Click here to download the Admiralty/RICO Act Complaint in PDF format.
My Amended Admiralty/RICO Act Complaint for Second Amendment rights of U.S. merchant seamen to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate and interstate travel (National Open Carry) in addition to arming U.S. merchant vessels and crew for self-defense against pirates on the high seas was shipped Tuesday, October 26th by UPS Ground with a scheduled delivery date of Friday, October 29th.
In this Amended Complaint I added the first section titled, “In Protest for Biased Dismissal” to express my frustration and outrage over Judge Bates’ biased dismissal and the prejudice against pro se civil plaintiffs of every federal judge that presided over my previous cases from 2002 to the present.
Will the NRA help me with funding and representation for my Second Amendment case after ignoring my case for 8 years? Or will they let their prejudice against National Open Carry prompt them to continue ignoring my Second Amendment case? God knows I need NRA backing for political advantage against Judge Bates to force him to recuse himself and recommend a judge from another District Court be assigned to my case as Judge Richard W. Roberts recommended in Hamrick v. President George W. Bush, U.S. District Court for DC, No. 03-2160-RWR, ORDER OF RECUSAL, January 13, 2004.
January 13, 2004, Judge Richard W. Roberts‘ Order of Recusal, first granted my Motion for Recusal. Then one week later denied my Motion for Recusal but recused himself sua sponte so as not to appear to have been outwitted by a pro se civil plaintiff. (My suspicion.) The very act of Judge Richard W. Robert first granting my motion for recusal then denying my motion but recusing himself sua sponte may have been procedurally bizarre it was, nevertheless, a brief shining moment of hope of getting a judge from another district that would not be tarnished by the corruption of Washington, DC politics and power plays until my case was corruptly commandeered by Judge Reggie B. Walton.
January 14, 2004, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed on standing grounds the claims of all but one plaintiff in Seegars v. Ashcroft, a Second Amendment challenge to the D.C. gun ban. With respect to one plaintiff deemed to have standing, Judge Walton held that she was “unable to maintain a Second Amendment challenge … and, in any event, the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia.” Seegars v. Ashcroft, 297 F. Supp. 2d 201, 204 (D.D.C. 2004). See Robert A. Levy, OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S GUN CONTROL LAWS, Testimony before the Committee on Government Reform, United States House of Representatives, June 28, 2005.
January 15, 2004, Judge Reggie B. Walton was assigned to my Second Amendment case in defiance of Judge Richard W. Roberts‘ recusal recommendation to assign my case to a judge from another district. Judge Walton was and still is a judge from the same district court as Judge Roberts. How in the Hell did Judge Walton get assigned to my case ONE day after his ruling in the Seegars case that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia and just TWO days after Judge Richard W. Roberts’ Order Granting Recusal? Judge Walton had a clear preconceived bias against my Second Amendment case. Something stinks in this particular “due process!”