Don Hamrick
member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 52
Hamrick v. President Bush, et al, et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 04-1150; has been distributed for Conference on April 1, 2005. That means on April 1 the Supreme Court will either deny my Petition for Writ of Certiorari or grant it.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-1150.htm
The plaintiff Hamrick, [ME!], a U.S. merchant seaman, does not have an attorney. This is the second time I have been to the U.S. Supreme Court as a pro se plaintiff. The NRA has refused to help on both occassions in my 3-year battle with the courts and the government over my right to travel intrastate and interstate will openly armed for personal safety and security.
The NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and KeepAndBearArms.com have apparently imposed a news blackout on my Second Amendment case. My case for open carry handgun nationwide conflicts with their political agenda for national reciprocity for concealed carry. Go figure.
The federal judges and the U.S. Supreme Court have done everything they can to obstruct my progress in the Courts. The DC Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court have denied my statutory right to file my appeals as a seaman under the Seamen's Suit law, 28 U.S.C. § 1916 and extorted their filing fees from me to the amount of $1,066. I am slamming the federal judicial system and the U.S. Department of Justice with allegations of corruption until they have no choice but to act accordingly or they may just continue ignoring my filings.
The Rule 11 (before judgment of the DC Circuit, Case No. 04-5316) Petition for Writ of Certiorari is excerpted as follows:
Questions Presented For Review
A. The Scope of the Second Amendment as an Individual Right
Whether the scope of the Second Amendment as an individual right (avoided by the U.S. Department of Justice in their Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General, titled, Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right, dated August 24, 2004, but nevertheless determined it to be an individual right) extends that individual right to be openly armed (holstered sidearm) in intrastate and interstate travel, whether licensed or not.
Whether the U.S. Department of Justice's Memorandum Opinion on the Second Amendment provides the basis to overturn Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's dismissal with prejudice of Petitioner's Case Nos. 02-1434 (Constitutional Tort Claims for Damages) and 02-1435 (Writ of Mandamus); and Judge Reggie B. Walton of the same court's dismissal with prejudice of Petitioner's RICO Act Case No. 03-2160
Whether the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment must now be incorporated with the rest of the Bill of Rights through the Fourteenth Amendment as binding upon the States.
Whether the "United States" being omitted in the second sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives the United States government the power to make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States or shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
B. Stare Decisis Based on United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
Whether stare decisis based on Miller must now be abandoned.
C. The U.S. Merchant Seaman & the Second Amendment
Whether 33 CFR § 104.220 imposes an unacceptable risk of injury or death for unarmed crew members performing security duties in accordance with the International Ship & Port Security (ISPS) Code, Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) XI-2, and the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) 2002 and whether such crew members must be armed in the performance of such security duties.
Whether the following laws compel the Coast Guard to issue the Petitioner the requested National Open Carry Handgun or Small Arms and Light Weapons endorsement on his Merchant Mariner's Document (MMD) when the Able Seaman is required by U.S. Government regulations to attend small arms training as a prerequisite for employment aboard U.S. Government vessels in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7306(a)(3) and that Able Seaman is not a prohibited person from owning or possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), et seq.:
(1) Section 611 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (Public Law No. 108-293, August 9, 2004), authorizing and establishing the Merchant Mariners Documents Pilot Program which states: "The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may conduct a pilot program to demonstrate methods to improve processes and procedures for issuing merchant mariners' documents.";
(2) Section 217 of that same Act adds new Subsection (y) to 14 U.S.C. § 93 for "General Powers of the Commandant" which states: "after informing the Secretary, make such recommendations to the Congress relating to the Coast Guard as the Commandant considers appropriate."; (NOTE: The Coast Guard has refused my proposal for such a program involving the firearms endorsement - I am now study the Title 6 of the U.S. Code: Department of Homeland Security to see which laws are being violated by the U.S. Coast Guard for the refusal to safeguard our Constitutional rights to the fullest limit of the Constitution)
(3) Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501, et seq.;
(4) OPNAVINST 3591.1C Small Arms Training and Qualification;
(5) ATF Form 4473 Firearms Transaction Record;
(6) The Oath of Office Form CG-9556 (Rev. 6-04).
D. Government Racketeering and the Second Amendment.
Whether U.S. Supreme Court committed extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 872 as a predicate act of "racketeering activity" under the RICO Act under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) and whether the Supreme Court violated its own Rule 40(2) in addition to violating the Seamen's Suit law, 28 U.S.C. § 1916 by requiring the Petitioner to pay the Court's filing fee as a condition before accepting Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari as filed.
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit committed extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 872 as a predicate act of "racketeering activity" under the RICO Act under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) and whether the DC Circuit violated the Seamen's Suit law by requiring the Petitioner to pay their filing fee before the DC Circuit would accept Petitioner's appeals.
Whether PACER fees are exempt from payment by U.S. seamen under 28 U.S.C. § 1916. And whether the federal courts must inform PACER of the exemption on motion to the court or whether PACER must comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1916 on its own accord upon presentment of a U.S. Merchant Mariner's Document or copy thereof as proof of identity as a seaman by the Plaintiff/Petitioner.
E. The Second Amendment v. International Treaties & Conventions
Whether treaties with or conventions of the U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects and the Programme of Action resulting thereof in conjunction with the U.N. Department of Disarmament Affairs' Disarmament Agenda for the 21st Century (DDA Occasional Papers No. 6, October 2002) and in conjunction with the U.N.'s International Maritime Organization's Maritime Safety Committee's Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships: Guidance to Shipowners and Ship Operators on Preventing and Suppressing Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships (MSC/Circ.623/Rev.3 dated May 29, 2002)'s anti-gun recommendations in paragraphs 45 and 46 can rule supreme over, even though repugnant to, the United States Constitution and its Second Amendment threatening to deny U.S. merchant seamen their Second Amendment right keep and bear arms in the United States.
--------------------------------
Appendix C: Evidence of Obstruction of Justice, Withholding Evidence, Subverting Justice for Political Gain, Violating Petitioner's Right to Due Process, etc. by the U.S. Department of Justice
(Compare with Appendix I: The Ninth Circuit's Interim Report: Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants Comments on the Ninth Circuit pro se Task Force Report By: Charles W. Heckman, Dr. Sci. A Matter of Justice Coalition (AMOJ) Committee for the Ninth Circuit)
[[[[Omitting the Chronology from the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and substituting the expanded Chronology I used in my Motion for Sanctions against the government Assistant U.S. Attorney herein]]]]
CHRONOLOGY CONCERNING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S
WITHOLDING EVIDENCE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THEIR MEMORANDUM OPINION TITLED,
"WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT"
OCTOBER 21, 2003. I filed my RICO Act case for the Second Amendment at the U.S. District Court for DC (No. 03-2160). Alan Burch, Assistant U.S. Attorney from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, DC (555 4TH ST., NW).
JUNE 2, 2004. Almost 7.5 months since I filed my case Alan Burch is "Terminated" (word used in the Docket Report) and was replaced by Dennis Barghaan, "Special Attorney" from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Virginia in Alexandria under 28 U.S.C. 515 (out of jurisdiction U.S. Attorney). The Plaintiff alleges that the switch of defense attorneys has a direct bearing on the impending internal release of the Justice Department’s Memorandum Opinion titled, Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right on August 24, 2004, just 83 days away. Something had to be done to prevent the Plaintiff from using that Memorandum Opinion as evidence in the District Court. So, the Justice Department brounght in a hatchet man to expedite the dismissal of Plaintiff’s case before the expected release date of the Memorandum Opinion. This implies a conspiracy against the due process rights of the Plaintiff in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. Plaintiff alleges that the sole purpose for the switch in defense attorneys is to effectively deny the Plaintiff his right to use the Justice Department’s upcoming Memorandum Opinion on the Second Amendment as evidence supporting his case.
JUNE 21, 2004. Dennis Barghaan filed the Motion to Dismiss just 19 days after replacing Alan Burch. Plaintiff observes that the Department of Justice was going to internally release their Memorandum Opinion on August 24, 2004 which is just 64 days from June 21. Plaintiff has 60 days to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. If Dennis Barghaan had prior knowledge of the Department of Justice’s Memorandum Opinion it is the Appellant’s belief that he had a duty to inform the court of the impended release of this Memorandum Opinion because it had a direct impact upon the case at hand. If Dennis Barghaan did not have prior knowledge then the duty fell upon the Department of Justice to inform Dennis Barghaan of the impending release of the Memorandum Opinion because it was and is admissible evidence affecting the integrity of the governments argument against the Plaintiff/Appellant. The fact that the existence of the Memorandum Opinion was never made known to the District Court or to the DC Circuit or even to the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff learned of the Memorandum Opinion through his Internet news links implies a deliberate attempt to subvert justice. The Appellant alleges that the timing of Dennis Barghaan’s Motion to Dismiss occurring jut 64 days before the internal release o the Memorandum implies prior knowledge calculated to unjustly defeat Appellant’s case at the District Court. The Appellant further alleges that Dennis Barghaan’s obstructive tactics are meant to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation and Dennis Barghaan’s denials of factual contentions are not warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are not reasonably based on a lack of information or belief because the Appellant has now identified the Memorandum Opinion as admissible evidence and there can be no lack of information on the Second Amendment as an individual right because it was the duty of the Justice Department to inform Dennis Barghaan of the Memorandum Opinion. That fact that this was not done implies an intentional violation of Rule 11(b)(1) and Rule 11(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
JULY 12, 2004. The Justice Department issues a press release stating that Paul D. Clement was will serve as acting Solicitor General.
JULY 15, 2004. The judge, Reggie B. Walton, denies my Motion for Change of Venue.
AUGUST 10, 2004. My Objection to Motion to Dismiss filed out of time (because Kinkos lost my emailed Objection due to a virus attack. But Dennis Barghaan in a footnote in his rebuttal did not oppose my filing out of time).
AUGUST 16, 2004. Dennis Barghaan files his rebuttal to my objection.
AUGUST 16, 2004. Wasting no time Judge Reggie B. Walton grants Motion to Dismiss just 8 days before the internal release of the Justice Department’s Memorandum Opinion. A job well done by Dennis Barghaan. Does Judge Walton actually read these motions?
AUGUST 24, 2004. Relevant Evidence Concealed from the Court & Plaintiff. U.S. Department of Justice internally published their Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General John Ashcroft titled, Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right. The Department of Justice did not release the Memorandum Opinion to the public until mid-December 2004, for obvious political gain until well after the presidential election in November. That Memorandum Opinion is documentary evidence, a government record under 28 U.S.C. § 1733 and is admissible as evidence because under Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence the Memorandum Opinion becomes an Opinion on an Ultimate Issue because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. [Rule 406 Habit/Routine Practice]
AUGUST 27, 2004. Plaintiff filed Notice of Appeal.
AUGUST 27, 2004. On this date President Bush issues Executive Order 13353 Establishing the President's Board on Safeguarding Americans' Civil Liberties. The Deputy Attorney General James Comey is appointed as Chairman. However, there may exist a conflict of interest with this appointment. In the May 21, 2001 edition of U.S. News & World Report then U.S. Attorney James Comey is reported to have said “To us gun possession itself is a crime of violence†in discussing Virginia’s Project Exile program. James Comey’s position against the Second Amendment as an individual right back then does not exactly square with his appointment to the President’s Board on Safeguarding American Civil Liberties. At best it compares more accurately to a Trojan Horse tactic for an undisclosed agenda.
SEPTEMBER 9, 2004. Appellant filed his Appellant's Brief at the DC Circuit.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004. Appellant filed Motion for Permissive Intervention By The President’s Board on Safeguarding Americans’ Civil Liberties And Other Third Parties & Motion for Appeal Conference. The DC Circuit has not yet ruled on this motion or any motion for judicial notice of adjudicative facts or presumptions in general that the Plaintiff has filed. Copy of this motion was FedEx’d to the Deputy Attorney General James Comey as Chairman of that civil liberties board. No response has yet been received. This is not a very good track record for the Government on protecting the civil liberties of the American people when the federal courts and the Executive Branch treats a pro se Plaintiff in such a manner.
OBSERVATION FROM TIMELINE: Alan Burch was almost 7.5 months (225 days) as defense \counsel and hadn't filed the Motion to Dismiss. He was under Ted Olson as Solicitor General. Dennis Barghaan took a fast 2 months, 3 weeks, 4 days (75 days total) to get Judge Reggie B. Walton to dismissed the Plaintiff’s case with prejudice. It is the Appellant’s understanding that if evidence does not get admitted into the record at the District Court then that evidence cannot be submitted at the Appellant level. However, the ethical conduct of Dennis Barghaan and the Justice Department can be submitted as evidence of a conspiracy to subvert justice and for other allegations which can lead the DC Circuit in overturning the District Courts dismissal with prejudice.
THERE YOU HAVE IT! AS PAUL HARVEY SAYS, "THE REST OF THE STORY."
My case probably was the determining factor in the U.S. Department of Justice not publicizing their Memorandum Opinion on the Second Amendment until after the November elections. And my impact on this matter is now exposed for all to see! The U.S. Government will admit the truth but will still litigative as though it was not the truth. What more evidence do you want that we are living under tyranny? Tyranny from not only the U.S. Government but from Second Amendment groups who refuse to be an advocate for the individual in the same fight as they but for a different agenda? The tyranny of groupthink!
Are you now willing to set an appointment to discuss settlement of this case?
Email From Dennis Barghaan to Don Hamrick
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:14:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Dennis.Barghaan
To: Don Hamrick <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Hamrick v. President Bush: Your Motion for Summary Affirmation DESTROYED!
Mr. Hamrick --
Pursuant to your request, I am not willing to set an appointment to discuss settlement of this case.
Dennis Barghaan
============================
:banghead: Why am I not getting help from the NRA, the Second Amendment
Foundation? Why are they not posting news reports on my case at
KeepAndBearArms.com?
:banghead: Their silence is known to the Courts and the Courts are embolden to
keep my case out of the Courts for that very reason. No publicity? No
justice!
Signed: Don Hamrick
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-1150.htm
The plaintiff Hamrick, [ME!], a U.S. merchant seaman, does not have an attorney. This is the second time I have been to the U.S. Supreme Court as a pro se plaintiff. The NRA has refused to help on both occassions in my 3-year battle with the courts and the government over my right to travel intrastate and interstate will openly armed for personal safety and security.
The NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and KeepAndBearArms.com have apparently imposed a news blackout on my Second Amendment case. My case for open carry handgun nationwide conflicts with their political agenda for national reciprocity for concealed carry. Go figure.
The federal judges and the U.S. Supreme Court have done everything they can to obstruct my progress in the Courts. The DC Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court have denied my statutory right to file my appeals as a seaman under the Seamen's Suit law, 28 U.S.C. § 1916 and extorted their filing fees from me to the amount of $1,066. I am slamming the federal judicial system and the U.S. Department of Justice with allegations of corruption until they have no choice but to act accordingly or they may just continue ignoring my filings.
The Rule 11 (before judgment of the DC Circuit, Case No. 04-5316) Petition for Writ of Certiorari is excerpted as follows:
Questions Presented For Review
A. The Scope of the Second Amendment as an Individual Right
Whether the scope of the Second Amendment as an individual right (avoided by the U.S. Department of Justice in their Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General, titled, Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right, dated August 24, 2004, but nevertheless determined it to be an individual right) extends that individual right to be openly armed (holstered sidearm) in intrastate and interstate travel, whether licensed or not.
Whether the U.S. Department of Justice's Memorandum Opinion on the Second Amendment provides the basis to overturn Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's dismissal with prejudice of Petitioner's Case Nos. 02-1434 (Constitutional Tort Claims for Damages) and 02-1435 (Writ of Mandamus); and Judge Reggie B. Walton of the same court's dismissal with prejudice of Petitioner's RICO Act Case No. 03-2160
Whether the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment must now be incorporated with the rest of the Bill of Rights through the Fourteenth Amendment as binding upon the States.
Whether the "United States" being omitted in the second sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives the United States government the power to make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States or shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
B. Stare Decisis Based on United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
Whether stare decisis based on Miller must now be abandoned.
C. The U.S. Merchant Seaman & the Second Amendment
Whether 33 CFR § 104.220 imposes an unacceptable risk of injury or death for unarmed crew members performing security duties in accordance with the International Ship & Port Security (ISPS) Code, Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) XI-2, and the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) 2002 and whether such crew members must be armed in the performance of such security duties.
Whether the following laws compel the Coast Guard to issue the Petitioner the requested National Open Carry Handgun or Small Arms and Light Weapons endorsement on his Merchant Mariner's Document (MMD) when the Able Seaman is required by U.S. Government regulations to attend small arms training as a prerequisite for employment aboard U.S. Government vessels in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7306(a)(3) and that Able Seaman is not a prohibited person from owning or possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), et seq.:
(1) Section 611 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (Public Law No. 108-293, August 9, 2004), authorizing and establishing the Merchant Mariners Documents Pilot Program which states: "The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may conduct a pilot program to demonstrate methods to improve processes and procedures for issuing merchant mariners' documents.";
(2) Section 217 of that same Act adds new Subsection (y) to 14 U.S.C. § 93 for "General Powers of the Commandant" which states: "after informing the Secretary, make such recommendations to the Congress relating to the Coast Guard as the Commandant considers appropriate."; (NOTE: The Coast Guard has refused my proposal for such a program involving the firearms endorsement - I am now study the Title 6 of the U.S. Code: Department of Homeland Security to see which laws are being violated by the U.S. Coast Guard for the refusal to safeguard our Constitutional rights to the fullest limit of the Constitution)
(3) Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501, et seq.;
(4) OPNAVINST 3591.1C Small Arms Training and Qualification;
(5) ATF Form 4473 Firearms Transaction Record;
(6) The Oath of Office Form CG-9556 (Rev. 6-04).
D. Government Racketeering and the Second Amendment.
Whether U.S. Supreme Court committed extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 872 as a predicate act of "racketeering activity" under the RICO Act under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) and whether the Supreme Court violated its own Rule 40(2) in addition to violating the Seamen's Suit law, 28 U.S.C. § 1916 by requiring the Petitioner to pay the Court's filing fee as a condition before accepting Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari as filed.
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit committed extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 872 as a predicate act of "racketeering activity" under the RICO Act under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) and whether the DC Circuit violated the Seamen's Suit law by requiring the Petitioner to pay their filing fee before the DC Circuit would accept Petitioner's appeals.
Whether PACER fees are exempt from payment by U.S. seamen under 28 U.S.C. § 1916. And whether the federal courts must inform PACER of the exemption on motion to the court or whether PACER must comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1916 on its own accord upon presentment of a U.S. Merchant Mariner's Document or copy thereof as proof of identity as a seaman by the Plaintiff/Petitioner.
E. The Second Amendment v. International Treaties & Conventions
Whether treaties with or conventions of the U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects and the Programme of Action resulting thereof in conjunction with the U.N. Department of Disarmament Affairs' Disarmament Agenda for the 21st Century (DDA Occasional Papers No. 6, October 2002) and in conjunction with the U.N.'s International Maritime Organization's Maritime Safety Committee's Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships: Guidance to Shipowners and Ship Operators on Preventing and Suppressing Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships (MSC/Circ.623/Rev.3 dated May 29, 2002)'s anti-gun recommendations in paragraphs 45 and 46 can rule supreme over, even though repugnant to, the United States Constitution and its Second Amendment threatening to deny U.S. merchant seamen their Second Amendment right keep and bear arms in the United States.
--------------------------------
Appendix C: Evidence of Obstruction of Justice, Withholding Evidence, Subverting Justice for Political Gain, Violating Petitioner's Right to Due Process, etc. by the U.S. Department of Justice
(Compare with Appendix I: The Ninth Circuit's Interim Report: Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants Comments on the Ninth Circuit pro se Task Force Report By: Charles W. Heckman, Dr. Sci. A Matter of Justice Coalition (AMOJ) Committee for the Ninth Circuit)
[[[[Omitting the Chronology from the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and substituting the expanded Chronology I used in my Motion for Sanctions against the government Assistant U.S. Attorney herein]]]]
CHRONOLOGY CONCERNING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S
WITHOLDING EVIDENCE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THEIR MEMORANDUM OPINION TITLED,
"WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT"
OCTOBER 21, 2003. I filed my RICO Act case for the Second Amendment at the U.S. District Court for DC (No. 03-2160). Alan Burch, Assistant U.S. Attorney from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, DC (555 4TH ST., NW).
JUNE 2, 2004. Almost 7.5 months since I filed my case Alan Burch is "Terminated" (word used in the Docket Report) and was replaced by Dennis Barghaan, "Special Attorney" from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Virginia in Alexandria under 28 U.S.C. 515 (out of jurisdiction U.S. Attorney). The Plaintiff alleges that the switch of defense attorneys has a direct bearing on the impending internal release of the Justice Department’s Memorandum Opinion titled, Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right on August 24, 2004, just 83 days away. Something had to be done to prevent the Plaintiff from using that Memorandum Opinion as evidence in the District Court. So, the Justice Department brounght in a hatchet man to expedite the dismissal of Plaintiff’s case before the expected release date of the Memorandum Opinion. This implies a conspiracy against the due process rights of the Plaintiff in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. Plaintiff alleges that the sole purpose for the switch in defense attorneys is to effectively deny the Plaintiff his right to use the Justice Department’s upcoming Memorandum Opinion on the Second Amendment as evidence supporting his case.
JUNE 21, 2004. Dennis Barghaan filed the Motion to Dismiss just 19 days after replacing Alan Burch. Plaintiff observes that the Department of Justice was going to internally release their Memorandum Opinion on August 24, 2004 which is just 64 days from June 21. Plaintiff has 60 days to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. If Dennis Barghaan had prior knowledge of the Department of Justice’s Memorandum Opinion it is the Appellant’s belief that he had a duty to inform the court of the impended release of this Memorandum Opinion because it had a direct impact upon the case at hand. If Dennis Barghaan did not have prior knowledge then the duty fell upon the Department of Justice to inform Dennis Barghaan of the impending release of the Memorandum Opinion because it was and is admissible evidence affecting the integrity of the governments argument against the Plaintiff/Appellant. The fact that the existence of the Memorandum Opinion was never made known to the District Court or to the DC Circuit or even to the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff learned of the Memorandum Opinion through his Internet news links implies a deliberate attempt to subvert justice. The Appellant alleges that the timing of Dennis Barghaan’s Motion to Dismiss occurring jut 64 days before the internal release o the Memorandum implies prior knowledge calculated to unjustly defeat Appellant’s case at the District Court. The Appellant further alleges that Dennis Barghaan’s obstructive tactics are meant to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation and Dennis Barghaan’s denials of factual contentions are not warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are not reasonably based on a lack of information or belief because the Appellant has now identified the Memorandum Opinion as admissible evidence and there can be no lack of information on the Second Amendment as an individual right because it was the duty of the Justice Department to inform Dennis Barghaan of the Memorandum Opinion. That fact that this was not done implies an intentional violation of Rule 11(b)(1) and Rule 11(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
JULY 12, 2004. The Justice Department issues a press release stating that Paul D. Clement was will serve as acting Solicitor General.
JULY 15, 2004. The judge, Reggie B. Walton, denies my Motion for Change of Venue.
AUGUST 10, 2004. My Objection to Motion to Dismiss filed out of time (because Kinkos lost my emailed Objection due to a virus attack. But Dennis Barghaan in a footnote in his rebuttal did not oppose my filing out of time).
AUGUST 16, 2004. Dennis Barghaan files his rebuttal to my objection.
AUGUST 16, 2004. Wasting no time Judge Reggie B. Walton grants Motion to Dismiss just 8 days before the internal release of the Justice Department’s Memorandum Opinion. A job well done by Dennis Barghaan. Does Judge Walton actually read these motions?
AUGUST 24, 2004. Relevant Evidence Concealed from the Court & Plaintiff. U.S. Department of Justice internally published their Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General John Ashcroft titled, Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right. The Department of Justice did not release the Memorandum Opinion to the public until mid-December 2004, for obvious political gain until well after the presidential election in November. That Memorandum Opinion is documentary evidence, a government record under 28 U.S.C. § 1733 and is admissible as evidence because under Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence the Memorandum Opinion becomes an Opinion on an Ultimate Issue because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. [Rule 406 Habit/Routine Practice]
AUGUST 27, 2004. Plaintiff filed Notice of Appeal.
AUGUST 27, 2004. On this date President Bush issues Executive Order 13353 Establishing the President's Board on Safeguarding Americans' Civil Liberties. The Deputy Attorney General James Comey is appointed as Chairman. However, there may exist a conflict of interest with this appointment. In the May 21, 2001 edition of U.S. News & World Report then U.S. Attorney James Comey is reported to have said “To us gun possession itself is a crime of violence†in discussing Virginia’s Project Exile program. James Comey’s position against the Second Amendment as an individual right back then does not exactly square with his appointment to the President’s Board on Safeguarding American Civil Liberties. At best it compares more accurately to a Trojan Horse tactic for an undisclosed agenda.
SEPTEMBER 9, 2004. Appellant filed his Appellant's Brief at the DC Circuit.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004. Appellant filed Motion for Permissive Intervention By The President’s Board on Safeguarding Americans’ Civil Liberties And Other Third Parties & Motion for Appeal Conference. The DC Circuit has not yet ruled on this motion or any motion for judicial notice of adjudicative facts or presumptions in general that the Plaintiff has filed. Copy of this motion was FedEx’d to the Deputy Attorney General James Comey as Chairman of that civil liberties board. No response has yet been received. This is not a very good track record for the Government on protecting the civil liberties of the American people when the federal courts and the Executive Branch treats a pro se Plaintiff in such a manner.
OBSERVATION FROM TIMELINE: Alan Burch was almost 7.5 months (225 days) as defense \counsel and hadn't filed the Motion to Dismiss. He was under Ted Olson as Solicitor General. Dennis Barghaan took a fast 2 months, 3 weeks, 4 days (75 days total) to get Judge Reggie B. Walton to dismissed the Plaintiff’s case with prejudice. It is the Appellant’s understanding that if evidence does not get admitted into the record at the District Court then that evidence cannot be submitted at the Appellant level. However, the ethical conduct of Dennis Barghaan and the Justice Department can be submitted as evidence of a conspiracy to subvert justice and for other allegations which can lead the DC Circuit in overturning the District Courts dismissal with prejudice.
THERE YOU HAVE IT! AS PAUL HARVEY SAYS, "THE REST OF THE STORY."
My case probably was the determining factor in the U.S. Department of Justice not publicizing their Memorandum Opinion on the Second Amendment until after the November elections. And my impact on this matter is now exposed for all to see! The U.S. Government will admit the truth but will still litigative as though it was not the truth. What more evidence do you want that we are living under tyranny? Tyranny from not only the U.S. Government but from Second Amendment groups who refuse to be an advocate for the individual in the same fight as they but for a different agenda? The tyranny of groupthink!
Are you now willing to set an appointment to discuss settlement of this case?
Email From Dennis Barghaan to Don Hamrick
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:14:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Dennis.Barghaan
To: Don Hamrick <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Hamrick v. President Bush: Your Motion for Summary Affirmation DESTROYED!
Mr. Hamrick --
Pursuant to your request, I am not willing to set an appointment to discuss settlement of this case.
Dennis Barghaan
============================
:banghead: Why am I not getting help from the NRA, the Second Amendment
Foundation? Why are they not posting news reports on my case at
KeepAndBearArms.com?
:banghead: Their silence is known to the Courts and the Courts are embolden to
keep my case out of the Courts for that very reason. No publicity? No
justice!
Signed: Don Hamrick
Full frontal assault, in their face!