decisions is to severely restrict enforcement of basic antidiscrimination requirements.

William B. Rubenstein, On What a Private Attorney General is – And Why it Matters, Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 57, No. 6, p. 2129, November 2004 
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=743544

First, private attorneys general are persons who mix public and privatefunctions in the adjudicative arena, but they do so in a variety of ways that can best be understood when mapped onto a spectrum. Private attorneys general occupy the middle portion of a lawyering spectrum that runs from private lawyering on one side to public lawyering on the other.

Second, within this middle, three distinct types of public/private mixes are presently identifiable — those I label substitute attorneys general, supplemental attorneys general, and simulated attorneys general.

Third, two sets of legal doctrines — standing and attorneys’ fees — police the margins between private attorneys general and regular attorneys. Standing doctrine polices the boundary between public attorneys and private attorneys general: the former represent the public interest by job description; the latter are permitted in the federal court, to represent the public interest only when they have some private stake of their own in the matter. Attorneys’ fees doctrine polices the boundary between private attorneys and private attorneys general. The former represent only private clients and are paid only by them;  the latter perform a function that exceeds pure private representation and are therefore entitled to some different type of fee arrangement.

Fourth, supplemental private attorneys general are synchronically so — performing public and private functions at the same time, not episodically. However, the quantities of public and private presented in the synchronic mix can vary. Some supplemental attorneys general perform significant public functions with only scant private interests at stake (such as environmental citizen-suit plaintiffs) while others perform incidental public functions with significant private interests at stake (such as mass tort class action plaintiffs).

ADVISORY: It is my understanding that if the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. Attorneys and the U.S. Department of Justice refuse to acknowledge that felony extortion has been committed by the federal courts and/or refuse to assist me with the “Citizen’s Arrest” procedure ( i.e., being present at the time of Citizen’s Arrest in order to take the arrested judge or court clerk into “physical custody” or take any action to hinder or prevent me from making a Citizen’s Arrest by threatening me with arrest that such acts will be construed as Obstruction of Justice, notwithstanding any lawful reason or authority why I cannot make Citizen’s Arrests of judges or court clerks (including the U.S. Supreme Court) for felony extortion under the above circumstances.

My Emails to the “FEDs” about my “Citizen’s Arrest Warrant”

District of Columbia Code (Washington, DC)

Division IV. Criminal Law and Procedure and Prisoners.
Title 23. Criminal Procedure.
Chapter 5. Warrants and Arrests.
Subchapter V. Arrest Without Warrant.

DC Code § 23-582. Arrests without warrant by other persons.

(a) A special policeman shall have the same powers as a law enforcement officer to arrest without warrant for offenses committed within premises to which his jurisdiction extends, and may arrest outside the premises on fresh pursuit for offenses committed on the premises.

(b) A private person may arrest another —

       (1) who he has probable cause to believe is committing in his presence —

              (A) a felony; or

              (B) an offense enumerated in section 23-581(a)(2); or

       (2) in aid of a law enforcement officer or special policeman, or other person authorized by law to make an arrest.

(c) Any person making an arrest pursuant to this section shall deliver the person arrested to a law enforcement officer without unreasonable delay.

Copy of Emails

Note: Note all email messages went to every email address.
All email addresses are listed as a group are listed only once for brevity of this post.

==============================

Date: Aug 13, 2007 8:52 PM

FROM: Don Hamrick <4donhamrick@gmail.com>

TO: US Dept of Justice, Washington, DC, I.G. Glenn Find,<inspector.general@usdoj.gov>
US Dept of Justice, Washington, DC, AskDOJ@usdoj.gov,
US Dept of Justice, Washington, DC, Daisy.D.Correa@usdoj.gov,
US Dept of Justice, Washington, DC, Scott.A.Myers@usdoj.gov,
US Dept of Justice, Washington, DC, dc.outreach@usdoj.gov,
US Marshals Service, Washington, DC, Director John Clark, <us.marshals@usdoj.gov>
US Marshals Service, Washington, DC, robert.robeson@usdoj.gov,
US Marshals Service, Little Rock, Dave Loyer, Little Rock <dave.loyer@usdoj.gov>
US Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, Duke, Jane <jane.duke@usdoj.gov>
US Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, Kim Squires <Kim.Squires@usdoj.gov>
US Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, Richard Pence <richard.pence@usdoj.gov>
FBI Field Office, Washington, DC, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov
FBI Field Office, Little Rock, little.rock@ic.fbi.gov,
FBI Field Office, St. Louis, stlouis@ic.fbi.gov,

 

Scheduling Citizen’s Arrest OOA Tuesday Aug. 21, 2007

NOTE: This did note happen because my arrival was unavoidably delayed a day.
On Wednesday I elected to visit the staff of U.S. Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas
at the U.S. Senate in Washington, DC.

CORRECTED COPY

Please notify the FBI, US Marshals Service, and the Capitol Police that I will require their assistance with my Citizen’s Arrest Warrant at the US Supreme Court and the US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DC CIRCUIT in Washington, DC on or about Tuesday, August 21, 2007.

Tuesday, August, 21, 2007 provides enough time for my Citizen’s Arrest bulletins to circulate through the FBI, the US Marshals Sevice, and the Justice Department so that no one will be taken by surprise. No one will be able to claim ignorance or to obstruct justice through ignorance at show time.

I will announce the purpose of my presence at the US Supreme Court when I arrive with the expectation that an FBI agent will already be there waiting to assist me or to advise me otherwise (i.e., on laws affecting the procedure and execution of Citizen’s Arrest that I may have overlooked).I will also notify the media of this event to insure fair and legal conduct by all involved.

=============

Date: Aug 14, 2007 12:06 AM

UPDATE: CITIZEN’S ARREST OOA AUG 21 @ NOON

FOR ALL MEDIA

Tuesday at “High-Noon” on August 21, 2007 is enough time for my Citizen’s Arrest bulletins to have circulated around the FBI, the US Marshals Service, the various US Attorney’s Offices, the US Department of Justice, and the media to get everyone ready for the event.

The media can look for me to approach the US Supreme Court at the historic front steps.

If the media (whether print, network, radio, or Internet) is there I will brief the media on the 5 year history of my Second Amendment case enduring corrupt judges and Assistant U.S. Attornies, pulling every dirty trick in the book to keep my case from going to trial, up to and including the Inspector General of the US Marshals Service at the US District Court/DC Circuit implicating himself in an act of obstructing justice at the 8th Circuit in St. Louis, Missuori.

However, in the likelihood that the media is a no show (proving the media’s cultural taboo about stories on a corrupt federal judicial system) I will proceed to the side entrance closest to the Court Clerk’s office. I will expect to see the FBI and/or the US Marshals Service waiting at that entrance to assist me and NOT to arrest me.

============

Date: Aug 15, 2007 1:34 AM

ALTERNATIVE TO CITIZEN’S ARREST OF US SUPREME COURT’S

COURT CLERK & CASE HANDLER MR. HIGGINS

RULE 40.2 of the “Rules of the US Supreme Court” state that “A seaman suing under 28 U.S.C. § 1916 may proceed without payment of fees or costs or furnishing security therefor, but is not entitled to proceed under Rule 33.2, except as authorized by the Court on separate motion under Rule 39.”The FBI Washington DC can inspect the Docket Report for No. 03-145 and my other case numbers, and review my Petitions for Writ of Certiorari and they will find that the subject matter of my appeals qualify underthe “safety” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1916 in addition to the fact that I am a U.S. merchant sezman.There was no lawful reason for Mr. Higgins and the Court Clerk to deny my statutory right of filing fee exemmption, thereby extorting the Court’s filing fee under color of law. 18 U.S.C. § 872, 241, 242, and 245.The FBI can find the above very quickly and very easily as their “finding of facts” in support of my planned Citizen’s Arrest” of Mr. Higgins and the Court Clerk.The US Supreme Court can offer restitution in lieu of citizen’s arrest of Mr. Higgins and the Court Clerk by returning the accumulated filing fees of $600 (plus interest if I have such a right without further litigation).Chief Justice John Roberts can do an administrative review my rights under 28 U.S.C. § 1916 and finding that I do have rights as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. § 1916 can issue Court Orders to (1) the Court Clerk to return the $600 in filing fees; (2) to the DC Circuit to return the filing fees extorted from me in that court; (3) to the US District Court in Little Rock for the same thing in that court; (4) to the 8th Circuit to vacate its Order dismissing my appeal for lack of prosecution and remand my case for trial for cause of judicial wrongs, i.e., obstruction of justice; and (5) to PACER to return the balance of the money I paid because PACER billing charges are incidental expences related to the filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1916.

The FBI can, if they wanted to, have all this done and have the “refund check” ready in hand before I arrive at the steps of the US Supreme Court. If that were to occur the problem will have been resolved negsting the necessity for citizen’s arrest and I can then
prepare for trial.

WHAT SAY YOU ALL?

YEA! OR NAY!

============================

Date: Aug 19, 2007 12:58 AM

FINAL NOTICE: REQUEST FBI HELP WITH CITIZEN’S ARREST

REQUEST THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO NOTIFY FBI DIRECTOR MEULLER TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO EFFECT CITIZEN’S ARREST.THIS IS A TEST OF EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW – THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.THIS IS A FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION BY AN UNREPRESENTED CIVIL PLAINTIFF ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAKING A CITIZEN’S ARREST OF FEDERAL COURT CLERKS AND FEDERAL JUDGES (FOR EXTORTION) WITH THE REQUESTED ASSISTANCE OF THE FBI OR THE US MARSHALS SERVICE OR THE CAPITOL POLICE.

EVIDENCE OF EXTORTION: Hamrick, pro se v. Pres Bush, et al, 8th Circuit, No. 07-2400; And previous cases at the US Supreme Court, the DC Circuit, and the US District Court in Little Rock, Arkansas.

CONFIRMING

I hereby give confirming notice that in order to insure that citizen’s arrest will be done properly and legally I will expect assistance from either the FBI, the US Marshal Service, or the Capitol Police with my effort to place both Mr. Higgins (Case Handler) and the Court Clerk of the US Supreme Court and the Court Clerk of the DC Circuit under Citizen’s Arrest for extortion, 18 USC § 872 of filing fees from a US seaman plaintiff/appellsnt, 28 USC § 1916 as a predicate act of racketeering activity under the civil RICO Act. An examination of the Docket Reports will provide the necessary evidence of unlawful receipt by the fecersl courts of filing fees as coerced payments under color of law from me as a US seaman, paid in violation of 28 USC § 1916.

Because I am the unrepresented civil plaintiff/appellant with a civil RICO Act against the US GOVT I am acting in the capacacity of a PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL in both my own interests and in the public interests in defense of statutory, civil, and constitutional rights, including the Bill of Rights and especially the Second Amendment.

I will approach the US Supreme Court front the traditional front steps and proceed to the side entrance nearest the Court Clerks office where I will announce the purpose of my visit to the Capitol Police before I step through the metal detectors.(Signed under penalty of perjury!)

DON HAMRICK

====================

Date: Aug 22, 2007 9:39 PM

Citizen’s Arrest Meets US Supreme Court Police,

Capitol Police, USMS

Today, Wednesdsy, August 22, 2007, I went to Washington, DC for a showdown with the name federal law enforcement agencies over the evidence of felony extortion of filing fees. 28 USC § 1916.I went straight to the office of Arkansas Senator with my complaint/request for help with my “Citizens Arresr Warrant.” And just as I planned the office personnel called in the Feds (US Supreme Court Police, US Marshals Service, and the Capitol Police).Though the intent of the Senator’s staff may have been intended to arrest me their actions were to my benefit because as one of the Capitol Police noted it worked out to a situation of “one stop shopping.” I gave my speech once to all present persuading all that kidnapping, assault & battery, and all othersorts of imagined violent crimes were not part of my planned “Citizen’s Arrest.” I made it clear the proper procedures were that I would announce the Citizen’s Arrest with an FBI Agent in attendance to do the actual taking into physical custody. With that understanding being made clear the US Supreme Court Police, Krista Jaffe AGREED to investigate my claims of extortion of $600 in filing fees at the US Supreme Court and PROMISSED to notify me by email of their findings.FOR US SUPREME COURT POLICE: Please Cc: Direct Mueller, FBI, their Field Offices in DC, Little Rock, and St. Louis, the US Attorney’s Office for each location, and the US Marshals Service for each location, your findings of facts and determination of the Supreme Court’s duty to return the $600 to me and to my legal right to make citizen’s arrest of those involved in the extortion of filing fees 18 USC § 872 from me as a seaman.FOR FBI & US MARSHALS SERVICE: Please investigate the judicial handling of my cases from 2002 to the present because I have reason to believe (with direct and circumstantial evidence) of conspiracies to obstruct justice, judicial misconduct of the criminal type with every dirty trick by the feceral bench and bar to unjustly keep my case from going to trial. Giving the overall picture of events in my cases there arises the implication the a person or persons unknown to me other than Deputy US Marshal Anthony Campos and Senior Inspector Robert Robeson may have conspired with Court Clerks and/or judges themselves with intent to obstruct justice (preventing my case from going to trial) simply becauase I email the US Marshals Service my inquiry about citizen’s arrest on the basis of extorted filing fees and no FLE agency would investigate my complaint.

I reiterate that this is a test of equal justice under the law – that no one is above the law. However, events during the last 5 years have proven the opposite to be true. I want to see where Krista Jaffe, US SUPREME COURT POLICE, THREAT ASSESSMENT UNIT stands on this point of law. Where is the threat here? The “FEDS” may view me as a threat because I am standing up to defend not only my own statutory, civil, and constitutional rights, duties, and responsibilities under the Bill of Rights and under the “Common Defence” clause of the Preamble to the US Constitution but the same for all US citizens.

THE QUESTION REMAINS:

If the US Supreme Court Police do admit in their findings of fact that acts of felony extortion of filings was committed, in fact and law, will they turn the matter over to the FBI for further investigation and prosecution as would be done if the perp was a civilian criminal suspect?

It is truly a sad state of affair to have to attempt citizen’s arrest of the Court Clerk of the US Supreme Court and the case handler just to get the FEDS attention so they can start taking my complaints seriously.

SIGNED: DON HAMRICK

==========================

Date: Aug 23, 2007 11:13 AM

Threat Assessment versus Citizen’s Arrest

FROM EXTORTION VICTIM DON HAMRICK

TO KRISTA JAFFE, US SUPREME COURT POLICE, THREAT ASSESSMENT UNIT

CC: EVERYONE ELSE!

FEDERAL QUESTIONS: When you determine that felony extortion of US Supreme Court filing fees were, in fact and law, committed in violation of Rule 40.2 of the Rules of the US Supreme Court and 18 USC § 872 and 28 USC § 1916 will you:(1) Insistently recommend to Chief Justice John Roberts to issue federal guidelines and rules of courts (Civil Procedure, Appellate Procedure, and US Supreme Court) for civil plaintiffs (whether represented or unrepresented) on citizen’s arrest whether or not the civil plaintiff is acting in the capacity of a Private Attorney General?

(2) Now make a Threat Assessment that the US Government unlawfully made (i.e., threats of arresr and prosecution) to me just because I pursued citizen’s arrest as a means of last resort?

(3) Insistently recommend to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and to his successor to issue federal guidelines on (A) the right of citizen’s arrest as applied to felonies committed by judicial and administrative personnel of federal courts specificly and by the US Government generally; and (B) the right of an unrepresented civil plaintiff with a civil RICO Act case against the US Government to act in the capacity of a Private Attorney General?

(4) Do a “Threat Assessment” on the non-judicial opposition I incurred from the US Marshals Service, the US Coast Guard and the US Department of Transportion or will you recommend this be done by the FBI?

(5) Recommend to Director Mueller, FBI, to investigate the extortion in all my cases and to prosecute those found responsible as required by the mandate of equal justice under the law – that no one is above the law or will you issue a finding of facts that would verify and authenticate the legal authority to act on and perform the citizen’s arrest with the assistance of the FBI performing the physical taking into custody?

(6) Find that there exists the act of obstruction of justice element to the extortion of said filing fees and as such requires the FBI to investigate?

(7) Transmit your findings of facts and other derivative memorandi to Chief Justice John Roberts and to the chief judges of the contested courts?

(8) Issue an All Points Bulletin (APB) declaring my proven innocence to any and all alleged claims that my activities in regard to citizen’s arrest; that my activities to date have been within the law and, under my declaration of intent, will continue to be within the law; and that it is you recommendation to all federsl law enforcement agencies, I.e., the FBI, to assist me as need.

The above is sufficient to guide you in your investigation.

Signed: Don Hamrick

=======================

Date: Aug 23, 2007 1:37 PM

Citizen’s Arrest – RICO AcT & 2nd Amendment

FROM EXTORTION VICTIM DON HAMRICK

TO KRISTA JAFFE, US SUPREME COURT POLICE, THREAT ASSESSMENT UNIT

CC: EVERYONE ELSE!

SUBJECT:

THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL VICTIM/CIVIL PLAINTIFF UNDER THE CIVIL RICO ACT AS SPPLIED AGAINST THE US GOVERNMENT

RICO ACT ALLEGATION:

US GOVERNMENT & U.N. ENGAGED IN RACKETEERING ACTIVITIES CONSISTING, IN PART, AN UNLAWFUL AND AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION SCHEME OVER THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

SITUATION:A certain percentage of civilian merchant seamen reporting aboard US GOVT vessels must have small training (Military Sealift Command requirement) I’m the 9mm Baretta, 12ga shottgun, and the M-14 rifle.

THE PROBLEMS:

(1) There is no corresponding “right to carry” concealed or openly derived from that federal training in regard to intrastate an interstate travel in comparison to State level requirements for State permits & licences.

(2) The US Department of Homeland Security has general superintendence over the merchant marine it its personnel, (46 USC § 2103)

CAUSE OF ACTION

1. Coast Guard denied my application for Merchant Mariner’s Document endorsement, “Nnational Open Carry Handgun”

2. Coast Guard wrongfully took me of a US GOVT Pre-Position vessel anchored off the coast of Lithuiania where I was stranded for 12 days while the ship conducted a 10-day exercise with the US Navy just because I emailed a Second Amendment advocacy article to the Coast Guard.

3. I construe the activities of the US Government these past 5 years in preventing my case from going to trial as Racketeering Activities.

DEMAND:

I believe I have the right to demand an FBI OPERATION GREYLORD type of investigation into judicial and executive handling of my caes these past 5 years.Signed:

Don Hamrick

=========================

Date: Aug 23, 2007 11:00 PM

The Philosophy of and Legal Standing for Citizen’s Arrest as

Part of Checks & Balance under 10th Amendment

FROM EXTORTION VICTIM DON HAMRICK

TO KRISTA JAFFE, US SUPREME COURT POLICE, THREAT ASSESSMENT UNIT

CC: EVERYONE ELSE!

PHILOSOPHICAL & LEGAL QUESTIONS ON CITIZEN’S ARREST AS APPLIED TO THE THREE BRANCHES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR FELONY CRIMES AND ITS USE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW AS A LAWFUL FUNCTION OF THE CHECKS AND BALANCE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE:

1. An unrepresented civil plaintiff is not treated fairly or equally as is a civil plaintiff represented by an attorney as evidenced by the US Supreme Court treatment of Silveira, No. 03-51, and my case, Hamrick, No. 03-145, both are Second Amendment cases. The US Supreme Court denied both cases.2. Recommending to an unrepresented civil plaintiff to get an attorney for representation is confirmation of judicial bias against unrepresented civil plaintiifs.

3. I have reasons to believe that the US Marshals Service conspired with court clerks to prevent my cases these past 5 years from proceeding to trial because I made inquiries about citizen’s arrest of federal judges and their court clerks for extortion of filing fees from a seaman; and the court clerks conveying this unlawful bias to the presiding judges. This allegation is verifiable as circumstantial evidence through an examination of the Docket Reports and actual reading of my pleadings, motions, judicial notices against the Orders of those judges denying nearly everything I file which is, in and of itself evidence of judicial bias.

4. The actions of the US Marshals Service in continuosly treating me as a criminal suspect even though I have repeatedly presented evidence that I am acting and will always act within the law and legal procedures through every available remedy through the three branches of the US Government, including the performance of citizen’s arrest of federal judges, court clerks, and case handlers, are construed as criminal acts of obstruction of justice, especially when I am acting in the capacity of a Private Attorney General because I employed the civil part of the RICO Act against the US Government.

5. “Threat Assessment” is a two-way street. “We, The People” have the Ninth Amendment right and the Tenth Amendment power reserved to the People to make “Threat Assessments” of US Government actions toward our statutory, civil, and constitutional rights, freedoms, liberties, duties, and responsibilities, be they private, social, public, or political. Taking legal actions against the US Government for wrongful agency action compounded by criminal conduct designed to subvert the proper administration of justice by treating an unrepresented civil plaintiff as a criminal suspect destroys not only the concept of equal justice under the law but our constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government imposing a form of government that terrorizes the People. This begs the question of who presents the greater and more consist threat to the People: the terrorists or the US Government?

6. Justice, in my case, demands an FBI investigation into the conduct of federal judges, court clerks, case handlers, the US Marshals Service, throughout the 5-years of federal litigation because it is common knowledge that corruption NOT the Rule of Law controls the federal courts, especially when political nobodies such as I dare bring a Second Amendment case as an unrepresented civil plaintiff.

7. THREAT ASSESSMENT:

Krista Jaffe, US Supreme Court, Threat Assessment Unit, is that she has the power to verify and validate my Citizen’s Arrest Warrant of federal judges, court clerks, and case handlers for extortion and racketeering activities over the Second Amendment. The threat from Krista Jaffe rests in what her determination will be of my Citizen’s Arrest Warrant: (A) Will she verify and validate my Citizen’s Arrest Warrant? Will she stipulate to my right, power, and duty to make the Citizen’s Arrest with the mutually agreed to condition that an FBI agent will be present to do the physical taking into custody of the arrestees? Will she impose the condition that I agree to drop the Citizen’s Arrest Warrant in order for Chief Justice John Roberts to agree to return the $600 in filing fees as I initially proposed (but now decline for purposes of setting a precedent for seamen’s rights under 28 USC § 1916). Will she deliver the Citizen’s Arrest Warrant to Director Mueller, FBI with her verification and validation so they can investigate the allegations and make the arrests without my involvement with the Citizen’s Arrest Warrant? Or, will she deny verification and validation of the clear cut evidence of extortion and present me with another act of obstruction of justice for me to overcome? The point here is that I want to set a legal precedent for seamen’s rights under 28 USC § 1916 so that the federal courts will not again obstruct justice for the next seaman with a case against the US Government that follows me.

These are very serious questions that an attorney would present. But because I am presenting them as an unrepresented civil plaintiff and as a political nobody my Threat Assessment of Krista Jaffe is that she may very likely deny verification an validation of my Citizen’s Arrest Warrant because it would mean elevating my case to the same level as other high profile cases. Her career with the US Supreme Court Police would be ruined because she did not aid and abet in felony extortion but turned the tables of justice in defense of the People (me, as a seaman, a class of people in terms of civil rights law).

In hopes that trusting the government may someday not be a fallacy.

Signed: Don Hamrick

============================

My Emails to the “FEDs” about my “Citizen’s Arrest Warrant”

Date: Aug 23, 2007 11:57 PM

More Evidence of Politicized Justice

TO KRISTA JAFFE, US SUPREME COURT POLICE, THREAT ASSESSMENT UNIT

CC: EVERYONE ELSE!

The [below] is further evidence of “habit/routine practice” under the Federal Rules of Evidence that the federal courts and the US Department of Justice did, in fact and law, wrongfully obstruct justice in my cases because of politics spurred corruption. This should further urge the FBI to investigate the handling of my cases these past 5 years.

MUST READ: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1187859736495

Head of Civil Rights Division Resigns From Justice Department

by Lara Jakes Jordan
The Associated Press
August 24, 2007

The Justice Department’s top civil rights enforcer resigned Thursday following more than a year of criticism that his office filled its ranks with conservative loyalists instead of experienced attorneys.

Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim was the first immigrant and first Korean-American to head the department’s civil rights division — a post he held for just over two years.

Kim is the latest senior justice official to leave amid a scathing congressional investigation that has raised questions about the department’s political independence from the White House.

Kim had been rumored for months to be leaving the department, and is expected to join a private law firm. He worked at the department for over 10 years, starting as a criminal trial attorney, and was one of the few Senate-confirmed senior officials left.

“For over a decade now, Wan Kim has served the Department of Justice and the American people with distinction and honor,” U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in a statement Thursday. “Wan has worked his way up through the department, and I will miss his honest opinions and valuable contributions as an adviser to me.”

The department’s civil rights division enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination, including at work, at election polls and even at casinos. In May, Kim’s office settled with MGM Mirage Inc., the world’s second-largest casino company, for $55,000 over complaints that several of its hotels were not accessible to the handicapped.

Kim also pursued the illegal and exploitative trafficking of foreign women and children who were forced into slave labor in the U.S. — often working as prostitutes. His office helped reignite a decades-old murder case gone cold, winning a guilty conviction in June against a reputed Ku Klux Klansman who abducted two black teenagers in a long-ignored crime from Mississippi’s bloody past.

But Justice Department’s civil rights division has drawn criticism. Last year, a Boston Globe analysis of Justice Department hiring data found that the office had become highly politicized with the hiring of lawyers who had little civil rights experience but strong GOP credentials.

Moreover, critics contend that the office has largely focused on voter fraud cases — which civil rights groups charge are intended to hold down minority turnout.

In June, Kim testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the transfer of three minority female lawyers from his office’s voting rights section. The move had been directed by Bradley Schlozman, the former voting rights chief who also has resigned, effective last week.

During his testimony, Kim told senators that he had been concerned by the move and said remarks by Schlozman that appeared to question the women’s patriotism “were intemperate and inopportune.”

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said Kim’s resignation was part of a mass exodus from the Justice Department that “must not hinder our efforts to demand accountability.”

“Too many questions have remained unanswered, too many civil rights laws have not been enforced and too many officials have resigned to evade the accountability that is to come for the disastrously flawed policies of this administration,” said Kennedy, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Justice Department said Kim’s office set record levels of civil rights enforcement, including winning the most criminal convictions in a single year over the past two decades. In addition, he filed more than twice the average number of voting rights lawsuits in a 12-month period than were filed annually over the past 30 years.

The Ten Worst U.S. Prosecutors Named:

Texas Leads List With Four

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-23-2007/0004650627&EDATE=

HOUSTON, Aug. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — United States Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, was selected as the worst prosecutor out of 10 in the nation in 2007 for his involvement in the firings of nine U.S. Attorneys and the politicization of the Justice Department. At a close second, Texas ex-prosecutor Terry D. McEachern, who is best known for seeking unlawful cocaine possession charges against the African-American community of Tulia, Texas, and withholding exculpatory evidence. Next selected, former North Carolina D.A. Michael Nifong, for the widely-publicized debacle in the rape prosecution of Duke Lacrosse players causing his disbarment for having engaged in dishonesty, fraud, and withholding exculpatory information.

While a prosecutor’s job is to seek justice, there have been numerous instances in U.S. history where federal and state prosecutors have engaged in unethical conduct simply to secure a conviction where otherwise not possible if they had played “by the rules.” The “Ten Worst Prosecutors,” list carefully researched and produced by the Bennett Law Firm (BLF) in Houston, Texas, features a handful of recent occurrences where federal and state prosecutors did not play “by the rules” with respect to evidence in criminal trials and ruined the lives of innocent people to further their own professional careers.

The BLF and the “Bad Prosecutor Blog” website (visit: http://bennettlawfirm.typepad.com/badprosecutors) chose to recognize the ten worst prosecutors in the United States in 2007 to bring about an open discussion of prevalent prosecutorial misconduct, and most importantly, to stress the importance of holding bad prosecutors accountable for their unlawful indiscretions. For over thirty years, the BLF has been involved in criminal, civil, and administrative investigation. BLF Attorney Robert S. “Bob” Bennett, a former federal prosecutor, has been qualified as an expert on prosecutorial abuse and prosecutorial recusal. Mr. Bennett has also published numerous articles and has given countless speeches on these topics.

Prosecutorial misconduct ranges from hiding, destroying, or tampering with evidence, case files or court records; failing to disclose exculpatory evidence; using false or misleading evidence during trial; to improper behavior during grand jury proceedings. The BLF’s “Ten Worst” list exposes the harsh reality that bad prosecutors are not always disciplined for such misconduct and, in most cases, continue practicing law without missing a beat. The BLF and the website strongly believe that the list will heighten public awareness and, in turn, help curb unjust prosecutions and deter future prosecutorial misconduct.

Other bad prosecutors selected for the BLF “Ten Worst” list include the likes of Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti, Jr., Massachusetts Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Auerhahn, Georgia Prosecutor David McDade, Oklahoma D.A. Bill Peterson, L.A. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, and Texas licensed attorneys: Charles Sebesta and Randall W. Reynolds.

Foti’s persistence in attempting to prosecute a doctor and two nurses after hurricane Katrina and making extrajudicial statements surrounding their guilt have secured him a spot on the BLF’s “Ten Worst” list. Auerhahn’s blatant disregard for the constitutional rights of an innocent man which resulted in a 22-year sentence and 13 years behind bars before it was ever discovered has earned him a listing as well. McDade was selected for overzealously prosecuting a 17-year-old over oral sex with a consenting 15-year-old girl under an archaic loophole in Georgia law (which has now been abolished) and for distributing a video of the sexual encounter in violation of federal child pornography laws.

Texas prosecutor, Charles Sebesta, makes an appearance on the list for presenting false, misleading evidence and not disclosing an exculpatory confession during the murder prosecution of Anthony Graves which resulted in his conviction and being sent to death row for capital murder in 1994. Ward County D.A., Randall W. Reynolds, was selected for dragging his feet in response to reliable allegations of sexual abuse of inmates at the West Texas State School in Pyote, Texas, and delaying the prosecution of two accused prison guards for more than 2 years.

Also selected was prosecutor Bill Peterson for inspiring John Grisham to write a novel about his vigorous yet erroneous prosecution and conviction of Ron Williamson for capital murder in 1988 on weak physical evidence and jailhouse informants. Last, but certainly not least, the list includes the Harvard-educated L.A. City Attorney, Rocky Delgadillo, who is best known for prosecuting famed Paris Hilton and publicly admitting that he misused public resources by negligently allowing his accident-prone wife to use a city vehicle for personal errands resulting in $1,200 of damage and then letting taxpayers foot the bill, all the while complaining about a two-tiered judicial system that gives “special treatment” to the privileged.

If you would like to obtain a copy of the BLF’s “Ten Worst Prosecutors” Article, please visit http://bennettlawfirm.typepad.com/badprosecutors or contact Scott Chauveaux at 713-225-6000; e-mail Schauveaux@bennettlawfirm.com. To contact BLF Attorney Bob Bennett, visit:

http://www.bennettlawfirm.com or email Bbennett@bennettlawfirm.com.

=====================

Date: Aug 24, 2007 9:37 AM

CITIZEN’S ARREST:

8th Circuit Committed a Felony

(CORRECTED COPY)

FROM EXTORTION VICTIM DON HAMRICK

TO KRISTA JAFFE, US SUPREME COURT POLICE, THREAT ASSESSMENT UNIT

CC: EVERYONE ELSE!

(CAN THE US MARSHALS SERVICE FORWARD THIS SERIES OF EMAILS TO KRISTA JAFFE? HER EMAIL ADDRESS SEEMS TO BE INCORRECT.)

Docket Report 8th Circuit, Case No. 07-2400:

08/09/2007 PETITION for enbanc rehearing filed by Appellant Mr. Don Hamrick.

08/14/2007 MEMORANDUM of Mr. Don Hamrick in support of petition for
enbanc rehearing, filed by Mr. Don Hamrick.

PLEASE NOTE that the 8th Circuit judges dismissed my appeal because I did not pay their filing fee knowing full well that I was exempt from their filing fee under 28 USC § 1916. That in itself is judicial misconduct; attempted felony extortion under 18 USC § 872; a violation of my Seventh Amendment rights. However, there is the possibility that the Court Clerk executed the dismissal Order without approval or knowledge of a judge because there is no judge’s name indicated on the dismissal Order, just the name and signature of the Court Clerk. If this suspicion is proven true then you have a Court Clerk dismissing a case without proper authority. Wouldn’t this be a felony crime suitable for arrest and prosecution?

FOR KRISTA JAFFE:

When you discover the evidence of extortion at the US Supreme Court PLEASE notify the 8th Circuit of your discovery and recommend to the 8th Circuit En Banc Panel that it would be in the interest of justice that they vacate their dismissal Order and explictly remand my case for trial (and overturn the lower court’s Order denying my several motions, including my amended complaint adding the United Nations as lead defendant).

Otherwise, another injustice will have been committed.

Signed: Don Hamrick
========================

Date: Aug 24, 2007 4:41 PM

Krista Jaffe’s Duty to File Amicus Curiae Brief with 8th Circuit

FROM EXTORTION VICTIM DON HAMRICK

TO KRISTA JAFFE, US SUPREME COURT POLICE, THREAT ASSESSMENT UNIT

CC: EVERYONE ELSE!

(CAN THE US MARSHALS SERVICE FORWARD THIS SERIES OF EMAILS TO KRISTA JAFFE? HER EMAIL ADDRESS SEEMS TO BE INCORRECT.)

Krista Jaffe,

I know for a fact that you will find it to be true that the US Supreme Court violated its own Rule 40.2 and 28 USC § 1916 by compelling to pay their filing fee twice ($600 total). I even filed a Rule 22 pleading directly to Chief Justice Rhenquist who wrongfully denied my Rule 22 motion for the return of the filing fee. I construe that denial as part and partial of racketeering activities against the Second Amendment. Extortion is a predicate act of racketeering activity under the RICO Act.

When you discover that I am right about the filing fee you will then be duty bound to file an Amicus Curiae Brief with the 8th Circuit recommending they correct their errors in order to mitigate their criminal liability. Remember Operation Greylord? The FBI investigation into Chicago’s corrupt judicial system?

It will only take you 10 minutes to discover the truth. The question here is what will you do when you do discover the truth. Will you take action to defend my rights? Or simply do nothing as Dave Loyer, Deputy US Marshal, Little Rock did when I requested the US Marshals Service to research the topic of citizen’s arrest as applied against the US Government. That was last year. I haven’t heard from him or the USMS since then.

Now the ball is in your court. What are you going to do?

PLEASE DO IT ASAP!

I don’t want the 8th Circuit denying my Petition for Rehearing En Banc because you didn’t file your Amicus Curiae Brief.

===================

Date: Aug 25, 2007 2:45 AM

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF ON CITIZEN’S ARREST

[This email was henpecked by stylus on an HP IPAQ Pocket PC]

FROM EXTORTION VICTIM DON HAMRICK

TO KRISTA JAFFE, US SUPREME COURT POLICE, THREAT ASSESSMENT UNIT

CC: EVERYONE ELSE!

(CAN THE US MARSHALS SERVICE FORWARD THIS SERIES OF EMAILS TO KRISTA JAFFE? HER EMAIL ADDRESS SEEMS TO BE INCORRECT.)

Below is my intended Motion to the 8th Circuit. But first I must give alarm that the US Marshals Service has apparently again imagine, exagerated, and fabricated an allegation in order to intimidate me from pursuing justice by citizen’s arrest with assistance of the FBI.

TEXT OF EMAIL FROM MY ELDERLY MOTHER IN ARKANSAS:

“A deputy from Heber came out here
the other day to ask if you were here.
Then he asked if I knew where you were.
I told him no, that the last e/mail
I got from you was from No. Carolina. He
said something about you contacting
someone and threatening to kill them
` or something to that effect.”

THREAT ASSESSMENT

The purpose of my visit with the staff of US Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas was to politely break the stalemate with federal law enforcement because I cannot lawfully make a citizen’s arrest without assistance of the FBI. I told the US Marshals Service that I intended to do everything in accordance with the law because I want to set a legal precedent for semen’s rights under 28 USC § 1916.

Now someone in the US Marshals Service appears to be trying to set me up for a kill shot as a criminal suspect when all I am doing as acting as an attorney would in the interest of justice.

DISCLAIMER: I hereby proclaim my innocence. I categoricly deny any an all allegations that I made a threat against anyone.

The only threat I see is that [somepeople are] trying to silence me, to keep me from going to trial. That they have corruptively persuaded judges to deny my every motion and dismiss my cases although the DC Circuit remanding my case on Second Amendment grounds was a surprise.Why is the US Marshals Service hunting me down everytime I take a significant step with Citizen’s Arrest and the steps I take are well within the law as evidenced by my intended motion below?Does the US Marshals Service have something to hide?The actions of the US Marshal Service is like some cheap movie thriller.Do I need to run to the FBI for their witness protection program?What a hoot! If the US Marshals Service cannot find any wrongdoing in my citizen’s arrest activities they appear determine to fabricate something to destroy my legal standing to pursue my SEcond Amendment case and my Citizen’s Arrest activities.

HEY KRISTA! Who’s threatening who now?

[text of intended motion to 8th Circuit]

====================

Date: Aug 25, 2007 8:08 AM

IS THE US MARSHALS SERVICE

A BUNCH OF CORRUPT GOONS?

FROM EXTORTION VICTIM DON HAMRICK

TO KRISTA JAFFE, US SUPREME COURT POLICE, THREAT ASSESSMENT UNIT

CC: EVERYONE ELSE!

(CAN THE US MARSHALS SERVICE FORWARD THIS SERIES OF EMAILS TO KRISTA JAFFE? HER EMAIL ADDRESS SEEMS TO BE INCORRECT.)

WOW!

What is the US Marshals Service up to?

I am trying to get my “complaint of extortion” of filing fees by federal court clerks and federal judges verified and validated so that I can lawfully proceed with citizen’s arrest because the FBI refuses to acknowledge the validity of 28 USC § 1916.

Because every federal law enforcement agency I email refuses to correspond in kind I must travel to Washington, DC to get answers. And now because I took substantial steps the US Marshals Service appears to be trying to intimidate me into giving up on my cases for the Second Amendment and my extortion claims.

If it is true that the US Marshals Service visited my elderly mother or had the Cleburne County Sheriff send a Deputy the question is why?

The US Marshals Service is fully aware of my extortion claims. They have had more than enough time to investigate my claims in the past 4 years and yet they say nothing and do nothing about it but harass my family in retaliation.

Why?

Is the US Marshals Service protecting the criminal activties of the federal courts?

Is the US Marshals Service so corrupt that they will protect federal judges and court personnel who break federal laws?

Are the US Marshals Service and the federal courts really that corrupt?

Is the US Marshals Service so corrupt that they will turn an innocent civil plaintiff into a criminal suspect by issuing fabricated allegations just because the civil plaintiff is defending his statutory, civil, and constitutional rights?

Or is the US Marshals Service just a bunch of dangerous idiots?

How many times do I have to tell the US Marshals Service that I willdo everything in accordance with the law, staying within the law as I pursue verification and validation of my Citizen’s Arrest Warrant. But maybe that’s exact what the US Marshals Service doesn’t want – me holding federal judges accountable for extortion.

===============

Date: Aug 25, 2007 7:35 PM

DIRTY TRICK BY US MARSHALS SERVICE

FROM EXTORTION VICTIM DON HAMRICK

TO KRISTA JAFFE, US SUPREME COURT POLICE, THREAT ASSESSMENT UNIT

CC: EVERYONE ELSE!

(CAN THE US MARSHALS SERVICE FORWARD THIS SERIES OF EMAILS TO KRISTA JAFFE? HER EMAIL ADDRESS SEEMS TO BE INCORRECT.)

UPDATE/CLARIFICATION:

Remember that high school social studies classroom experiment where the teacher would give a short message to the first student in the first seat of the first row and that message was whispered front to back and back to front row by row to the last student in the back seat of the last row to end up getting en entirely different message.

So it is with the US Martials Service Little Rock sending a message to the Cleburne County Sheriff’s Department to question my elderly mother on my whereabouts. This was done because I did not show up at the steps of the US Supreme Court at the self-appointed time. I couldn’t get there on time.

The Cleburne County Deputy Sheriff that was sent out to question my elderly mother apparently embellished his own assignment by inferring a threat of his own fabrication alleging that I threatened to kill someone. COMPLETELY THE FIGMENT OF THE DEPUTY SHERIFF’S IMAGINATION POSSIBLY BECAUSE HE SAW A CAREER ADVANCE OPPORTUNITY AT THE EXPENSE OF MY REPUTATION. JUST ANOTHER DIRTY TRICK OF THE US MARSHALS SERVICE!!!THE US MARSHALS SERVICES HAS MY EMAIL ADDRESS AND I INSTRUCTED THEM TO CONTACT ME WHEN THEY HAD QUESTIONS FOR ME!!!THE US MARSHALS SERVICE IS NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES!!!

THEY HAVE GIVEN ME GROUNDS TO BRING CIVIL ACTION FOR VIOLATING MY CIVIL RIGHTS, DEFAMATION, HARASSMENT, AIDING AND ABETTING EXTORTION AND WHATEVER ELSE I CAN ALLEGE!!!

TO ALL FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES:

LEAVE MY ELDERLY MOTHER OUT OF THIS!!!

YOU WANT TO KNOW MY INTENTIONS YOU EMAIL ME DIRECTLY!!! I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS!!!

ARE YOU FEDS THAT DAMN BELLIGERENTLY PARANOID THAT YOU FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT A CITIZEN CAN ACT WITHIN THE LAW OR HAS THE RIGHT TO LAWFULLY PURSUE JUSTICE AS AN EXTORTION VICTIM WHEN “THE FEDS” ACT TO PROTECT THE JUDICIAL EXTORTIONISTS??

NOW ARE YOU FEDS READY TO DEAL WITH ME AS THE GUARDIANS AND PROTECTORS OF THE INNOCENT THAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE?

I NEED AND PREFER VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF MY CITIZEN’S ARREST WARRANT BY KRISTA JAFFE, US SUPREME COURT POLICE, THREAT ASSESSMENT UNIT OR BY THE FBI.

CONTINUED REFUSAL BY YOU FEDS TO CORRESPOND WITH ME TO RESOLVE MY EXTORTION AND RACKETEERING ALLEGATIONS WILL BE CONSTRUED AS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BECAUSE I AM ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

I AM ASKING FOR YOUR HELP! WHY ARE YOU FEDS REMAINING SILENT?

IF YOU FEDS (FBI IN PSRTICULAR) REFUSE THE HELP ME (CORRESPONDING AND SCHEDULING THE CITIZEN’S ARREST EVENT) I WILL ANNOUNCE A DATE AND TIME FOR THE EVENT.

WORK WITH ME PLEASE!
WORK WITH ME PLEASE!
WORK WITH ME PLEASE!

================