Home > Uncategorized > Hamrick v. Obama Now at the U.S. Court of Appeals for DC Circuit, No. 09-5102, Docketed March 30, 2009

Hamrick v. Obama Now at the U.S. Court of Appeals for DC Circuit, No. 09-5102, Docketed March 30, 2009

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 Leave a comment Go to comments

I invite the NRA, SAF, GOA, SAS, JPFO, and other advocacy groups to read the linked court documents below because I need their help and their amicus curiae briefs in support of National Open Carry Handgun!

Judge Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for DC dismissed my case because he did not like the way I used Rule 8(d)(2) Alternative Statements of [Claims] in addition to Rule 8(a)(2) “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Sullivan wanted me to eliminate my Alternative Statements and file an Amended Complaint. Click to download Judge Sullivan’s Memorandum Opinion dismissing my case.

In his Memorandum Opinion you will see how hostile he is to an unrepresented civil plaintiff with a Second Amendment case seeking to set a precedent for the “full scope” of Second Amendment rights. And by “full scope” I mean open carry in intrastate, interstate, nautical, and maritime travel” from a merchant seaman’s point of view. There is an Open Carry Movement vindicating my lawsuit but no federal judge want’s to hear that! Judge Sullivan wrote:

“It is unreasonably long-winded and illogical, and PRESENTS THE TYPE OF FANTASTIC OR DELUSIONAL SCENARIOS found to justify immediate dismissal of a complaint as frivolous in the related context of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989) (explaining that “a litigant whose FILING FEES AND COURT COSTS ARE ASSUMED BY THE PUBLIC, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits”). Defendants should not be forced to spend time and energy in attempting to decipher plaintiff’s utterly confusing and lengthy pleading.

“Plaintiff is warned however, that he “will have to pare the [c]omplaint significantly to satisfy Rule 8.” Resource N.E., 28 F. Supp. 2d at 796. If an amended complaint is filed that merely recycles the Complaint presently before the Court it will be dismissed with prejudice.”

My lawsuit is a Seaman’s Suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1916:

“In all courts of the United States, seamen may institute and prosecute suits and appeals in their own names and for their own benefit for wages or salvage or the enforcement of laws enacted for their health or safety without prepaying fees or costs or furnishing security therefor.”

I construe the the word “safety” to include the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Judge Sullivan denied my Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal claiming he was not biased. I filed my Protest in response alleging that he was, in fact, biased. I refused to file an amended complaint. Instead I filed my appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

I won’t know what the appeal number is for awhile because PACER Service Center (docket access) has closed my account. I cann’t access my Docket Report because the federal judges refuse to rule on my Motion for Court Order to compel PACER Service Center to obey the Seamen’s Suit law (exemption from fees and costs) even though seamen are wards of the Admiralty with special protections from the federal courts.

My lawsuit was named Hamrick v. President Bush. But the name of my case automatically switched to Hamrick v. President Obama. However I am filing my pleadings as “Hamrick v. President Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro: Eligibility as president is unproven!)

Since there is a bar room brawl over whether President Obama is a natural born citizen (allegation is that he was born in Mumbasa, Kenya) I jumped into that fight by filing my own Miscellaneous Case Motion for a court order to compel Chiyome Fukino, M.D., Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health to comply with HAWAII REVISED STATUTES § 338-18(b)(9) because I have “a direct and tangible interest in the record” of President Obama’s original birth certificate as a civil plaintiff under RULE 25(d) SUBSTITUTION OF DEFENDANT of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Because I did not have the money to fly to Hawaii from Arkansas to attend the Scheduling Conference Hearing I filed my Emergency Motion waiving my attendance in accordance with Rule 16(c)(1), in that “[i]f appropriate, the court may require that a party or its representative be present or reasonably available by other means to consider possible settlement” on the belief and understanding that a trial can be avoided.

 I did not show up for the original Scheduling Conference Hearing. Magistrate Judge Chang, District Court in Hawaii, issued an Order to Show Cause, which was actually an Order to Appear (the way it was worded) at the rescheduled Schedling Conference or face sanctions. In that Order to Show Cause he wrote:

“Plaintiff is warned that pursuant to Local Rule 11.1, a party’s failure to comply with the Local Rules is grounds for the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions may be imposed by the court sua sponte and include fines, dismissal, or other appropriate action.”

It was clear to me that Magistrate Judge Chang did not read my Emergency Motion. I fired back with my Response to his Order in like manner. That is where I now stand with the Obama Birth Certificate angle of my case.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: