Home > Uncategorized > Demand Action from a Congressman in Defense of Constitutional Rights and Get Reported to the Capitol Police as a Threat Because You Used the Word “OUTRAGE!”

Demand Action from a Congressman in Defense of Constitutional Rights and Get Reported to the Capitol Police as a Threat Because You Used the Word “OUTRAGE!”

Friday, September 24, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments

Here I am as the perfect example of a constituent, being a political nobody, presenting a complaint of government corruption and wrongdoing, (i.e., a complaint of extortion by federal judges of the DC Circuit and by the U.S. Supreme Court of filing fees from a seaman in violation of federal laws, 28 U.S.C. § 1916 and 18 U.S.C. § 872 claiming that is is an OUTRAGE! and I get reported to the Capitol Police as a threat! After 8 years of seeking remedies from the judicial branch through litigation, from Congress for legislative remedies, and from federal law enforcement for to defend and enforce my rights against judicial and legislative branches trampling my rights I am not allowing to lawfully and civilly express my OUTRAGE over the fact that I cannot enforce my constitutional rights in any of the three branches of the federal government? That’s an CONTEMPTIBLE OUTRAGE!

Erika Chudy has taught me Rep. Pete Stark’s First Lesson of Government: “The Federal Government can do most anything.” And there ain’t one damn thing the People can do about! Stand up and speak against wrongful Government action and you are likely to get arrested! The First Amendment is now restricted by the whims of congressional staff members!

I am trying to get the FBI to investigate judicial corruption in the U.S. District Court for DC, the DC Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court for extortion and obstructions of justice and extortion amounting to racketeering activities against pro se litigation by a seaman and against the Second Amendment. I received an email from the FBI claiming they are looking into my complaint but I think they just sent that email to me to get me to stop emailing them evidence supporting my complaint against federal judges. I won’t know for sure depending on how long it takes the FBI to decide to give me a status or progress report on my complaint. Telephone calls to the FBI are useless. FBI policy is no information is given out to anyone about a complaint, even if it is the complainant requesting the status report.

FOR FBI FIELD OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC
CAPITOL POLICE, WASHINGTON, DC
AND ERIKA CHUBY, CHIEF OF STAFF FOR
U.S. REP. MARION BERRY (D-AR)

FOR FBI: Add the Forwarded Email  below from Erika Chudy, Chief of Staff for U.S. Rep. Marion Berry and my Reply to my COMPLAINT WITH THE FBI.

DEFINITION OF MY WORD USAGE “OUTRAGE” = “INTELLECTUAL/LOGICAL OUTRAGE.”

A First Amendment right to petition the Government for redress of grievances in stronger than ordinary usage in demanding terms based upon rational and logical reasoning and normative understanding of the function and duties of government and the rights of U.S. citizens within the limits of the law (NOT AN EMOTIONAL OUTRAGE AS ERIKA CHUDY IMPLIES – BY DEFINITION ERIKA CHUDY’S RESPONSE IN CONTACTING  THE CAPITOL POLICE ON HER PERCEPTION OF A THREAT IS BASED SOLELY ON HER IMAGINATION) is not a threat and Erika Chudy’s complaint to the Capitol Police is the crime of making a False Statement under 18 U.S.C § 1001 as well as a matter of libel.

BASIS OF INTELLECTUAL/LOGICAL OUTRAGE
AGAINST GOVERNMENT WRONGDOING IS NOT A THREAT!

A U.S. citizen has the First Amendment right to express “logical and reasonable anger” (NOT EMOTIONAL ANGER) at Government wronging when all available remedies, from all appearances, are being ignored or handled dismissively, i.e., passing the buck. Case in point. Because I exercised my First Amendment right to petition the Government for redress of grievances by questioning the U.S. Coast Guard by email in 2002 on Second Amendment rights of U.S. seamen (a publishable article) in an assertive and educated manner when I was aboard a U.S. Government vessel anchored off the coast of Lithuania the U.S. Coast Guard retaliated by having me removed from that vessel and placed in Hotel Kleipeda (wrongful detainment or false imprisonment) to wait to be questioned (two hour criminal interrogation) by two civilian NCIS agents from NCIS Europe Division (Italy). I was vindicated by those two NCIS agents on their finding that I was innocent of U.S. Coast Guard allegations and that my Second Amendment article did NOT convey a threat to the U.S. Coast Guard. That wrongful detention became grounds of a lawsuit for Second Amendment rights of seamen to defend against pirates on the high seas (i.e. National Open Carry Small Arms and Light Weapons (United Nations and International Maritime Organization view of our Second Amendment) and for the Second Amendment right of National Open Carry Handgun in intrastate and interstate travel, the flip-side to Heller and McDonald case for Second Amendment rights in the home.


Why is it that Government perceives a threat from a U.S. citizen who is lawfully, politely, civilly, and constitutionally standing up for common law rights, statutory rights, and constitutional rights? Is it because Government knows that it is acting wrongfully, outside the limits of the Constitution, or in violation of federal laws and the Government must resort to threats, allegations, and intimidation to keep citizens in fear of the Government so that Government will not be held accountable for their unlawful and unconstitutional activities?

FOR ERIKA CHUDY,

Rep. Marion Berry is a member on the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security under the House Committee on Appropriations. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security has jurisdiction over the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. And the Secretary of Homeland Security has “general superintendence over the merchant marine of the United States and of merchant marine personnel” under 46 U.S.C. § 2103.

Erika Chuby, from your email reply you state, “I take my role as Chief of Staff very seriously and try to my best ability help EVERY constituent with a complaint against a federal agency.  However, some of your accusations simply cannot be dealt with by this office.”

It is my “however,” that I take my role as a “pro se” civil plaintiff and as a U.S. citizen under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments very seriously when I say that my other accusations can and must be dealt with by Rep. Marion Berry himself because he is a member of the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security. I may be a political nobody, just some average and ordinary citizen, by I have a very complex lawsuit against the U.S. Government that if Rep. Marion Berry were to look and the Second Amendment from a merchant seaman’s point of view then he will see his way clear to submit legislation to correct certain problems with federal laws and regulations on the rights of U.S. seamen under the Second Amendment.

My question for you, Erika Chuby, is it reasonable for me to expect Rep. Marion Berry to take the subject matters of my federal litigation (NOT the litigation itself) about the Second Amendment rights of U.S. seamen to defend themselves against pirates on the high seas as authorized by federal law under 10 U.S.C. § 351. Arming of American Vessels During War or Threat to National Security?

DEFINITION OF SEAWORTHY

Seaworthy adj. (Of a vessel) properly equipped and sufficiently strong and tight to resist the perils reasonably incident to the voyage for which the vessel is insured. An implied condition of marine-insurance policies, unless otherwise stated, is that the vessel will be seaworthy. — seaworthiness. n.

For the purpose of my federal litigation the definition of seaworthy and seaworthiness include the ability of a vessel and its crew (excluding contract security or other external security services) to defend against pirate attacks on the high seas (perils reasonably incident to the voyage for which the vessel is insured) with the availability and ready access to small arms and light weapons. This IS a subject matter for Rep. Marion Berry and the Subcommittee on Homeland Security. Am I wrong in my interpretation of federal laws and congressional subcommittees?

NOW! IT IS MY CONTENTION that my email communications with you and other staff members, including the usage of the word “outrage” were withing my rights under the First Amendment right to speak freely in criticizing the U.S. Government (not withstanding your leave of absence – which you should have presumed I understood by the fact that you sent emails to me and I replied to your emails. By the way, I called you from a telephone in a truckstop restaurant – the type of telephone with incoming calls are disabled.)

Isn’t “outrage” a normal political reaction of the public to a Government’s negligence to arm American vessels of the merchant marine when pirate attacks threaten national security? Unless of course you do not consider the international racketeering activities of Somali pirates attacking U.S. Navy vessels and vessels of the U.S. merchant marine an economic threat to national security.

NOW! IT IS MY FURTHER CONTENTION that you, Erika Chudy, had no justification to call the Capitol Police just because you take the word “outrage” out of context and imply a threat solely on the word “outrage.” All the citations of federal laws, my own research, law review articles, excerpts from my federal litigation that I have presented to you begs the question do you actually think I will jeopardize $14 million in damages in my federal litigation against the United States by acting in compliance with your wild imagination from one single word, “outrage”? Now that IS an “outrage,” speaking logically, of course.

DO YOU THINK PERHAPS YOU OVERREACTED? DO YOU THINK MAYBE YOU REALLY SHOULD CLEAR MY NAME WITH THE CAPITOL POLICE AND APOLOGIZE TO ME? LET ME PROVIDE YOU WITH DEFINITIONS OF SEVERAL TYPSE OF LEGAL “DUTIES”. YOU PICK WHICH DUTY COMPELS YOU TO CLEAR MY NAME WITH THE CAPITOL POLICE:

VARIOUS TYPES OF DUTY DEFINED
BY BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY

Duty (1). A legal obligation that is owed or due to another and that needs to be satisfied; an obligation for which  somebody else has a corresponding right.

“While courts frequently say that establishing ‘duty’ is the first prerequisite in an individual tort case, courts commonly go on to say that there is a ‘general duty’ to ‘exercise reasonable care,’ to avoid subjecting others to ‘an unreasonable risk of harm,’ or to comply with the ‘legal standard of reasonable conduct.’ Though cast in the language of duty, these formulations merely give  the expression to the point that negligence is the standard of liability.” Restatement (Third) of Torts § 6 cmt. A (Discussion Draft 1999).

(2). Any action, performance, task, or observance owed by a person in an official or fiduciary capacity

(3). Torts. Legal relationship arising from a standard of care, the violation of which subjects the actor to liability. — Also termed duty of care.

Absolute Duty A duty to which no corresponding right attaches. According to John Austin’s legal philosophy, there are four kinds of absolute duties:

(1) duties not regarding persons (such as those owed to God and to lower animals),

(2) duties owed to persons indefinitely (i.e., to the community as a whole),[FN1]

(3) self-regarding duties (such as the duty not to  commit suicide),[FN2] and

(4) duties owed to the sovereign.[FN3]

Affirmative Duty A duty to take a positive step to do something.

Duty to Act A duty to take some action to prevent harm to another, and for the failure of which one may be liable depending on the relationship of the parties and the circumstances. Example, ministerial, adj. [duty]. Of or relating to an act that involves obedience to instructions or laws instead of discretion, judgment, or skill.

Duty to Speak A duty to say something to correct another’s false impression.

Moral Duty A duty the breach of which would be a moral wrong. —  Also termed natural duty

Negative Duty A duty that forbids someone to do something; a duty that requires someone to abstain from something.

Perfect Duty A duty that is not merely recognized by the law but is actually enforceable.

Positive Duty A duty that requires a person either to do some definite action or to engage in a continued course of action.

Preexisting Duty A duty that one is already legally bound to perform. See preexisting duty rule.

Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing — A duty that is implied in some contractual relationships, requiring the parties to deal with each other fairly, so that neither prohibits the other from realizing the agreement’s benefits.

Strictly Ministerial Duty A duty that is absolute and imperative, requiring neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment.

[FN1] As in an absolute duty to obey the Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States when no federal law or regulation addresses a particular subject matter, i.e., the contested National Open Carry Handgun or National Open Carry Small Arms and Light Weapons endorsement for a Merchant Mariner’s Document (MMD) or Merchant Mariner’s Credential (MMC) or even the Transportation Worker’s Identification Credential (TWIC).

[FN2] As in the absolute duty not to commit treason or violate the common law rights, statutory rights, constitutional rights, or human rights of a U.S. citizen/seaman as applied to the U.S. Coast Guard and the other Defendants.

[FN3] The prime example in regard to this Complaint is the duty of the U.S. Coast Guard Defendant’s absolute duty to the sovereign United States and its Constitution is to support and defend the Constitution’s Common Defense clause in the Preamble by exercising the ministerial duty requisite to the Oath of Office to support and defend the Second Amendment rights of U.S. seamen in federal laws, legislation, and regulatory matters such as the Merchant Mariner’s Document (MMD) or Merchant Mariner’s Credential (MMC) or even the Transportation Worker’s Identification Credential (TWIC).

CONGRESSIONAL SUPPRESSION OF RIGHTS:

Empirical Evidence of Congressional Suspression of Rights.PDF

The linked PDF document is my own research on the number of public and private laws passed by Congress from 1789 to 2010 to show a propensity for modern day Congress to suspress First Amendment rights of citizens. I was inspired to do this research by Matthew Mantel’s article Private Bills and Private Laws, 99 Law Library Journal 87 (2007-05).

CASE LAW

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights.” Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F 2d 946 (1973)

“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted to a crime.” Miller v. United States., 230 F 486 at 489 (1953)

“Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.” Smith v. United States. 502 F 2d 512 CA Tex (1974)

ERICKA CHUDY’S CALL TO THE CAPITOL POLICE
CRIMINALLY VIOLATED MY CIVIL RIGHTS

Ericka Chuby notifying the Capitol Police violated my civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241. Conspiracy Against Rights, and 18 U.S.C. § 242. Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law. I expect the FBI to include this in their review of my complaint.

In light of political allegations  flying around that President Obama (a Democrat) is “transforming” the United States from a Republican Form of Government into a Socialist or some form of Marxist Government is proven true and in light of U.S. Rep. Marion Berry is also a Democrat it can be presumed and construed  in legal theory that Erika Chuby calling the Capitol Police was an act of 18 U.S.C. § Treason or 18 U.S.C. § 2382 Misprision of Treason (depending on the degree of culpibility) in retaliation for exercising my First Amendment right to petition the Government for redress of grievances  “IF AND ONLY IF” it ever comes to pass that President Obama’s  status as a natural born citizen is disproven and therefore was not eligible to run for president and Congress’ failure to properly vet Obama’s eligibility were Accessory after the Fact 18 U.S.C. § 3 for Congress’ failure or refusal to compel discover of the citizenship status and failure or refusal to impeach for refusal to voluntarily comply with the natural born citizen requisite under the Constitution “IF AND ONLY IF” the Constitution was srtictly followed and complied with which begs the question of legal theory (not a conspiracy theory) of whether or not the Obama Administration is overthrowing the Republican Form of Government.

I EXPECT ERICKA CHUBY TO CLEAR MY NAME WITH THE CAPITOL POLICE
AND EMAIL HER APOLOGY FOR HER ERROR OF JUDGMENT

OR CONSIDER BEING ADDED AS A NAMED DEFENDANT IN MY AMENDED COMPLAINT
(If I can sue a staff member of a Congressman)

The following is text from my Amendment Complaint logical expressing my “outrage”  in a lawful manner under my Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial against corruption in the federal judicial system. Ericka Chuby should reconsider her judgment to call the Capitol Police as a mistake based on ignorance of my innocent and lawful intent to exercise only my First Amendment rights void of any criminal entent. Unless off course it is the common mental of Congress and Federal Law Enforcement to consider exercising constitutional rights as some sort of a federal crime.

Note in the Protest below that the actions of the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Coast in 2010 have validating the merits my 2002 Civil Complaint in the U.S. District Court for DC and thereby nullifying any and every defence the Defendants can possibly present. So it is, as I see it, that Ericka Chuby will have no viable defense against any possible offinse I can allege.

IN PROTEST FOR BIASED DISMISSAL
(Judicial Corruption of Justice)

1. WHEN A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL IS A CONTEMPTUOUS ACT OF TREASON: JUDGE JOHN D. BATES CANNOT DISMISS THIS CASE ON THREAT OF RECYCLED CLAIMS OR ON ANY CONCEIVABLE GROUNDS BECAUSE GOVERNMENT ACTION TAKEN BY THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE U.S. COAST GUARD HAS VALIDATED THE MERITS OF MY CLAIMS PROVING MY CLAIMS HAVE ACHIEVED RIPENESS FOR A JURY TRIAL

May 2009 The U.S. State Department sent a démarche on behalf of the United States commercial shipping industry to determine port state laws and restrictions of other nations on the carriage of self‑defense weapons for vessels operating in high risk waters in relation to piracy on the high seas.

October 19, 2009 The U.S. Coast Guard International Port Security Program issued their U.S. Coast Guard Port Security Advisory (PSA) (8-09) Port State Response To Request For Information Regarding Carriage And Transport Of Self-Defense Weapons Aboard U.S. Commercial Vessels.

August 10, 2010 The U.S. Coast Guard updated their Port Matrix Information to PSA (8-09).[1] The U.S. Coast Guard’s Port Information Matrix to PSA (8-09) provides the basis for the the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. State Department to negotiate a treaty with all maritime nations through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) securing the human right to armed self-defense of the crew and vessels of each maritime nation. The United States has a choice whether to legistatively and through federal regulations to secure the Second Amendment rights of U.S. seamen to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate and interstate travel. The United States Congress, the Bureau of Alchohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Military Sealift Command, and perhaps other federal agencies can preempt state and local laws that infringe or prohibit the right to intrastate and interstate travel while openly armed as a U.S. citizen and as a U.S. seaman.

The new information above (obstructively denied to me by Judge John D. Bates’ sua sponte dismissal denying my right to discover this information) invalidates the U.S. Coast Guard’s Final Agency Action dated April 19, 2002 claiming that a National Open Carry Handgun or a National Open Carry Small Arms and Light Weapons endorsement on a Merchant Mariner’s Document (now known as the Merchant Mariner’s Credentialwould not be in the best interest of marine safety or security.” The actions of the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. State Department as noted above invalidates the U.S. Coast Guard’s Final Agency Action proving that firearms or small arms and light weapons aboard U.S. flag vessels are, in fact and law, are in the best interest of marine safety and security as implied by the Common Defence clause of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States. To say otherwise is treason. It is just a matter of how strict we are to enforce the law and constitutional rights as a nation based on individual rights and freedom, even against federal judges who ignore our rights and the Constitution.

Therefore, even if Recycled Claims may exist in this Amended Complaint Judge John D. Bates is barred, in the interest of justice, from dismissing this Complaint because Government Action has nullified any and every defense against my Demand for Judicial Review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Final Agency Action an nullified any and every defense against my claims of retaliatory actions by the Defendants against this Complaint from proceeding to trial.

FORWARDED EMAIL FROM
ERIKA CHUDY

From: “Krennerich, Erika” <Erika.Krennerich@mail.house.gov>
To:
Don Hamrick <ki5ss@yahoo.com>
Cc:
“Burleson, Jennifer” <Jennifer.Burleson@mail.house.gov>; Duty Agent – Complaint Center <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>; “Jennings, Will” <Will.Jennings@mail.house.gov>; “Adkins, Jeff” <Jeff.Adkins@mail.house.gov>; “Bass, Tim” <Tim.Bass@mail.house.gov>; “Blankenship, Cynthia” <Cynthia.Blankenship@mail.house.gov>; “Murimi, David” <David.Murimi@mail.house.gov>; “threats@uscp.gov” <threats@uscp.gov>
Sent:
Fri, September 24, 2010 11:06:42 AM
Subject:
RE: Ludicrous Letter from Erika Chudy, Chief of Staff, JONESBORO OFFICE

Mr. Hamrick,

I have attempted to reach you by phone using the number you have used to call our office, but am told it is disconnected.  Since I cannot talk to you directly, this email will have to suffice as an answer to all of your email requests and demands.

First of all, I am sorry you feel my letter was “ludicrous” and that I am addressing this matter with “lethargy”.  I have been out on maternity leave, as you well know, which made corresponding with you within your demanded time frame impossible.  I take my role as Chief of Staff very seriously and try to my best ability help EVERY constituent with a complaint against a federal agency.  However, some of your accusations simply cannot be dealt with by this office.  I have forwarded your demands within our scope of jurisdiction to the Judiciary Committee, but I cannot assure that you will receive the response you desire.

Furthermore, I understand from your last email that you intend to arrive at the DC Congressional office to express your “outrage”.  I have contacted the Capitol Police as they deem this action as a threat and subsequently will take action if necessary.  Please do not continue to send the barrage of emails to any of the rest of my staff as they have no role in this matter. If you want to contact me, you can reach me at 1-501-843-3043.  Otherwise, I feel my public service duty to you as a constituent has been fulfilled and there will be no further action taken under these circumstances, nor communication sent to you by this office.

I genuinely hope that you are able to eventually find a resolution.

Erika Krennerich Chudy

MY EMAIL
TO ERIKA CHUDY, AND OTHER STAFF MEMBERS OF REP. MARION BERRY (D-AR)
AND TO THE FBI FIELD OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC

From: Don Hamrick [mailto:ki5ss@yahoo.com]
Sent:
Monday, September 06, 2010 12:56 PM
To:
Jennings, Will; Adkins, Jeff; Bass, Tim; Blankenship, Cynthia; Murimi, David
Cc:
Krennerich, Erika; Burleson, Jennifer; Duty Agent – Complaint Center
Subject: Ludicrous Letter from Erika Chudy, Chief of Staff, JONESBORO, Arkansas OFFICE

TO:      U.S. REP. MARION BERRY OF ARKANSAS
Will Jennings
, Communications Director, Capitol Office
Jeff Adkins, Legislative Director (Judiciary) Capitol Office
Tim Bass, Legislative Asst (Judiciary) Capitol Office

Cynthia Blankenship
, Legislative Asst., Capitol Office
David Murimi, Legislative Asst./Correspondent, Capitol Office

CC: Erika Chudy, Chief of Staff, Jonesboro Office
Jennifer Burleson, Regional Office Manager/Caseworker
FBI Duty Agent – Complaint Center, Washington, DC Field Office

ATTACHED: Insulting Letter from Erika Chudy, Chief of Staff, Jonesboro Office for Rep. Marion Berry.

Apparently I wasted my time emailing Jennifer Burleson. I intended my emails to reach Rep. Marion Berry in Washington, DC. To correct this miscommunication I EXPECT Jennifer Burleson to FORWARD all the emails and attachments I sent to her to the Washington, DC recipients in the “TO:” field of this email message.

It is because of corruption in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the DC Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court that I am alleging Extortion of Filing Fees from a “seaman” in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1916 versus 18 U.S.C. § 872 in my Complaint to the FBI.

For the last 8 years I have pushed a Second Amendment case from a U.S. merchant seaman’s point of view only to be dismissed and my appeals denied (twice without comment by the U.S. Supreme Court) and now ignored by Jennifer Burleson passing the buck to Erika Chudy who incompetently mailed that ludicrous letter insulting my intelligence and pro se experience. No wonder there’s muffled talk of a civil war in society and the media.

From that Erika Chudy’s insulting letter is this insulting paragraph:

“As a co-equal branch of govermnent, the Congress enjoys several checks on the federal Judiciary’s power, including censure and/or impeachment. While Congress reserves the right to initiate these proceedings, in practice these rare sanctions are typically initiated by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Pursuant to the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-273), there is a specific process by which citizens can make complaints about wrongdoing on the part of federal judges. If you choose to make a complaint and initiate this process, you may address a written complaint to the clerk of the court in question.”

The lofty, condescending, pass-the-buck bearucratic mentality of that paragraph is an insult to my 8-year experience and intelligence as a pro se civil plaintiff. Complaints of judicial misconduct under 28 U.S.C. § 352 is done through the Judicial Council of the DC Circuit. The Judicial Council of the DC Circuit is a joke for pro se civil plaintiffs. I have filed a couple of Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and each time the Judicial Council found no wrong doing. It’s a system of judges protecting other judges. Its a damn fraud. See Charles W. Heckman, Dr. Sci., Comments on the Ninth Circuit pro se Task Force Report, A Matter of Justice Coalition (AMOJ), Committee for the Ninth Circuit. Below is an excerpt from that report:

Remedies That Fail

In case of particularly severe violations of the law, procedures, or ethics by a judge, a litigant is limited to filing a complaint with a judicial board established for hearing such complaints. Other avenues of redress are closed off because judicial immunity from civil liability was made absolute during the 1990s, even if corruption or malice motivated the judge’s actions. Experience shows that the boards investigating misconduct by judges move extremely slowly, and a litigant has roughly one chance in a thousand of having a rogue judge censured, even mildly.

“It can be concluded that a litigant whose lawsuit has been dismissed because of the bias of a judge against him, a class to which he belongs, pro se litigants in general, or the kind of lawsuit he has filed has almost no chance of redress, either on appeal or in complaint proceedings against a judge. Human nature clearly dictates that when members of any group are permitted to perform illegal, immoral, and unjust actions against other persons with complete impunity, many of them will do so, some because of laziness, others because of malice, and still others in anticipation of gratuities from a favored party. A pro se litigant has no recourse against a judge who does not want his complaint heard due to bias of any kind, and the fact that a judge has the power to deny him access to a jury effectively eliminates an important civil right supposedly guaranteed by Amendment VII of the United States Constitution.”

Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 is another laughing joke. Allowing federal judges to rule on Motions for Recusal directed at them is insanely futile. See David Ingram, Federal Judges Push Back Against Recusal Proposals: Congress Considers Revising Rules on Rudge Disqualifications, The National Law Journal, December 14, 2009.

Congress needs to take a hardline approach to judicial corruption to protect the Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial for pro se civil plaintiffs. Members of Congress and their staff treating individual citizens with apparent disdain from a position of lazy, condescending arrogance is part reason why political ideology of federal judges affecting their decisions is so rampant that in matters as serious as the natrual born citizen requirement of a presidential candidate is ignored and every Obama eligibility case that has come before a federal judge has been dismissed. Statistical analysis of this situation will prove that the federal judicial system, as Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit (now the Chief Judge) on February 28, 2003 at the Federalist Societ of Harvard Law School, said, is corrupt beyond recognition.

And this new Twombly-Iqbal Plausible Pleading Standing is another judicial fraud upon the People of the United States.

Pro se civil plaintiffs are the medieval lepers in today’s federal judicial system that is so infected with class-bigotry, that in combination with the political State of the Union over Obama’s transformation of our Republican Form of Government into a Socialist Form of Government I wouldn’t be surprised that mass civil unrest, riots, or even a civil war aided by the U.S. Army happen sometime in the future. What with AP and General Lloyd Austin contradicting President Obama’s declaration that the Iraqi war is over. The propagation of “Big Lies is the new epidemic.

Expanding the RICO Act to pro se civil plaintiffs in matters of judicial and government corruption, allowing non-lawyer pro se civil plaintiffs to act an Private Attorneys General as another “check” will help return our Republican form of Government to the constraints of the Constitution of the United States.

Please reconsider the status quo decision of Erika Chudy. Her lethargic take no action decision makes her part of the problem with the U.S. Government.

Signed: Don Hamrick


«

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized

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: