Source: https://brsinv.com/2016/09/11/petition-for-rehearing-denied/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:45:36+00:00

Document:
Below is the petition as submitted and denied. Note: The Court has dismissed this case for failure to state a claim. No request, in this case was ever made to Amend the Complaint. Plaintiff’s do not believe the complaint is deficient but, rather the court simply wishes to impose the Governments will with false statements and reliance on assumption rather than fact.
The Federal Courts participate in these proceedings as if they were Counsel for the Defense of the U.S. Government. There is literally no appearance of impartiality by the Federal Judiciary.
Plaintiffs find no indication, other than the Courts reliance and citation; these cases are binding precedent in the Federal Court of Claims or in the Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. To the extent they are Plaintiffs seek to have them overruled.
18 U.S.C. §1964(c) is a money-mandating statute conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1) based on identifiable decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
This statement of the Court presents numerous issues.
The court must recognize that in District court case 4:13-cv-00054 JLK; while liability usually lies with a third party defendant in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), The liability in case 4:13-cv-00054 JLK and consequently this instant case lies with the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government was rightfully the defendant in the RICO civil suit filed in a Federal Court of appropriate jurisdiction. The court as agent / trustee for the U.S. Government and We The People, converted the terms of agreement to become judge, jury, and defendant, dismissing its own case without due process of law in violation of Plaintiffs procedural rights. The Government in this case is liable for damages as both Defendant and as agent / trustee, which breached its fiduciary duty of care with regards to the Plaintiffs procedural rights.
In this instant case Plaintiffs have rested their claims upon a contract created with the grant of a private cause of action and although, they do not seek return of money paid by them to the Government, they have asserted entitlement to money damages based upon substantive rights conveyed to the plaintiffs by congressional grant with the evocation of federal statute 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) in case 4:15-cv-00054-JLK. When the Federal Government is defendant in a RICO case the money mandate of the statute is the liability of the Federal Government and the Federal Government is additionally liable as agent / trustee when breaching its duty of care.
Plaintiffs have from the beginning maintained the particular provision of law relied upon 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) expressly granted them the right to treble damages, attorney’s fees, and court cost i.e. to be paid, a certain sum of money-mandated compensatory damages, that the promise (Offer) of these substantive rights to property was conveyed by Congresses explicit grant of a civil cause of action with 18 U.S.C §1964, a grant, which conveyed the promises (offer) of those damages by the filing of a complaint under 18 U.S.C. §1964(c). That this particular provision of law relied upon conveyed the promise an express written offer to Plaintiffs who met the stated terms of qualification, adhered to terms of performance, and anticipated assuming the position of a Private Attorney General for the prosecution of a US Government operated RICO enterprise. Justice Aufustus Hand Compagnie General Transatlantique v. United States, D.C., 21 F.2d 465, 466,(1927).
The courts findings the RICO Act does not confer jurisdiction is correct however, the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1) which says founded upon any Act of Congress and under the Supreme Courts interpretations of that Statute a RICO’s Civil Cause of Action filed against the U.S. Government creates a reasonable right of recovery from the Federal Government.
As Justice Scalia conveys other sources of law (e.g., statutes or contracts) triggering liability if it can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government. Justice Blackmum entitlement to money damages confers where “any” federal statute can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained. Judge Davis the allegation must be the particular provision of law relied upon grants the claimant, expressly or by implication, a right to be paid a certain sum. Justice Aufustus founded means reasonably involving the application of a law of Congress.
18 U.S.C. §1964(c) is a Federal statute (a law of Congress) granting to a private citizen, meeting stated requirements, the mandated promise of treble damages, attorney fees, and court cost, for accepting the Governments offer of compensation in exchange for prosecuting a criminal case in the publics interest. When the Federal Government is the defendant in a criminal RICO case its fair to interpret the statute as expressly mandating compensation of a certain sum from the Federal Government. Furthermore, as agent / trustee of the U.S. Government, which breached its duty of care in the prosecution of a Government Agency, the Federal Government becomes libel for the full potential benefit of a successful prosecution.
The Courts reliance on Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009).“ is Misapprehended; neither of these cases involved a breach of contract or takings claim, for a specific performance failure, where the RICO statue had been evoked in an appropriate jurisdiction. Neither of these cases looked at RICO as another source of law mandating compensation by the Federal Government on which a breach of contract or taking claim under the Tucker act was founded. Neither of these cases looked at a civil action under the RICO statute.
However, if its the courts contention 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) does not fall within the Courts jurisdiction Plaintiffs challenge such an interpretation as not in accordance with the jurisdictional mandate for 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1) nor in accordance with Supreme Court precedential interpretation of the jurisdiction conferred on the Court as discussed supra.
In Hufford v. United States the Court found it-lacked jurisdiction because RICO was a criminal statute and specified §§1961- 62, however, 18 U.S.C §1964(c) grants a “Civil” cause of action not “Criminal” a civil cause where the United States was defendant. The contention the Court lacks jurisdiction is inconsistent with Supreme Court interpretations of the court of Federal Claims jurisdictional mandate under 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1) as discussed supra. If the Federal Court of Appeals has found as Plaintiffs consistently argued 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) is a Federal Statute mandating compensatory damages for economic injuries i.e. a money-mandating statute see Dkt. Item 7 (C ) p. 20-23, and Plaintiffs maintain it is. Then it would fall within the Courts jurisdiction and the misapprehended conclusion of Trevino v. United States, 557 F. App’x 995, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Statute does not “mandate the payment of money” is false.
18 U.S.C. §1964(c) Grants a Private cause of action a clear indication the legislature intended to create private Contractual or vested rights.
The Court of Appeals states at 6 ¶2 of their Opinion.
Plaintiffs would ask the Court? How this statute conveys the right to prosecute and the compensatory damages to a private citizen if not by offering to do so? How does a Pro Se become a “Private Attorney General” for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate, a woefully painful, unusual, challenging and demanding position, without an offer from Government to do so? The term applies only to the exercise of one’s ability to pursue certain specific kinds of legal actions statutorily authorized (offered). It does not create the ability to call one’s self a “private attorney general”. Consequently, the term is only applicable to a private non-attorney citizen who has accepted the statutory offer to do so.
Whether it’s a Grant, cognizable as a taking or an offer as a contract neither is applicable without the Plaintiffs acceptance of the rights and promises conveyed and a Plaintiff cannot assume private attorney general status without a valid acceptance of the authorization to do so. Furthermore, the statute provides, a promise of substantial and significant benefit to the American people, the potential demise of USDA’s RICO enterprise. This Court has balanced the scales of justice with assumptions rather than fact inconsistent with the Courts procedural rule FRCP 1. They should be construed and administered to secure the “just” determination of every action.
The Courts reliance on Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 470 U.S. 451, 465–66 (1985) (quoting Dodge v. Bd. of Ed., 302 U.S. 74, 79 (1937)). ).“ Is a Misapprehended assumption for injustice and to the extent the Court relies on the case as precedential Plaintiffs seek to have it overruled in this instance.
Plaintiff’s claims are at bottom a request the Court of Federal Claims review whether Government violated the Plaintiffs procedural due process rights and failed faithfully to perform its agency / trustee duties effecting a breach of contract or taking of personal property.
This is false! Plaintiffs claims are at bottom a request the Court of Federal Claims review whether Government violated the Plaintiffs procedural due process rights and failed faithfully to perform its agency / trustee duties affecting a breach of contract or taking of personal property conveyed to Plaintiffs by an act of Congress. Rights granted with specific intent to grant Plaintiffs status as a prosecutor of Government corruption, in a Government violating the fundamental laws of this Nation, in a prosecutorial void, where the Governments action aided the Government in avoiding prosecution and effected the Governments will to unconstitutionally write new law preserving the Governments corrupt objectives.  To the extent the court relies on Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Regarding this matter Plaintiffs would seek to have the precedent overruled in this instance.
 The court states “Plaintiffs now argue” yet its noted in footnote 4 that plaintiffs consistently argued this point throughout the proceedings. It was in fact the DOJ who argued the RICO’s damages were not money-mandating.
 In all prior argument the defense argued the statute was not money mandating and the Court did never clarify it.
 That Judge Jackson L. Kiser chose to deny the Plaintiffs procedural rights to aid the Governments RICO enterprise is a matter between him and the Government.
 To an agrieved farmer who’s business has been wipped out by government actions the prospect of being paid a reasonable attorneys fee to prosecute the offender is a very attractive offer.
 The relationship might be different if an attorney prosecuted the case for a non-attorney client in anticipation of collecting an attorney’s fees.
 The burden of proof in a civil case is a preponderance of the evidence.
 How is it appropriate for the Court to presume the legislature did not intend to bind itself contractually without allowing for the presentation of evidence to the contrary?
 As an Article I court, the duty of Congresses separation of powers responsibility, to hold the Federal Judiciary accountable has been conveyed to the Court of Federal Claims. The Courts Duty is to render justice against the Government in favor of citizens just as it would administer between private individuals. It just takes one bad apple corp. to spoil the whole bushel.
Up-Date 10 -8- 2016 For benefit of readers you should know that every one of the courts prior arguments were shown to be based on incongruent premise. The court did not and could not provide any argument for accepting as true their faulty unsupportable premises. So where this argument suggest a precedent be overruled it was not without significant prior support for doing so. The very fact the this court supported their opinion with precedent on statutes which were different from the bases of the filing and arguments shows their specific intent was to deny justice. I.e. Criminal RICO and Civil RICO are different statutes!!
This entry was posted in Federal District Court and tagged #Justice #SCOTUS #Corruption, Corruption, Federal Court, USDA. Bookmark the permalink.
← Judging the Judges of a Judge.

References: §1964
 §1491
 §1964
 §1964
 §1964
 §1964
 v. 
 §1491
 §1964
 v. 
 v. 
 §1964
 §1491
 v. 
 §1964
 §1491
 §1964
 v. 
 §1964
 v. 
 v. 
 v.