Sen. Leahy Lays Out Judiciary Committee Agenda, Urges Judicial Confirmations

90% of the population can't afford the $100 K that Federal Judge Kane estimated is required to even begin a civil action in a federal court. Citizens might want to sue in Federal Court against a local government, against the Federal government, for employment rights, for First Amendment Retaliation, for harassment in order to burden a court action, as a crime victim, or against a business or individual who resides in a different federal district. They might want to sue to enforce their medical insurance contract.

Pro se litigants are routinely denied the same procedural due process that represented litigants are. Magistrate Schlatter in Colorado found that there were no records of any pro se litigant being allowed a jury trial in a civil matter or ever getting even a dime in damages. They are not allowed to value their time spent in litigation and therefore cannot file motions under Rule 11 that the other side engaged in fraud of the court. Pro se litigants are not allowed to use court mediation services. The Court of appeals will not allow pro se litigants to address the panels and sometimes will not allow them to present district court documents.

I have a pending petition for mandamus in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, # 13-5022. It concerns the fact that in the District of Columbia, 11-cv-01032, Judge Bates wouldn't allow my Rule 201 motion for mandatory recognition of facts or my Rule 52b/60 tolling motion to be put on PACER after he denied me permission to use my ECF account. DOJ wants me to appeal using an opinion that states that I didn't allege DOJ misconduct in Court but I did -- I alleged that DOJ misrepresented its Privacy Act Notices for the Prisoner Tracking System and the Joint Automated Booking System and represented that no oath or affirmation is needed for a bench warrant and that there is no right to a bail hearing when DOJ detains citizens without a criminal charge. The Rules of Appellate Procedure state that evidentiary disputes must be resolved at a district court level. It's already been a week and a half since I filed my Rule 52b tolling motion and all I have is a FEDEX receipt showing the clerks signed for it and an email from DOJ claiming that I misrepresented their position as to whether they were opposed to the motion or merely to the filing of a motion. Judge Bate's clerk, Daniel Ready told me that they have rules that prohibit pro se litigants who aren't allowed to use ECF from filing post judgment motions and those special pro se rules aren't published. The Rules Enabling Act requires that all rules be published. The Rules Committee even changed Rule 52b to extend the time to file such a motion and have it toll the filing of a notice of appeal.

The 10th Circuit has a list of people who aren't allowed to file in its 5 states. You don't have to violate a discovery order or make a fraudulent representation to get on the list. They call these orders "injunctions" but no procedure or order that is compatible with Rule 65 is required. I was actually imprisoned by DOJ for 5 months with no evidentiary hearing, no bail hearing, and no criminal charge for allegedly violating an order against litigation. I filed a motion for mandamus in the 10th Circuit and they issued an order, 11-257, that if I file anything the clerk's shall return it. That order isn't on their opinion page but it is on PACER, for "sieverding". Rule 5 (d)(4) requires the clerks to file so the Federal Courts are telling their clerks to violate the law.

The Courts violated Rule 608 by ruling and publishing that I engaged in "abusive litigation" as they had no contradictions in my testimony and didn't even attempt to charge me with perjury even though I verified every page I filed. I had problems naming my tort of First Amendment Retaliation in 2003 but recent court opinions recognize it even in a zoning context. As a result of former judge Edward Nottingham denying me an opinion or hearing on the merits, a David Engle died in Steamboat Springs Colorado. Plus I was ordered to pay $100 K in attorney fee shifting with no trial, no motions as required by Rule 54(d)(2)(a), no 11(c)(6) orders, and no motion hearings. This caused me to lose my home and it damaged my business. It really hurt my husband, David Sieverding. He had previously received a patent on a medical adhesive which reached over $100 million in sales but he has been really burdened by our legal problems and hasn't applied for any patents since then. So that's bad for the economy.

Lack of access to Courts will inevitably promote violence and distrust of authorities. Distrust of local government regulations will reduce real estate values.

Everything with rights has gone downhill since Chief Justice Thurgood Marshall died. It was supposed to be established law that the "principle of access to the courts consist not merely of the right to file a complaint but it includes the right to file other papers, including motions apprising the court of possible changes in the facts, the law, or the position of the litigant" see National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Meese 615 F. Supp. How can we get the Judiciary Committee agenda to include the procedural due process rights of pro se litigants?

see http://usmsinternalinvestigation.blogspot.com/
http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=viewlink&l...