district court of the United States 

district for Eugene 

Galice Mining District 

[1525] Plat I, Sutherlin, oregon [97479] 

:ida - lee: [reman] 

Recorder for the Galice Mining District 

Ph# 971-221-9066 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED31 Jll '1315:03USDC~ Civil Action No. [6:13-CV-00682-TC] 

Date: July 31,2013 

:delant- cory: [palmerton] NOTICE OF ERROR/OBJECTION TO 

Vice Executive Officer 

for the Galice Mining District 

) DISMISSAL/ORDER BY ANN AIKEN et. al. 

) REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 

) 

:irvin - lee: [adkins] 

Private Attorney General 

) 

) 

Petitioners I Administrators/ Plaintiffs ) 

Vs ) 

) 

) 

STATE OF OREGON ) 

Governor John Kitzhaber et. al. 

160 State Capitol 

Salem, Oregon 97301-404 7 

Senator Peter Courtney et. al. 

900 Court St. NE S-201 

Salem, Oregon 97301 

Senator Jackie Dingfelder et. al. 

900 Court St. NE S-407 

Salem, Oregon 97301 

Senator Alan Bates et. al. 

900 Court St. NE S-407 

Salem, Oregon 97301 

Defendants/Respondents 

Page 1 oflO 

Administrative Law Judge 

Judge Ann Aiken 

Case 6:13-cv-00682-TC Document 40 Filed 08/01/13 Page 1 of 10
Notice of Error/Objection to Dismissal of Case/Order by Ann Aiken et. al. Request 

For Reconsideration 

Petitioners hereby object to Ann Aiken's "Order" and Paul Burch's "Judgment" as unlawful 

for the reasons listed in this document. Petitioners also put the UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT on notice of the various crimes and falsifications ongoing or permitted and perpetrated 

against Petitioners by Ann Aiken et. al. Petitioners also hereby put the Court on notice of their 

failure to render the remedy in law required under the circumstances. Petitioners are hereby 

putting Ann Aiken et. al. on notice that she and her fellow conspirators will be held liable for 

damages caused Petitioners for her failure to do her duty by law. Ann Aiken et. al. will also be 

held liable inasmuch as she was notified of ongoing crimes in the Oregon Legislature and she has 

chosen to aid and abet said crimes by dismissing the case and covering the crimes with 

"legislative immunity". 

I. Introduction 

A. This legal action asks the court to enjoin the State of Oregon et. al. and put a 

stop to criminal activity and the usurpation of federally held powers as well as 

the abrogation of constitutionally guarded rights and congressionally granted 

rights. 

II. Objections to Errors and Failures 

A. Petitioners object to the repeated falsifications of their case, case number, case 

heading and parties' status even after the court was put on notice of said errors 

and falsifications. Seemingly the court is refusing to correct the errors and 

insists on the falsifications. 

B. Petitioners object to the court's refusing to address them as requested. 

Inasmuch as they are not corporations, Petitioners have appeared as natural 

human beings. The Court has insisted on falsely labeling them as 

corporations. "!fit is not a Corporation, it cannot as such, appear and 

plead " See West Union Tel. Co. v. Evser 2 Colo. 141 See Greenwood v. 

Railroad Co. 123 Mass. 32; Foster v. White Cloud 32 Mo. 505; Habich v. 

Folger 20 Wall. 1; Boyce v. ME. Church 43 Md 359; Folsom v. Star Union 

etc. Freight Line 54, Iowa 490. 

Page 2 oflO I 

f 

! 

l 

Case 6:13-cv-00682-TC Document 40 Filed 08/01/13 Page 2 of 10
C. Petitioners object to the court's having mailed Petitioners unsealed envelopes 

on July 22, 2013. 

D. Petitioners object to the court's having mailed them the order FIVE DAYS 

after the order was signed on July 18, 2013 limiting the time Petitioners would 

have to respond! 

E. Failure to address Complaint. 

1. Petitioners OBJECT to Ms. Aiken's failure to address their Complaint. 

2. It is interesting to note that Ms. Aiken fails to mention ANY of the Mining 

laws or Federal laws brought forth by Petitioners in her address in 

Document 37 page ID#:273 etc. 

3. Of note is the fact that neither Defendants nor Kamins nor Ms. Aiken have 

responded at all to the original Complaint and Application for Injunctive Relief or 

the challenges listed therein. 

4. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Kamins and awarded by Ms. Aiken is hardly an 

answer to the Complaint filed by Petitioners. Said Motion to Dismiss fails to 

address the questions and challenges in law brought forth by Petitioners. 

5. Ms. Aiken seems preoccupied in analyzing the legal ramifications of 

"likelihoods" and other such ambiguous terms, oblivious of the fact that 

the Petitioners' request was very simple and straight forward: "Stop these 

guys (Defendants) from taking our grant until the legal ramifications of 

said grant and the impact the pending legislation will have on the grant 

have been thoroughly resolved and decided on in court. Do NOT let us 

sustain the harm of their abuse!!!" How simple is that! 

F. Failure to Address the Mining Grant of 1872. 

1. Petitioners OBJECT to Ms. Aiken's failure to regard or address the 

Mining Grant of 1872. 

2. Ms. Aiken does not address the matter of the federal mining grant, or the 

fact that Defendants' activities will most certainly impact and abrogate the 

rights guarded and pertinent to the grant. 

3. Ms. Aiken states: "Until there is an application of the 

law to plaintiffs' operations, the court could only 

Page 3 oflO 

Case 6:13-cv-00682-TC Document 40 Filed 08/01/13 Page 3 of 10
render an advisory opinion based on an abstract 

disagreement." 

4. The laws Petitioners have laid out in their Complaint can hardly be termed 

"abstract disagreements". 

5. In the above quote of Ms. Aiken's, it is clear that she will deny Petitioners the 

relief of an ii1junction and will intentionally allow them to sustain the harm the 

pending legislation will cause them. Ms. Aiken is hereby making herself liable for 

said harm inasmuch as it was in her lawful power to prevent the harm and she 

failed of her duty and obligation under her oath of office and as a public fiduciary 

trustee. 

G. Ripeness 

1. Petitioners OBJECT to Ms. Aiken's argument of 'ripeness' in that it has 

no legal standing in this case. 

2. Ms. Aiken seems stuck on arguing "ripeness" as though the injunctive 

action were a claim. She deliberately muddles the legal waters of the case 

by co mingling the concepts of (1) claims after sustaining of harm and (2) 

injunctive action for the prevention of future harm. 

6. Petitioners DID NOT file a claim for DAMAGES!!!!!! 

7. Petitioners DID file for Injunctive Relief to prevent FUTURE 

HARM!!!!! 

8. DO WE NEED TO BOLD THIS FOR YOU TO READ IT????? 

9. As CLEARLY indicated by the legal definitions filed into court by 

Petitioners on July 1, 2013 in their MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION AND NOTICE OF MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE pgs. 3 

and 4, harm need NOT be a prerequisite to an injunctive action! 

10. Would Ms. Aiken like to rewrite the legal dictionaries and alter the 

definitions therein to validate her own and Kamins' arguments? 

11. Ms. Aiken's and Kamins' argument ofthere not being "ripeness" for a 

claim falls flat on its face and is MOOT. There is no claim. Only a 

standing request for injunctive relief and protection from "future 

injury". 

Page 4 oflO f 

I 

! 

I 

l 

~ 

Case 6:13-cv-00682-TC Document 40 Filed 08/01/13 Page 4 of 10
H. Legislative Immunity 

1. Petitioners OBJECT to Ms. Aiken's argument of"legislative immunity" in 

that it does not cover for actions done outside of "legitimate legislative 

activity" such as those committed and about to be committed by 

Defendants. 

2. Ms. Aiken states "Absolute legislative immunity attaches 

to all actions taken "in the sphere of legitimate 

legislative activity."" 

3. It has been clearly proven that the Defendants are NOT acting within their 

"legitimate legislative activity"! 

4. If Defendants were legitimate why are they refusing transparency? 

5. If Defendants were legitimate, why are they in violations ofFOIA and 

refusing to release public records?! US. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61. A 

public official is a fiduciary toward the public, ... and if he deliberately 

conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. 

6. When a superior public official is notified of ongoing fraud and does 

nothing to correct the matter it falls under Misprision ofF elony Title 18> 

PART I> CHAPTER 1 >§ 4. MISPRISION OF FELONY Whoever, having 

knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of 

the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known 

the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under 

the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more 

than three years, or both. 

7. If Defendants were legitimate, why are they refusing to respond to their 

constituents requests whom they have an obligation to serve? 

8. Defendants intend to criminalize the exercise of a federal right and THAT 

is acting within the "sphere of legitimate legislative activity"????? 

Petitioners decry such actions as criminal in themselves and any who aid 

and abet them are guilty of the same by association. 

9. Defendants have an obligation to render honest service. 18 USCS § 1346 

Page 5 oflO 

Case 6:13-cv-00682-TC Document 40 Filed 08/01/13 Page 5 of 10
establishes uniform standard for "honest services" that governs every 

public official and government does not need to prove independent 

violation of state law to sustain honest services fraud conviction. United 

States v Weyhrauch (2008, CA9 Alaska) 548 F3d 1237. 

10. Defendants are engaging in numerous violations of state and federal law, 

violations of state and federal grants and constitutional violations ... to 

name a few. Criminal activity voids immunity ... unless we are dealing 

with a lawless mafia who are above the law. Is that it? 

11. Considering the sizable increase in revenue the contested legislative bills 

would allow for, Petitioners argue that there is a major CONFLICT OF 

INTEREST: Revenue vs. Public Interest. "Where two defendants were 

charged with engaging in scheme with other defendants, one of which was 

former Governor, to deprive state ofits officials' honest services under 18 

uses§§ 2, 1341, 1346, but two defendants had not been charged with 

Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy 

counts or RICO substantive counts, joinder under Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(b) 

was proper as Governor was alleged hub of overall conspiracy. United 

States v Scrushy (2006. MD Ala) 237 FRD 464." 

12. "In order to convict defendant based upon scheme to defraud another of 

intangible right of honest services, as contemplated by 18 uses § 13 46, it 

is unnecessary to prove that defendant intended economic or pecuniary 

harm or that any such harm actually resulted from fraud; all that is 

required is proof (1) that defendant engaged in scheme to defraud (2) 

with intent to deprive another ofintangible right o(honest services, (3) 

that it was reasonably foreseeable to defendant that scheme could result in 

some economic or pecuniary harm to victim that is more than de minimis, 

and (4) that mails or wires were used in furtherance of scheme." United 

States v Rybicki (2002, CA2 NY) 287 F3d 257. 

13. It is fair to note that criminal activity voids JUDICIAL IMMUNITY as 

well. 

Page 6 oflO 

r 

! 

I 

t 

Case 6:13-cv-00682-TC Document 40 Filed 08/01/13 Page 6 of 10
l 

l 

I 

I 

I. Liability and Failure to SatisfY Appearance of Justice 

1. In dismissing this case Ms. Aiken makes herself liable for the injury she 

might have prevented had she ruled according to law and not according to 

who her bar-mates are. Ms. Aiken's dismissal of this case would be 

construed as a violation of the Taft- Hartley Act and the Smith Act 

reflecting a closed union shop. 

2. "Our Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principal that 

'justice must satisfy the appearance ofjustice ' Levine v. United States, 3 62 

U.S.610, 80S Ct. 1038 (1960). Ms. Aiken does not even remotely satisfy 

justice, let alone the appearance thereof. 

3. Defendants, Kamins and Ms. Aiken knew or should have known that the 

pending legislative bills, SB 838 etc. and their even more abusive 

amendments, would directly and negatively impact the peace and dignity of 

the people of the Galice Mining District and the public interests ofthe natural 

people ofthe oregon state. 

4. Ms. Aiken knew or should have known that awarding the injunction until 

such time that the laws brought forth and the legality of Defendants' actions 

could be verified in court would NOT damage the public interest rather it 

would protect the right of everyone - not just miners - to exercise their rights 

under the Federal Grant. 

5. Ms. Aiken has harmed the public interest by failing to protect the federal 

rights of all people - that would be the public interest - in dismissing a critical 

case and refusing to address the issues brought forth. 

6. Ms. Aiken will be held accountable for failure to discharge her obligations 

as a public fiduciary trustee entrusted with the execution of justice and the 

protection of the public's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

J. Practicing Law From the Bench 

1. Petitioners OBJECT to Ms. Aiken practicing law from the bench and 

defending the Defendants, while making light of Petitioners' plight. 

2. Ms. Aiken proceeds to act as the Defendants' defense counsel and uses the 

Page 7 oflO 

t 

Case 6:13-cv-00682-TC Document 40 Filed 08/01/13 Page 7 of 10
same arguments Ms. Kamins used. That indicates bias and prejudice in 

favor of Defendants. 

3. Ms. Aiken proceeds to act as the Defendants' defense counsel and uses 

the same arguments Ms. Kamins used, in spite of the fact that Petitioners 

have rebutted and shown the unlawfulness of Kamins' arguments in law. 

By extension, Ms. Aiken's arguments are unfounded in anything but 

misplaced/bad case law. 

III. Conclusion 

Ms. Aiken has the opportunity to review her decision and consider carefully the 

law offered in the Complaint and other filings entered on the Record for the Record by 

the Petitioners. Should she fail of it and the Defendants proceed with their actions against 

Petitioners and harm and irreparable harm come of it, Ms. Aiken et. a/. may find herself 

held liable for said damages and losses in that she was called upon to intervene and stop 

the harm before it happened and did not do so nor had she stopped to consider the laws 

brought forth and rule in a just, unbiased manner. Furthermore she was put on notice of 

ongoing crime and chose to cover it with "legislative immunity" making herself an 

accessory to Defendants actions. 

Petitioners hereby request the court to reconsider the dismissal of the case. 

Page 8 oflO 

! 

I i 

Case 6:13-cv-00682-TC Document 40 Filed 08/01/13 Page 8 of 10
Any communications by mail must be mailed to: Galice Mining District, [1525) Plat 

I, Sutherlin, oregon. [97479). Any alterations or absence of bracketing or alteration in the 

lack of capitalization and the punctuation of the addressees will cause said mail to be 

returned and will be regarded as failure to communicate. 

All rights reserved; none waived. 

Vice Executive Officer- Galice Mining District 

Private Attorney General 

Page 9 oflO 

:ida -lee: [reman] 

Recorder - Galice Mining District 

e-mail: talktoida@gmail.com 

). /rv/h-t~~; [jdh;'h[j 

:irvin - lee: [adkins] 

Private Attorney General 

f 

i 

Case 6:13-cv-00682-TC Document 40 Filed 08/01/13 Page 9 of 10
I 

l 

l 

j 

1 

I 

' 

I 

f 

l 

j 

 

! 

 

 

 

 

 

I 

I 

I 

l I 

I I 

I 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Now comes the Plaintiffs, :ida- lee: [reman],:delant- cory: [palmerton], :irvin -lee: 

[adkins], to place upon the clerk of courts for the 

"district court of the United States" district for Eugene this 

Notice of Error /Objection to Dismissal of Case/ Order by Ann Aiken et. al. 

Request For Reconsideration 

filing to be placed in a court of record on this 31th day, month of July in the year of our Lord 

2013 AD. A complete Original will be mailed to the Defendants listed below by means of the 

accompanying Certified Mail Numbers. 

Governor John Kitzhaber et. a/. 

160 State Capitol 

Salem, Oregon 97301-4047 

CMN: 7012 2210 0002 4135 7720 

Senator Peter Courtney et. a/. 

900 Court St. NE S-201 

Salem, Oregon 97301 

CMN: 7012 2210 0002 4135 7713 

Senator Jackie Dingfelder et. a/. 

900 Court St. NE S-407 

Salem, Oregon 97301 

CMN: 7012 2210 0002 4135 7706 

Senator Alan Bates et. a/. 

900 Court St. NE S-407 

Salem, Oregon 97301 

CMN: 7012 2210 0002 4135 7737 

Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum et. a/. 

1162 Court St. NE 

Salem, Oregon 97301-4096 

CMN: 7012 2210 0002 4135 7744 

Page 10 oflO 

:/rfq_ --fee: 

:ida- lee: [reman] 

Recorder - Galice Mining District 

( 

I 

I 

• 

Case 6:13-cv-00682-TC Document 40 Filed 08/01/13 Page 10 of 10