- To gain perspective on what was happening we stopped in the civil pro se clinic to learn what we might. After sourcing the civil docket this is what was seen.
- As can be seen in the docket text above, the judge, Hon. Manual Real, assigned to the criminal case directed the civil clerk to file a civil suit in our name 15 days after we filed with the criminal clerk. What I find offensive is the misrepresentation of what we "sought". We had not "sought" to file or lodge a complaint.
- Since we had not lodged a complaint the "discrepencies" cannot exist. There can be no filing fee or "forma en pauperis" waiver of fees.
- The clerks there agreed that the law we were invoking was criminal and therefore should remain with the criminal clerk.
- We tried to consult with either the criminal clerk supervisor or the civil and none made themselves available even after appearance was promised.
- Essentially the local court rules prevent a citizens compliance with US code directly. They are inconsistent with US code. Only the supreme court may make court rules. This indicates a huge problem with the justices which goes back some time.
- The code seems to be the solitary method where a citizen might make an official criminal complaint directly to a judge. Normally only a district attorney or a US attorney may bring an "information" of criminality to a judge. The US code represents a logical structure because felony and treason are heinous crimes that must be apprehended or prevented.
- What has happened here is that citizens have been forced to comply with US code by conforming to a standard form of pleading. However, the Code of Criminal Procedure or Civil procedure, both delineate that form, is ignored.
- Ignored because the application for an "ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE" (OSC) has a mandatory response in federal court. The US code used here does not show a citizen is due a response.
- The local court rules dictate all communications with a judge must be filed with the clerk. Therefore the standard form of pleading must be used but no response from the judge has been received while federal code of court procedure says the court must provide a response within the form of pleading imposed.
- The court has refused to follow two laws. U.S. code and federal court procedure. If the intent was to evade compliance the court rules should specifically allow Title 18 disclosures then the judge could simply throw the disclosure away and not act on it no matter what was disclosed and no one would know the difference.
- Since the court rules requiring filing exist, then there is a record. Worse, the court ignores the intent of Title 18 enabling citizens to report felony and treason directly by re filing such disclosure as a civil complaint revealing that the court will not use its power to apprehend felony and treason and instead expect citizens to prosecute with a civil suit something that investigative intelligence agencies would logically handle.
- Either the local court rules exist to make a record and thereby work to create accountability in the judiciary OR work to create a technical method to move disclosure of treason towards dismissal. Defacto immunity for felons of capitol crimes and high treason.
- Basically a non response to the OSC can be taken that the judge cannot find a reason to NOT answer the OSC or is utilizing the disclosure information as the complying citizen intends. An answer would logically reject the disclosure for some flaw or explain that law did not empower the disclosure with judicial compliance.
- The final result, refiled as a civil action without our authority. Note that the "38 pages" was removed below the crossed out stamp on the upper right.
- Think about this next time you pay a fine for not wearing your seat belt.
Disclosure of treason
Back to 9-11 Activism
Back To The Scenario
Feedback to; email@example.com