The requirements of Federal Jurisdiction are used by courts as a due process denying trick

29 Aug
August 29, 2012

Federal jurisdiction is used in circular court logic to defeat forever unpleasant lawsuits.

The United States has filed its motion to dismiss regarding our lawsuit challenging the constitutionally of federal statutes that enable systemic lawlessness within the federal government.  We know where they stand now.  It is weak and does not respect the rule of law.  For liberty loving people, the document is disheartening.

The statutes we challenged in our constitutional lawsuit purport to provide citizens with a remedy against federal employees whenever they break the law.  Instead, the federal remedy statutes exacerbate the problem of systemic lawlessness by providing total personal immunity for federal employees’ intentional violation of the law.  Effectively, the statutes undo deterrence for lawless behavior of federal employees.

We opposed the brief. (United States motion and Our Opposition)

The United States’ central argument is that all our claims have been justly dismissed because, they assert, federal employees do not have to appear in court as a result of far reaching federal immunities.  The courts have so far agreed with the United States by dismissing the lawsuits.  The courts also reasoned that federal immunities insured that it had no authority to even consider the lawsuits.  The courts called this a “federal jurisdiction” dismissal.  Nevertheless, in every federal jurisdiction dismissal the courts would also add a “dismissal” on the lawsuit on “the facts”.  The court would then argue that both that the lawsuit was over, because it did not have the power to hear the case, and that we could never file a future lawsuit on the same issues since they had also “decided” the case on the issues.   I hope the ridiculousness of the court’s position is obvious to you.

They are mistaken (or worse).  When a court lacks “federal jurisdiction”, it has no legal authority to find judgment on any claim against any party.  There has been no determination on the facts.  Our lawsuit has just been delayed.  This dirty trick is another creepy attempt by federal employees to deny due process.  I bet this stunt is pulled all the time to pro se plaintiffs.  Here’s what the Supreme Court had to say about the issue:

Whether the complaint states a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law and just as issues of fact it must be decided after and not before the court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy.  Bell v. Hood, 327 US 678 (United States Supreme Court 1946)

If any portion of the justice system is just, federal employees will not be able to escape liability.  In any event, the dirty trick described by this post is the point of our constitutional lawsuit.  Previous (and just) courts under stood the issue:

“[W]hen the judgment of a state court … is challenged for want of due process it becomes the duty of this Court to examine the course of procedure in both litigations to ascertain whether the litigant whose rights have thus been adjudicated has been afforded such notice and opportunity to be heard as are requisite to the due process which the Constitution prescribes” Hansberry v. Lee, 311 US 32 (United States Supreme Court. 1940).

Our constitutional lawsuit is proper.

Absolutism, an old political philosophy that may be in America’s future

07 Aug
August 7, 2012

Nature abhors a vacuum. A vacuum of power is the same. Absolutism is a political philosophy recognizing that reality.

America fills the gap of power with rights specifically protected by the Constitution.  Allow a leader to usurp those rights, and the leader has obtained absolute power and control over the people.  The vacuum is filled.

No so long ago, as various societies of Europe were emerging from the middle ages, political thinkers struggled with the problem of who should fill the absolute power position at the top of a society.  In order to achieve stability, these political thinkers theorized that a doctrine  of absolute authority should be established to protect a monarch from the constant challenges to his authority.  It was as clear then as it is now, that some person or thing must fill the vacuum of absolute power.  Anything less, and societal instability ensues to fill the power vacuum.   The core political theory came to be known as “absolutism.”

Technology and communications during the time of absolutism’s emergence were not what they are today.  As a result, the monarch often had a tenuous hold on power.  The aristocracy could and did challenge the monarch’s right to have that absolute control over the people.  So a refinement of absolutist theory was in required in order to justify the monarchs’ right to possess that power.  Some of these refinements are well known:  heredity and divine right.

But in America, neither really makes sense.  Another absolutist sub-theory however, does –“enlightened” absolutism.  Achieving total control of the population over the heads of the aristocracy is difficult at best.   So during the enlightenment, it was the absolutist thinking of the day to justify possession of absolute power over the people through a “social compact” with the governed.  The enlightened ruler agreed to use his power for the benefit of the governed (for good).  Sound familiar?  In this way, the monarch or absolute leader could reach around the aristocracy and appeal directly to the people in order to hold onto their absolute power.  In other words, total and absolute power was achieved through democracy.

America is different.  The founders of the American republic chose to set aside key components of power and leave them in the hands of the individual, so that an absolute ruler could not amass total control over the populace. This is how the Constitution works.  It protects individual rights.  It does not grant them.  By protecting individual rights, the Constitution, another social contract, places a wall around the place in society where absolute power is obtained, so that not even some part of government can obtain absolute power.  So long as democracy is used to maintain that protective wall around absolute power, and not by electing your preferred choice of all powerful leader, the republic and the individual is protected.

But you also lose what you don’t use.  We are pro se litigants.  We do not use attorneys to fight our battles with the government (the disputes of this website).  Originally we made the decision because of cost.  Now we understand that, for the sake of liberty, we can’t.

Majority tyranny–the Constitution may not protect us

05 Jul
July 5, 2012

Majority tyranny is condoned with the Obamacare decision

“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” — Justice Roberts in his opinion upholding Obamacare, no doubt bending to majority tyranny.  Otherwise, why would he say this?


The court and Constitution must stand as a bulwark against majority tyranny, otherwise there can be no individual liberty.  Justice Roberts, I emplore you, the court and the constitution are the only civilized tools available to Americans to protect themselves from majority tyranny.  Please do not undo these tools with the court’s opinions.  Send the decision to undo Obama care back to the people if you must, but please do not undermine the Constitution’s check on majority power.  Statements made in the majority opinion accomplish just that.

The Obamacare opinion is both alarming to us and a threat to the lawsuits of this web-site.  Our experience has been that the lower federal courts increasingly do not respect the rule of law.  We believe that the thinking is, that, the legitimacy of the federal government is at risk with the various KENNER lawsuits.  The courts must further believe that a little “rule bending” is justifiable in order to avoid the conflict and to promote the general peace.  But Justice Roberts, left is right and visa versa.  You are simply looking into a mirror.  I believe your understanding, as illustrated within the Obamacare decision, is backwards.  The only way to keep the peace is to reinforce the legitimacy of the rule of law–irrespective of its appearance and the short term consequences to the court.  The court’s job must not be to maintain an appearance of the country’s respect for the rule of law while bending to the majority’s will.  A loss of liberty is at the end of the road.  The court and country must instead honor the rule of law.

Justice Roberts please, majority tyranny is presently reasserting its power, and, liberty is again as risk.  Do not allow majority tyranny to undermine the primary importance of the rule of law.

Due process is at risk in the federal court system

02 Jul
July 2, 2012

Be on guard.  The federal courts system has some dirty tricks to defeat due process

Due process rights are protected by the 5th amendment

Presently we are attempting to force a final resolution in the district court the second lawsuit (based on the Bane Act statute).  We intend to appeal the decision. We have an excellent case.  The proof: the court wants us to proceed no further.  To accomplish this, the court has attempted to trick us into forfeiting our appeal rights.  Here’s how it works.

The second lawsuit has been “dismissed” three times.  After the first two times we appealed the decision.  I assure you, we did not file our appeal too early.  Nevertheless, appeals can be unjustly tricky things.  One has a limited amount of time to file an appeal.  Usually it is 30 days.  If you miss that window, your rights to appeal are lost.  We knew this and were on guard.  We studied the law and met the conditions for appeal.  The court, however, was using the system’s latitude for ambiguity to deceive us into missing that 30 day filing requirement.

In the first dismissal, the judge (Roger Benitez) filed a minute order for dismissal.  We learned that he was attempting to defeat due process.  Ordinarily courts are required to file a separate document with the clerk of the court establishing final judgment.  Courts recognize minute orders to be final judgment under certain circumstances too.  Primarily, the minute order needs to communicate that the judge has completed the case.  Our minute order said, in very cautionary and unambiguous language, that our case was closed (see here). Also, all the parties and claims in our complaint had been resolved.  This is another requirement for using minute orders to indicated final judgment.

We filed our appeal.  A few days later the United States filed a motion to declare that the United States had not been dismissed.  It is important here to know that grounds for dismissing some of the federal employees were that the United States had been substituted in for those employees.  However, the status of the United States was irrelevant for the lawsuit’s final judgment since the United States had not been served.  Furthermore, the United States could not yet be sued because we had not yet filed an administrative complaint against it (as required by statute).  The United States therefore had sovereign immunity.  Sovereign immunity prevented the court from obtaining jurisdiction over the United States.  That is, the court had no authority over the United States.  But, the appeals court, in conflict with its own precedent, ruled that the case was not yet over.  Nevertheless, we undermined the first attempt at defeating due process.

A hearing was then held on a motion to dismiss the United States from the lawsuit.  For dismissal, the district filed another minute order. A second attempt at defeating our due process.  This time, the court was not as overt (declaring case closed) in the minute order’s text.  Instead, at the top of the order, it just said appeal.  Well, we did.  Again, the appeal court said we jumped the gun.  Right!  Finally, a couple of weeks ago, and just after we served the United States on the constitutional case, the district court dismissed the lawsuit declaring that they do not have jurisdiction over the United States.

We just filed a document with the court requesting that court enter final judgment as they are required to do by law (here’s the law).  No notice yet.

And so it goes.  Each day we anticipate some new justice denying stunt.  Each day, because federal employees have immunity and our RICO case is excellent, we often get one.

We anticipate more stunts designed to defeat due process as we proceed.

The “BIG” picture

01 Jul
July 1, 2012

This entire battle is about federal employee immunities.  Period.  Here’s how it goes:  Internal Revenue Code (IRC) statutes (sections 7433 and 7432) provide IRS employees with immunity for intentional violations of the law.  If employees think an act is in the best interest of the government, they can confidently depart from the rule of law.  This power has led to systemic violation of the law and corruption of the organization.  That is how the initial lawsuit (RICO) came to pass.

If we were ever to get the RICO lawsuit before a jury, the consequences to the legitimacy of the government would be horrific (not my goal).  Consequently, the courts and the DOJ are now breaking other laws in order to keep the RICO case out of court.  At this point, the battle began spinning out of control for all involved.  I filed lawsuit #2 (California Bane Act) against the original and new parties.  The Bane Act makes it unlawful for ANYONE to attempt to defeat your constitutional rights by threat or coercion.

The lawlessness nevertheless continued.  I think some of these justice folks even tried to bate me into suing more federal employees to make me look “crazy” and vexatious.  But, I saw where it was all headed.  I shifted tactics.

Our third lawsuit is a constitutional challenge against the very statutes that enable the above lawlessness–clauses within statutes that provide immunity to federal employees for intentional violations of the law.  This new lawsuit seems to have momentarily changed the tenor of the dispute.

Maybe now we are on the right path.

Where are we?

28 Jun
June 28, 2012

An update – We have filed three lawsuits:

The first is the RICO case.  It was dismissed by federal court last may (13 months ago).  It has been appealed.  The appeal is still pending.  The appeal began just over 12 months ago.

The second lawsuit is against the IRS and others for attempting to disrupt our appeal on the RICO case.  It was only recently dismissed–amazingly.  All sorts of crazy shenanigans were taken to disrupt our ability to appeal any decision.  It will be appealed soon.

The last lawsuit is a constitutional lawsuit suing the federal government to declare clauses within statutes providing federal employees with immunity for INTENTIONAL violation of the law unconstitutional.  This is the critical one.  The government will have to respond to this lawsuit within weeks.  All the lawlessness that has occurred until now is the basis for this lawsuit.

The pursuit of justice is a battle

28 Jun
June 28, 2012

The rule of law is our weapon and the courtroom is our battlefield.  We ‘all must pursue it.

In the battle for liberty, apparent losses are not always losses.  See the Obamacare ruling today.  Obama got what he wanted.  But he won’t like it.  The court may have however, protected liberty in the ruling process by decisively killing the slowly expanding liberty killing reach of commerce clause jurisprudence.

In a court, the battle for liberty is a chess game.  All we really know at the moment is pieces have been moved on the board.  Now it is our move.

The hard way …

28 Jun
June 28, 2012

I have, in the past, naively approached this web site the hard way.  I mixed what I have learned with the law with the actual events of our legal battles.  This made the blogging activities tedious since they were done as simple web pages.

Hence forward, I intend to blog more regularly by using wordpress to blog and web-site HTML to formally capture and communicate what I learn in the legal process.

The goal was always to help others fight their battle in the court of law.  The blog (and lawsuits) and legal research are equally critical components of that effort.   Hopefully the resulting product becomes more clear and helpful.