HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-05 Correspondencer :z::.�'_, =1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
-� MEMORANDUM
Date: May 30, 2012
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
From: Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager
Re: Landfill Fire Presentation
On Saturday, May 26th a fire ignited at the Iowa City Municipal Landfill. The fire is now
consuming approximately 7.5 acres of land within the City's newest landfill cell. Public Works
Director, Rick Fosse, and Fire Chief, Andy Rocca, will provide the latest information on this fire
during the June 5th Council Meeting.
For the latest information, the public is being directed to visit the City's website at
www.icgov.org. That site contains an updated list of frequently asked questions, as well as links
to media releases, photos /maps, and a Facebook page dedicated to the incident. Members of
the public can also access information on City Channels 4 and 5. City staff will continue to be
accessible to media outlets in order to keep the public informed.
Iowa City landfill Fire
Fire date: May 26, 2012
Report date: June 5, 2012
IOWA CITY
LANDFILL
Date of
Photography
2011
TYPICAL LINER SECTION
SCALE: NO SCALE
NOTE.
1. TIRE DERIVED AGGREGATE THICKNESS TO VARY AS SHOWN ON PLAN.
i
r1l
_y
it"s
.IV
"s qqx -"Ivw
I
i
1.
ti ft
t�
r
r-. _
44
t�
s�
62
LZ
Isk.Af %Mf
M
Mot
.tea �. .. � '��i� -Yy -•6 '. }_. ..i "�"PT14_y.
G
i
y
Joel
0* ILL. Aneir
FIRE AREA
N
nr
pto
I
III
W14,16-
�i , � I�c //. i�..i_�.,'.i !/LG� �E�]di�,���r.�eli41��,� LL, ±dF.�t,J_F�a�::N,�z�� �Kss
A
,.. ... b.u..
..ter....
._
, -
-. .
777-,
t ��..
ia` i��Y
w. dR
" 4'/�Fil�`�r"�'�M'x
.0 eM±kM�IrY".(✓�Dt- 4'Si,5 a++�y,'�,sti
,. _
� �j}.•�6
rr:��
,���":k *ii,.::�'r`� °,n`..K -. ^�� .h1�1'.'
Yk'T ,7, .� ..
q
a,
,..7 -
n.
A'1..,
.ryy�yx!E-'4- '„'..f ��.a i
� �
<:,
�li� � Ilif f �7�. {'F���'iRl
ki
8
.,
-soon IM (NI
t
i
•�`°
� f i1vU 5w7
i-4 � .� mil. .Y "�i
/i.��r.>
YA 6
1
� n
1
M
�
i�
Date: May 15, 2012
CITY OF IOWA CITY of 06-05-12
MEMORANDUM -
To: City Clerk
From: Kent Ralston, Assistant Transportation Planner lhI?-
Re: Item for June 5, 2012 City Council meeting; Installation of (2) NO PARKING HERE
TO CORNER signs at the southwest and northeast corner of the Lucas Street / Iowa
Avenue intersection.
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council
of the following action:
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9 -1 -3A (10); Install (2) NO PARKING HERE TO CORNER signs; one at the
southwest corner and one at the northeast corner of the Lucas Street /Iowa Avenue
intersection.
Comment:
This action is being taken to increase visibility for north and southbound motorists at said
intersection.
r.
ul
r
I CITY OF IOWA CITY 4f2
NOW 4f(2)
Wx"x-- MEMORANDUM
Date: May 21st, 2012
To: City Clerk
From: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Traffic Engineering Planner
Re: Item for June 5th, 2012 City Council meeting; Removal of NO PARKING ANY TIME
signs on the west side of Union Place, south of the alley.
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council
of the following action.
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9 -1 -3A (10); Remove NO PARKING ANY TIME signs on the west side of
Union Place, south of the alley.
Comment:
The residents of 932 E Market Street requested that parking be allowed at this location (on the
east side of their home) as parking is currently prohibited on Market Street (in front of their
home). A traffic engineering evaluation found that allowing parking here would not create
congestion as there is no practical reason to park on the east side Union Place due to the
triangle shaped median that separates Union Place, Rochester Avenue, and East Market Street.
1 . `Y
r
^,.. -64 CITY OF IOWA CITY 03)
.�, �
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 21st, 2012
To: City Clerk
From: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Traffic Engineering Planner
Re: Item for June 5th, 2012 City Council meeting; Installation of NO PARKING ANY TIME
signs on the west side of Hickory Court.
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council
of the following action.
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9 -1 -3A (1); Install NO PARKING ANY TIME signs on the west side of
Hickory Court.
Comment:
This action is being taken at the request of Hickory Court residents to alleviate congestion
caused by on- street parking. A survey indicates 60% of responding households are in favor of
this action. Parking will continue to be allowed on the east side of the street.
id
1 .
a
r
�`. ®, CITY OF IOWA CITY 4f(4)
UNNEW
A ®��� MEMORANDUM
Date: May 23`d, 2012
To: City Clerk
From: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Traffic Engineering Planner
Re: Item for June 5th, 2012 City Council meeting; Installation of NO PARKING ANY TIME
signs on one side of selected Peninsula Neighborhood streets. Installation of NO
PARKING HERE TO CORNER sign and NO PARKING CORNER TO HERE signs
immediately preceding and proceeding the Swisher Street curve.
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council
of the following action.
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9 -1 -3A (10, 12); Install NO PARKING ANY TIME signs on the south side of
Foster Road between Swisher Street and White Oak Place, on the east side of Swisher Street
between Foster Road and Walker Circle, on the west side of Swisher Lane between Foster
Road and White Oak Place, on the west side of Moses Bloom Lane between Foster Road and
Walker Circle, on the north, west, and south side of Walker Circle between the north intersection
with Foster Road and the south intersection with Foster Road (to the west of Foster Road), on
the south side of Walker Circle between Foster Road and Swisher Street, on the northwest side
of Foster Road between Willenbrock Circle and Ball Street, on the north side of Willenbrock
Circle, and on the west side of Martin Street. Install NO PARKING HERE TO CORNER sign and
NO PARKING CORNER TO HERE signs immediately preceding and proceeding the Swisher
Street curve.
Comment:
This action is being taken at the request of the Fire and Transit departments to reduce
congestion caused by on- street parking and improve mobility. This action will remove parking
from one side of most streets in the Peninsula neighborhood and will remove all on- street
parking on the narrow 20' Swisher Lane where the City has received a number of parking
complaints. The neighborhood has received notification of the proposed changes.
CITY O F IOWA C[ T Y 4f(5)
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 25th, 2012
To: City Clerk
From: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Traffic Engineering Planner
Re: Item for June 5th, 2012 City Council meeting; Conversion of existing on- street
metered parking space 431S to a DISABLED PERSONS ONLY parking space on
the northwest corner of the intersection of Capitol Street and Harrison Street.
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council
of the following action.
Action:
Pursuant to Section 9 -1 -3A (17); Convert existing on- street metered parking space 431S to a
DISABLED PERSONS ONLY parking space on the northwest corner of the intersection
of Capitol Street and Harrison Street.
Comment:
This action was initiated by citizen request. This action will require that vehicles occupying the
on- street metered parking space have a state issued disabled parking permit. Parking meter
terms will remain the same.
Marian Karr
From: Pinz4 @aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 12:49 PM
To: Council
Subject: burning
4f(6
This correspondence will become a public record.
I would like you to re- consider your permission that allows open burning in Iowa City. Every
time someone in our neighborhood starts a fire in their fire ring, the smoke pollutes the air
and comes into my house. I have to shut my windows and last fall I also had to turn on the air
conditioner to keep the house cool when it would not normally be turned on because the
outside air was cool. I think allowing people to build fires is very inconsiderate towards those
of us who prefer the outside air to air conditioning.
Phyllis Pinzon
1038 Sunset St
Marian Karr 4f(7)
From: Kevin O'Malley
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 9:16 AM
To: 'richmanbrian9 @gmail.com'
Cc: Marian Karr; Adam Bentley; Geoff Fruin
Subject: FW: Municipal Procurement questions
Good Morning Mr. Richman,
I have been asked to reply to your email of May 15. 1 have answered your questions below in the body of your
email. Please feel free to contact me with further questions.
Sincerely,
Kevin O'Malley
Director of Finance
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
kevin- omalleyca -howa -city. org
319.356.5053
fax 319.341.4008
Please consider the environment and do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
From: Brian Richman [mailto:richmanbrian9 @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:28 PM
To: Council
Subject: Municipal Procurement questions
Hello City Council:
As part of my research, I am preparing a study on municipal best procurement practices. I am also
studying the wide variance in levels of transparency currently existing among local governments and the
possible benefits transparency mandates when conducting a thorough procurement process. .I have a
few followup questions on the recent unproductive venture with Innoprise software. I am familiar with
the background of the failed process as it was related in local newspapers. I could find no public city
document or report to Council detailing the history of the process or the executed contract through the
search engine. If a summary document to Council written at the time of the initial award/execution
of the Innoprisze contract does exist, I would appreciate having a PDF of it.
Could you or a staff member apprise me of the following:
1. Has there been any remuneration through litigation? The City of Iowa City received $30,000 in
settlement of our claim against Harris Software, the company that purchased Innoprise's software
rights. I have been checking agendas as they are released, and have noted resolutions settling unnamed
municipal lawsuits, and wonder if the Innoprise litigation might have been one of those boilerplate
resolutions with no specifics.
2. Is there any data detailing Legal Department billable hours spent and /or anticiapted to be spent on the
entire litigation process and what the total cost would be were it a private lawfirm litigating the
case? The lawsuit is being handled by Assistant City Attorney Eric Goers whose position is funded by the tort
levy. Therefore, no record is kept of the hours spent on the case. If a private law firm were retained to
litigate the case the cost would be significantly more expensive due to the hourly rate of private attorneys
compared to the cost of funding the in -house position.
I recall staff relating an estimate of $250,000 minimum in damages, perhaps higher.
3. Is the individual hired at the initiation of the process to manage the installation of the Innoprise
software (2010 I believe) still employed by the city? Yes and he has worked on additional IT
projects and the new request for proposals on the enterprise resource planning software system.
4. What is the status of the process to acquire new enterprise software? Currently, we are have set up
lab sessions for our end users to test the two software finalists. If not complete, when is it expected
to be awarded? Late June 2012.
5. If not already awarded, when it is awarded will City Council be authorizing the purchase? Yes, the
current software cost estimates are over $150,000.
6. Will there be supporting public documentation detailing the rationale leading to the eventual
selection of the replacement enterprise software? Yes, there will be a memo to City Council
recommending the purchase of the Enterprise Resource Planning software.
Thank you so much for the information.
B. Richman
* ** 200 page attachment archived in meeting folder but not distributed
Marian Karr and available on City Council website
From: tony barino < barrinotony@g mail. com> 4f(8)
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 11:51 AM
To: Council
Subject: TRILLIONAIRE COMMUNICATIONS - - -FBI ALERT PRESS NOTES
Attachments: CORRUPTION[1].pdf; G30 - OBAMA CONTEMPT[1].doc; OBAMA CONTAMINATION 31
use 310[1].docx; OBAMAdiscoverycontamination [1].doc; BCI - BIO ETHICS[1].pdf; BCI-
PRAGMATICS[1].pdf * **
OBAMA CONTAMINATION AMERICAN JURISPURDENCE
OBAMA AND GIETHNER
CONTEMPT REFUTE TO SUSTAIN AND LEGALLY ACCLERATE IN INQUERY
"COMBAT CORRUPTION"
Gore anti - corruption conference, concrete approaches to help design
Anti - corruption strategies, also Pave corrupt politicians "cover ", enabling them to
dismiss allezations of corruption as politically motivated. "even one case of fraud
or corruption is one too many. "....... Such as "Africa as a continent is hopelessly corrupt,"
Inside this Issue
Feetrsres
Can Corruption be
Mcavre3.+ ............ 1.3
Into a World of Silence:
Disability Policy becomes a
reality ................5]
Are You Ready for a Dip?
SAP rollout may cause
"dip" in productivity . . . . .5
Pra(res
The Challenge of Inclusion:
Bank's Commitment to
Social Development .....2
Bank Staff Warning for
the Community .........6
Economists Forum 1999 ...8
Jain the CDT Discussion ....8
DePrtrnarts
View tram SA: Cara Cola
versus the Bank: Part II ...2A
HR: The Value of Feedback .4
AmwerEi a .............8
BANKS WORLD
Eater:
Morallina Famser George
llssotarR Edit —
Julius M. Wamey
Edtarul marl PwrluoEan
naaa.r
Cynthia Delgadillo
[lean'.:
Patricia HoN.Grapbik Design
Contributors to Mss lane:
Bonnie Bradford
Jerry Floyd
V.mi ie derman Hihhock
E Hakey Be,-
Tamil Sopber
Yoshi ucbimura
Advnsay Domrd Members:
Cleo ly— Bennett IHSDIS)
Eric Curie (EXTRD)
Alexander E. Fleming (ECSPF)
Lawrence Kl cdonald (DECVP)
Emmanuel Mbi (AFTT2)
Maureen M. Moore (ISGDR)
Pauline Rampm -cl (HRSSE)
Diana S. Walker(HDNVP)
Frederick Wright(ACTTF)
Robert Wright (CEXCR)
oWnge ac Wu rvm Marc [
apron
�,r�q rev " W-�o r"mme vmne
m, r m
a m momma t
ormcw�rc,amn mvx.:r
Oa�,,.�k�.,:a— o;mruam�
rc p�;� r,a r��n -:dm�aro' -11 ab
sc �W�ircnprcrcaWaM�i mprt
�r, u�
warn— aSrnWcJta1 m
Can Corruption
be Measured?
Bank Offers Diagnostic Tools to Measure
and Combat Corruption in Member Countries
In his address to die Global Forum on F7gtlting Corruption last
February, US Vic, Pri xidrd Al Care resort,d to quotatiorn
tram tr1c Old 'lLsteDdrtrt, flip Horan and Coarfrdus to impress
car hi} audience die higher autrwdtics dot have dryxmrlred dre
praedee Mire hdm.'lid} saMpts Flat Corruption is as anderd as
it is urdvc.L
"Corruption.!} a sedous Crime wide devastating rrtkse-
qurlres," CorC,rid. "A odd, vidom. often vident mnifieC of
citizen malty. for a narrow, gnvly, private, porxrtal pnfit oar
flip part oda Toroidal ofHdaL"
'Lhls sum, urtldusion had been drawn at the h ilb nit level of
the World Bank some years b,forC and Onderhcs die Banks
renewed empliasis oar helping Toa dries develop antir3Oruptio n
strategics, as well as adopting a polity of zero tolerance regerd-
iag any carrupt practices wittdn doe instigation itself.
'fl, Bards IBM fhnrly believes that Toorouption is a major fedor
impeding development.
"Qrtmptioa hampers israomde g meth. burdern doe poor dis-
proportiorately, and Ondemdrles the edT,edveness of invensinrrlt
and aid," said World Bards 1 §udff,nt lames OF Wolfcrisifm, who
spoke at dre Toarferrlces attrxkal by Will level offidaL} front
around! the world. "Anti- Traription strategics recd to be an inte-
gral part of a developudrd framework deigned to help rBntiics
rmhcat, poverty."
Since 1995, whrl autrwdtics at the Bank disurvereal that a
staff Drabber had infli reeal 111, award of a Ba[d(iinag ff Con-
tract to a Toanpeny in exclangu for peyndrd, die issue of Comil
tion restrains a wrnitive ore Sud1 cases are flankf011y rare, but
as WOlfrkxfm so statinctly put it, "evert oar, use of fraud or urt-
mptio ncis ore tea many."
Care citeti Ism esamrples of Toarntrics like Albania, Gem& and
Latvia which, last year, with Ito, evvistarre of die Bank. Tomra-
guously undertook to ddagrwsu in depth Tortription wilidn their
Cusbms
r15�IOr5
Trix
mr,brs
JBdg�
moieties in order to design strategic~ to Tomobzt it and imp re,
gdrvenlanre. Wide Data attempts at tightlng graft ar l the
world still rmnist of "anticormption campaigns" roisily
laundled an state radio aril television, with the token firingof an
agency tired or two oar flinty, (and usually Oruubstantiateal)
dlarges of allegeti Corruption, die systemic approadl in thl,su aril
WHY eunerging M)rdmdcs wMr, it is Order implia entatio n. pairs
farfldr. 'lh, pdncipal inrrvatkar hcs in the integration of dgdD-
ous etrrpiriul Deasurendrrt and are lyus of Tortr iption with the
crrrpnwrnrrerlt of dvil xldcty and refomdsts in gvrvcmnrerlt, to
build coalitions in addressing Clar iplio n systematically, spear -
hredingirntltutiomal and Mmomde redamrs.
Measuring Corruption
1b, old Draft that urtruptlan by its "intrinsic rater," is impos-
dble to measure delaycal dre emergence of serious etapirical
aralysis of urtruptkar, wrote Daniel Kaufmann, Manager,
Governance Firarre and Regulatory Reliant, Wald Bank
Institute (WBU. in a remit publiutkar. Challenges in dre Next
Stage of AntiLarruptiort As a result, he said, Orytlu about its
prevalence, suds as "Afdu as a rartirrd is hopelessly Tortmpt,"
as well as fallacies an its oases and To simple trey, wer, Learn:
Oatral . 'Jae alyds. of,m ricad data on Corruption obxureal its
Crlorgapi Costs and also gave rani politicians 'Ci
enabling Item to disatYs allegations of Tr raption as politically
nxotivat"L
In td} presentation at the Core anticarruptioon Toarferente.
Haufrman highlighteal Tomer,te zpproadles to kelp dindgnn anti-
Corruption strategics, which parpha.we broad public participation
to ohagrau, prepare and implenent action progrenn. In transi-
tion eCrrtdmdcs, uonaptiom was measured using surveys of hWU6C
tariffs, businesses and public officials. to determine its l rra-
eonm Ord on page3
Public Positions Are Often 'Sold'
ICI
O %icials ....
gig
D,pad
_,.:+ors
Word Bank Group
1818 HStreet NW �� W
Westington DC 20433 ..: id ...
Pbne(202)4I31826/2211 P d fpbEr oft ds RorkmP F i
Fax (
"-
enal banlawakWxaklbank.wq
Can Corruption be Measured?
(r rnnued from page i)
lance, a} well assts x.del omit eum<mdcusis. 'Lhemaritsug-
grsLS, in a number of umntim a picture of systemic unmp-
tion [tut urtuxles public welfare and hobble~ private sector
activity, whole in oil. it is more lx'atized.
What also enraged front flocs, surveys was that flame are
many types of corruption, wifir differing pattern in cacti umn-
try; and dot its institutional causes differ, meaning dot prior-
ities firt reform, would be umntry- spcdfc. It is empirically
fi in d [that many enterprises would pay higher taxes if urtmp-
tion were eliminated; [tat urtruptiom places a disproportionate
mcortxmdc burden an [tic poor; aril [tat in some settings 'pub-
tic' offidaLs do buy lucrative positions. Corte was particularly
struck by die survey data which stowed [tat in one umntry, 60
parfait of the customs officiaL} reported [tat their positions
hadhccnpurcased. "Yomkn.owditiftheypayfirtdedrposi-
tions, they will make their positions pay cif," he concluded.
Rrtrrer Bands presided Robert McNamar also um orended
[tic concrete arbo.+rtia.ortiom of ttd} new approach aril mg-
gested to [tic many country ottidaL} admitting the Care uhf
finehee to ..older its implm rrmtiom.
In um.tries where this data intensive approach is being
implmraded [burgh surveys OF h 0mC Olds, enterprises aril
public officials. its me and dissemination ation has sparked spirit-
of public debates aril slotted [tic fiam to institutional mea-
sures rather than to partin lar iitividuaLs, whole also helping
to mtablish room priorities, in particular institutkun. In
Alhdrob. firt instance, there was so much interest in [tic publi-
cation of die survey data that [tic prevkms day's oriel World
Cup weer match between neighboring lduania aril Croatia
was bumped off the front pages of die nation's s newspapers to
make way for charts aril grepbn. 'lid} cranmple brought hxmm
to many of the world leaders at the umferame [tic radhatiom
OF how badly people want to rid their s.deties of urtmptiom
and how i ffetivc an infirtrud public can he
"' tire .umbm mho firtce in our favor in [tic fight against urt-
caption is our ever- eTaiting access to infirtmation," mid die
US Vice Residat. "'the carte of accountability is [tic fusion
of infirtrntion and action action on [tic part of public otti-
daL}, private citizen, busk.mses, aril non governmental
orgard.tions."
'lire Wl aril DEC are also developing a major worldwide
database on governance an ce indicahm, prodding a comparative
analysis of institutional performance for over 150 umnhios.
this aossccuntry data aralysm ummploomts [tic in -dcptlh
country survey diagnaties.'Lingxiher dose data have beer. pro-
sented in local workshops [tat were organized firt aril open to
members of the gervemmad, legislature, busiriesses, media
andcivilsociety.'Liu policy debate was moved front tu rotor
of vague, unsubstantiated accusations to a "promcss final
on empirical evidence aril eystcmdc wealaunves."
'11., collection. aralysis, and dissemdratiom of umntry -
speific data empowering staketoldas to build coalitions in
die preparation and implmra.ortiom of action programs offers
hope in making inroads to improve governance," ance," Kaufmann
observed. In an article on die subject, 'New Frontiers in
Dia6ROSing and Combating Corruption," co-authors
Kaufmann, Sanjay Radian and Ruidi Ryterman (LCA), sug-
gest emu strategics firt i,sUblistdng refimar priorities, such as
farm gmmps that discuss issues like pity aril grand urtmp-
tio. ail ttw feasibility of potential ref(mn. 'leery also st cross
die importance of assessing a country's readiness to refimar,
analyzing the possible eScets that institutional aril policy
reform world have on key stakcOldos, became die pamtici-
ration of some high. -level politicians is iidspemble
Hum, reigns can only be sustairxd wifli die active pat-
ticipatiom of all brunches of do state, civil society and dre
busuress ummOr sty in doe policy process, they ummel.
Whole pointing to its strengths in identifying die necessary
regulatory, judicial aril institutional refimars. Kaufmann cau-
tions against any tcidoey to sec ads new approach as a sil-
ver bullet [tat womld slay corruption world -wide "it is far
front perfect, aril we mid to continue to pumh die frontier.
houth.ertc, fill medxdological and offirical tools can
only be one input within a umrpreiertsive and participatory
approach, where political will is also key." lndad, he prints
ore dot die wisdomr of adapting lids pro immanency major -
ical approach is quostion d by die politically
etencolelitesodu minumntrios. Yet,as
datio strated in several um.trim now implc-
mcntingthese diagnostics with Weld Bands
support, defcmivaOss is far franc universal.
In Eamilor firt isc uhple. Pmddeht Mahood
has.ndc known his ummdtrrad to hug -term
refire, based on survey results which are
design al in a participatory fashion with key
stakeholders, said Janet Entwistle, die
Resided Representative in that unsay.
"Even befire die surveys are complete, die
Bard, the ugh the Country Departmmt/
Resident Mission in partnership with the
WBI busbexhactivelyprrmxtingdvilxhcF
ety participation in dre design of a pr ti.d-
nary, shorttenr antiromruptiom action plan,"
Entwistle ofdainel. She said both the Law-
moment and civil society orgero.tions, aware
[tat [tic surveys are underway, are cage to
engage in a ricer debate on urruptiom, based oar empirical
flavor rather [tan suspicions or random accusations.
In early May, in a major ...for,,. for Latin America at dre
Carter Center in Atlanta. Resided funny Carta wart on a
worldwide CNN program to laud ttds dgumus approach, amt
meritingh k fellow parOhst Resided Maimed firt his enrage
in adapting this pro- transparax:y and participatory diagnos-
tics, and urged wine natioal leaders to uric to [tic World
Hance firt m0110dological and technical support. In feel, [tic
Carter Carter, the Bands and 'L'nmparenry International ational have
moorked on a ullzbmative eff xt in essisling Ecuador in its
antircommq tiom prmgmmn
"l lyperurtmptiom" or cystcmdc urtmptiom is a public poti-
cy issue," states Luis Mo[axl Ocampn, head of [tic Latin
America region of'Ltamparaey Intonational, al, [tic global anti-
urtmptiom watchdog. "'Lhc work of 'transparency
Intonational and [tic new ehagnutie surveys develmpcd by [tic
World Bands are now paving [tic way firt a new level od under-
standing on dre causes and ecmKmdeu eimpm e� odurtrup-
times" tic said [tat [tic jammer ofdaor and this, diagnostics are
vital in [tic formation of do new alliances "which have to 6rzh
beyoxl the awarahess- raising stage into urteaete actions arid
programs."
Lilually impior.t is the feel [tat these new diagnostics
have taker [tic passionate robotic amt of doe national de6dtes
on urtmpdom.
"Strmngtof ical workhasmad, it possible to de.tlticize
what world otherwise be a very minimal and political issue,"
said Carlos lilbirt, Resident Representative in Albania where
this approach was adapted early on and already reform are
underway in dre judiciary, motion. Wr and otiert imitutions.
More broadly, at present dre Band, is active in esisting in
antircommq tiom effrats in a number of institutioal room
dimension in over 25 umntries ..gong four &nhvia to
Uganda. In addition to dre eSoh underway, die new 'diag-
nostie tmmlldt' and coalition-building participatory approach
is being ralumtcd by a growing number of entries in Latin
Anreica, Ace, Africa omit in tranniti<m. 't'h.e Ban k'S ciform arc
u.mplenert.trd by dO assistarO (dottier bilateral dram such
as Scamliravian eoratries amt USAIl. IM
by Julio} M. Wmcy A,, istant Rditmr.BW
tin further doaLls and materials can the diagnostic
ormitits and upcoming i ivies, pleas contact Diane
Bwvctatd camet@Pwmldbankurg, or visit the website
fitp: / /www.wmldhnnk ing/lu md/cdi/gacdcalumhfin
Daniel Kaufmann
In Albania, for instance,
there was so much interest
in the publication of the
survey data [on corrup-
tion] that the previous
day's crucial World Cup
soccer match between
neighboring Romania and
Croatia was bumped off
the front pages of the
nation's newspapers to
make way for charts and
graphs.
FBI Alert – Case Notes "due diligence" 31 use 310 - -- case -11- 8563 us
supreme court barrino v us treasury ( obama /giethner)
76 Am Jur Trust 33 Slander /libel - - - -- 18 use 241 trespassing with executive
order to pecuniary 28 USC 547 - - - - -- 18 use 402 - -- 18 use 645 - -- 46 appendix
322
Article I section9 exceeding the 9t" Amendment to cause intentional loss and
deprivations "positional duress" force of office 37 C.J.S. Administrative and
Estate
I am correct in assuming that public health law principally addresses ....
undeniable threats to health.16 The state's neglect of the poor and
vulnerable, its calculated ... from biomedical research and the provision of
health care to the control of ..... INJURY PREVENTION 25 -28 (1993). 85 39
AM. JUR.2D Health § 22 et seq
63 Am. Jur..... prevented abuses in cases involving vulnerable persons,
including severely disabled ..... 70 Dana J. Lawrence, DC, MMedEda, The Four
Principles of Biomedical Ethics: A ...
2. they contend, originate in vulnerable human psyches ..... See. Jerry von
Talge, Major Depressive Disorder, 26 AM. JUR. PROOF OF FACTS 3D 1
(2003)...... Engle challenged exclusive reliance on the "biomedical"
model then ...
PROBLEMS IN MEDICINE AND BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL .... See,
e.g., 61 AM. JUR. 2D, Physicians, Surgeons, and. Other Healers § 188
_ ... Thus, bits of information brought to the computer are capable of sending
messages to
jones v jones- lineal descendant
The tort alleged in the complaint is known as malicious interference with
a prospective right of inheritance. Although cases of this type are
relatively rare, the existence of the action has been recognized in a federal case
arising in Colorado. McGregor v. McGregor, lol F.Supp. 848 (D.Colo. 1951),
Affd, 2o1 F.2d 528 (loth Cir. 1953)• The elements of the action are best stated in
Hegarty v. Hegarty, 52 F.Supp. 296 (D.Mass.1943)• The action requires (1) that
defendant intentionally interfered with the giving or leaving of property to the
plaintiff; (2) that defendant used unlawful means to accomplish the interference;
and (3) proof of damages. The intent requirement means defendant must have
acted purposely and knowingly. "Unlawful means" include fraud, duress, and
undue influence.
The probate law finding would be only constructive fraud based on the
relationship of the parties rather than proof of actual intent to defraud. 37
Am.Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit H 4, 441(1968); See United States Nat'l Bank v.
Bartges, 122 Colo. 546, 224 P.2d 658 (1950), Cert. dismissed, 340 U.S. 957, 71
S.Ct. 575, 95 L.Ed. 689; Toll v. McKenzie, 88 Colo. 582, 299 P. 14 (1931)•
Although this may be grounds for other legal or equitable relief, it will not
support the tort alleged here. As stated above, the tort of malicious interference
with a prospective right of inheritance requires proof of actual intent whether the
unlawful means employed is fraud or undue influence
Duress per minas, which is either for fear of loss of life, 125. — § —. § 1979 can
dispense with the requirement of showing a specific intent to deprive a ... in
furtherance of a scheme to defraud constitutes a separate offense, 163 ......
Compare Guaranty Trust Co. v...... This evidentiary rule is unique to American
jurisprudence
United states v Veal - - -- moral justification executive order is erroneous
the zeal effectuation of the executive order must take into consideration of
values of estate where the conflict of interest may federally question where
money may beas motive (United States v Syriuth, 98 F. 739, 747 n. 12 (3rd Cir.
1999))
Intentional goal- pecuniary harm — "positional duress" – 33 Am Jur
Slander /Libel -- Duress per minas is a Latin term meaning, threat of loss of life. Duress
per minas also means causing fear with threat of loss of limb or other harm to a person. In
civil cases the rule as to duress per minas has a broader application at the present day
than it formerly had.
The nature of the common law duress per minas is to enable the person threatened with
this pernicious control to avoid a bond or note obtained without consideration by means
of such threats. Halberstam v Welch Article II section 4 Under the facts that all
signatures, agreements or contracts were null and void and made under to in
inflict intimidation *, duress per minas *, exaction *, - -- "exaction result is fraud
exceeding Article 1 section 9 calculated the course of the executive order
to reach its intention goal expected the action to inhibit the transaction of
estate property and accounts attached Kesse/ v Levitt [United States v
Burr] [ Newsome v Treasury] SILENCE OF THE EXACTS
CONS TITUTIONLITY AND LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO OMMISSION
FIDUCIARY DUTY SUS V TWEEL] In re Bohus 5 use 702 the case issues
continues with federal questions to the obvious observance of the executive
orders action has administrative creases as well as omissions fiduciary duty and
14 pinkerton liability" Loumiet v Office of the Comptroller, No. 10 -1288 (D.C. Cir.
2011) City of Santa Clara v County Santa Clara (1969) 1. Cal. App. 3d 493, 81 Cal.
Rptr. 643 10 Am Jur 2d, Banks and Financial Institutions exaction for delay
1952) quoting 20 Am Jur, Evidence, Sec 190, page 193 .... been deprived of his
property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government
McNally y US, 483 use 350, 371 -372. Mazzei. 521 F.2d at 650
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
APPLICATION TO THE JUSTICES
No. 11 -8563
Matters to Proceed
(in forma pauperis)
PRO SE REQUEST FOR REHEARING ON THE MOTIONS TO AMENDING
FOR A
TRIAL AND DISCOVERY
TONY CURTIS BARRINO
Petitioner/Pro Se,
V
DEPARTMENT of the TREASURY
TIMOTHY GIETHNER
BARACK OBAMA
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Respondents,
On Writ of Certiorari on Areal from Fourth Circuit Court of A1212eals
Tony Curtis Barrino
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
(704)637 -9355
1 OF 76
SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES
TONY BARRINO
Petitioner/Pro Se,
UT
DEPARTMENT of the US TREASURY
No. 11 -8563
Writ of Certiorari
In Forma Pauperis
TIMOTHY GEITHNER on Direct Appeal
BARACK OBAMA Fourth Circuit of Appeals
Respondents, No. 11- 1713
APPLICATION TO THE JUSTICES
COMES NOW, I Tony Curtis Barrino, as Petitioner /Pro Se is acting on his own behalf request
as pursuant in this Honorable Supreme Court of the United States. The Motion to rehear matter
concerning the previous Writ of Certiorari has the needed explanation for support to amend this
lawsuit. The Pro Se is submitting formal requesting before the honorable court by application to
the justice to exceed word and page allowance. United States Supreme Court Rule [Rule 221 By
this application to the justices explains the matter and clarifies the issue to forego the previous
Writ of Certiorari order denying on March 26, 2012. 28 USC 2072(b) The Pro Se in respect of
the honorable court there are federal questions that did not answer and did not solve. United
States Supreme Court Rule [Rule 21.4] the pro se is requesting a new trial on the circumstances
un- remedied; judicial direction is due to the informative matter provided in this application and
the following motion that should reopen and re- docket the suit with effecting action of the
previous adjoining motions requested to process and order from the honorable bench majority.
There is an outstanding debt, obstructed transfer and torts that should answer thorough this
2 OF 76
honorable court. United States Supreme Court Rule [Rule 44.21 The following submitting
motion and this application to the justices is a common plea on the action "in the eyes of the
court" praying to move the original action for the Respondents compliance or query United
States Supreme Court Rule [Rule 17.21 The Petitioner as pro se within explanation through this
applications to justice in the rehearing motion is consolidating all petitions and motions to effect
as a new query purging the Respondents and issue into compliance on a new docketed trial.
United States Supreme Court Rule [Rule 27.31 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [Rule 12g]
2
The Petitioner contends in this application to the justice to rehear and amend this issue due to
the outstanding merit of the tort that this honorable must remedy to avoid financial and avoid a
maljustice. United States Supreme Court Rule [Rule 19.21 The Petitioner's motions will cure
matter of misconduct and torts. United States Supreme Court Rule [Rule [21.2(a)(c)] The
allowance to exceed the word allowance in necessary to establish early control and management
to avoid stumbling process. The extra narrative simplifies and deduces the situation judicially
directing justifiable course of action. "Amicable Direction" to correct and remedy the lawsuit in
short amount of time in the open court and it gives the inquiry suspicious to fraud a
fundamentally accurate legal approach that address the problems head -on. The Petitioner as a pro
se litigant in this application of justice is making efforts "in the burdens of persuasion" for the
rehearing panel to overrule and reopen the matter by majority to move this issue in a new trial in
all the requesting motions to act and pursue against the Respondents. United States v. Veal, 153
F.3d 1233, 1245 (11th Cir. 1998) the matter is worthy of rehearing and amend for further
proceeding. Robert J. Niemic, Mediation & Conference Programs in the Federal Courts of
3 OF 76
Appeals:A Sourcebook for Judges & Lawyers (Federal Judicial Center 1997, 2006).Hanies v
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 3:97- CV00942(JCH)( Dist. Ct.
Bridgeprt Div. 2005).The matter has a federal questions in the rehearing. The Respondents
executive order is a proactive act to obstruct the administration, convolute and frustrate a issues
of federal question In Re: Veal the Respondents have culpability of oppressive torts in a
financial and estate matter. The pro se has strong issues where this honorable court must override
the executive privilege and immunities that will lie. United States v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
Armstrong v Treasur- 2009 3155 (Fed. Cir.). Mazzei, 521 F. 2d at 650.
3
This application to the justices to allow the page and word the matter is serious and should the
honorable court must have a concise legal picture to fix the problem. This complicated money
matter and is complicated by the colors of office. This application raise the issue to rehear and
amend the matter has government officials ability to manipulate. This application to justice is
improving language in matters; to make aware honorable court is aware the Pinkerton v
United States, 328 U.S. 640, 645 (1946) .Caldwell, 989 F. 2d at 1060. Spies v United States,
317 U.S. 492 499 (1943)Yates v United States, 354 U.S. at 334. The Respondents forged
executive order is enough overact with adverse political vigilance; In Re: Younger, to desire a
goal and effectuate the Petitioner with unusual duress. The Petitioner in forma pauperis prays to
rehear and amend intervening on the circumstances; In Re: "Klein Conspiracy" is a common
US Treasury controlling and pursuing in the rehearing to amend the previous ruling Newsome v
Teasury, 2009- 3019(Fed.Cir.). The Respondents executive order defeating the lawful function
4 OF 76
and it is not necessary to have evidence of act. The court enough knowledge and enough
reason and has controlling effecting grounds that should be taken into consideration to move the
rehearing panel in majority allow the motion to amend moving as next steps for a new trial
and continuing query on the discovery. Bohus v Bellhoff, 950 2d 919, 924 (3 "d Cir. 1991)
4
Article III section 2 Morrison v Coddington,662 P. 153, 155 Ariz. 480(1983) requires all
previous motion to purse. The litigation of the suit requires this formatted motion and all
previous motion to exceed word and page allowance to have sound first impression to solve a
complex financial issue. This application to justice is the pro se support to solve a complex
matter. Eldred v Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) the issue facts, property and torts should be
purged by in the viewpoints jury. [Skilling v United States, 561 U.S. 20 10] the pro se has
amicable argument that must purse and solve. This application to justice is assist the
administrative action to reopen amend and purse. This rehearing is pro se necessary effort to
overcome the prejudice and popular hostility strike all previous order that interfere with
administration of justice. Arizona v Washington Jr, 434 U.S. 497(1978). The motion to amend
is just action to purse against Respondents in the storms of a new trial suspicious of fraud and
dissolving the torts. The pro se has just cause and sound argument allow motions action to
convince from a purging process. The presented suit has concrete problem, a real predicament
and financial deprivation. The application to justices is action for the rehearing panel recognize
issue and act on the pro se motions that will solve problems that unduly plague this suit Brady v
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83(1963) the pro se motions is the appropriate action to solve a federal
question that must answer and comply. The honorable rehearing panel in the interest should
5 OF 76
contest the lower court orders and prays the panel will understand the pro se position; compelling
all the motion requested to avoid suppression of torts in the litigation is causing the Petitioner
specific damage. Ling-sch v. Savage (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 729, 738; Rest.2d Torts, § 551)
Gagne v. Bertran (1954) 43 C.2d 481.) This motion to amend is power totally by In Re:[ Eldred
and Bradyl Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [ Rule 491 the application to justice is request for
the motion to pursue on the merits; the previous orders are inconsistent to resolve matter
tortuous transaction matter. Kassel v Leavitt, No. 23557 (Supreme Court of West Virginia 19981
In Re: [ Eldred and Brady] 18 USC 402 is justified legal acceleration in contempt, the pro se is
defending the matter plea to rehearing panel for all the motion to purse and avert the course
action of the Respondents.
5
Article II section 4 The matter requires new independent onset of sustaining action to arrive a
just disposition and avoid a financial loss. Washington, 2 Rev.Stat.Ann. (Remington, 1932)
§431, §435 (ibid.), The requested motions is action that this honorable and just panel foresees
futures on the pronounced facts, obvious infection to cure and addresses all the effectuating
culpability of the torts that have not reached adequate opportunity in ocurt. Brady v Maryland,
373 U.S. 83(1963) Eldred v Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ex dolo malo non oritur action.
There is federal question concerning conduct of Respondent as attorney a representative of US
Treasury. IN RE: the DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Huddleston No. 18942-
](Supreme Court of Washington 1999).The Respondents are hostile possession. Huddleston v
United States, 485 U.S. 681 (6' Cir. 1988). Newsome v Treasury, 2009- 30199(Fed. Cir.). United
States v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). Clinton v Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). The torts and
misconduct in this litigation "functionally criminal" the Respondents together infringe upon
6 OF 76
Article I section 9. The Petitioner is defending the Writ of Certiorari and pending motions to act
and purse against the Respondents.
Eldred v Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) this application to the justice sustains the matter with
reasonable diligence the honorable is due a just explanation to exceed the limitation. The
Petitioner's legal guidepost and accuracy is clearly just to purse, asserting the legal acceleration
by 46 Appendix 322. The honorable court should accept the statutory implications throughout
the pleading suit due to the "Pinkerton Liability" understanding. The application and assertion
are not ambiguous nor colored, not frivolous, there is sufficient just cause and probable cause
for action in requesting motions. The "Pinkerton Liability" should have been understood in the
lower courts, liability to the "clean hands doctrine" is the sustaining jurisprudence in lineal
descendant issue that must resolve. Jones v Jones, 234 US 615 (1941) sustains to pursue matters
to purge the issue by applications of contempt. There is unqualified political interest to the estate
and political corrupting facts concerning the income as well as the values of estate. This
rehearing and new trial is addressing evil zeal and malicious political duress that is proximately
cause federal question to remedy. The honorable court has enough above the speculative level to
re- docket and allow the motions "in pains it takes to remedy" Awabdy v City of Adelanto, No.
02 -57118 (2004) Butler v Elle, 281 F.3d 1014, No. 99 -35393 (9t' Cir. 2002). The Respondents
have no justification there is intentional commission of overacts with deliberate indifference to
spoil transaction for possession of property and unduly freeze money accounts. In Re: the
Discipline of Bablis, 0159 Bar No. 960167 Loumiet v Office of the Comptroller, No. 10 -1288
(D.C. Cir. 2011) Bank of Nova Scotia v United States, 487 U.S. 250 (10' Cir. 1988). The
litigation is amicable to pursue and is capable to survive to hear by a jury opportunity, federal
7 OF 76
questioning the conduct of the government political officials activity. In Re: Awabdy is accurate
jurisprudence considering the factual matter Halberstam v Welch, 705 F. 2d 472 (D.C. Dist.
1971) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Rule 50] the litigation is entitled to new and
independent action Simkins, Federal Practice, (193 4) The requested action is amicable action to
avoid a mal justice and avoid financial loss. Montgomery Ward & Co. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243
(1940). The honorable court must address the matter in the interest of anti - corruption in land and
money where government official may circumvent. The issue is politically distorted and
politically convoluted; discovery avoids all consequence and guard the Petitioner against any
further damage or duress. The pro se is amicable to expose the exploitation in this lawsuit.
Baltimore & Carolina Line v Redman, 297 U.S. 654(1935) The Respondents are breaking the
law and have caused torts by ignoring the Ninth Amendment. The entire complaint and motion
present facts that articulate law to guard against pecuniary harm. E.g. 30 U.S. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1.
United States v Kagma .Galloway v United States, 319 U.S. 372 (1943) Cooper, Directions
for Direct Verdicts: A Compass for Federal Courts, 55 MINN. L. REV. 903 (1971) Article III
section 2 this application to the justices is amicable to reopen and amend an egregious suit.
United States v Nation 10- 382(Fed.Cir. 2011) there is described and indentified allegations that
"question the manners and modalities" the fiduciary duties and honest obligation in government
debt affairs; in which the Respondents directly are not adhering to the "Pinkerton Liability" nor
give the matter to settle by the assurance of the Uniformed Fraudulent Transfer Act. The
litigation should not fail on the requesting motions; the pro se guards the suit against
deterioration. Article I section 9 The Respondent attempt to take estate property, unreasonably
freeze the accounts and wrongful seize the gold in custody as secure in trust to disburse to the
beneficiary as Petitioner. Jones v Jones, 234 US 615 (1941) a new trial or amended inquiry is
8 OF 76
just cause and amicable direction to settle this issue. Eldred v Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003)
Bolus v Bellhoff, 950 2d 919, 924 (3 "d Cir. 1991) The rehearing panel cannot be satisfied
beyond a shadow of doubt of constitution adequacy. The suit is egregious and request that
the motions before the justices be effective to remedy, go forward to purge matter into
compliance United States v Burkhalter, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 29282 (10, Cir. 1991).
7
United States v. Veal, 153 F.3d 1233, 1245 (11th Cir. 1998) Awabdy v City of Adelanto, No.
02 -57118 (2004) the court has amicable to grounds to join and consolidate matters to re- docket
by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Rule 12g] the action is general attack to "root out" the
issue in the element in which the Respondents exercise illicit executive order and illicit directives
to involve government agency to interfere with the transaction and possession of estate as well as
the adjoining accounts. The pro se must move the politics that conspire to inhibit the financial
situation and politically intentionally confuse distort the court viewpoint. Horne v Huddle, CA
94 -1756 (D.C. Dist 2009) United States v Liddy, 354 F.Supp. 208 (D.C. Dist. 1972) This
application to justice is a necessary explanation for page and word to be exceeded. Federal Rule
Civil Procedure [Rule 53f (4)] [Rule 53 g(1)(3)]the Pro Se is managing a complex matter for
the honorable court afford the litigation to amend in pursuing sanctions against the Respondents.
The Petitioner as pro se is victim and subject of "opportunities duress" to wrongful
administrative political government practice. United States v Lopez - Lukis, 102 F. 3d 1164, 1169
(11' Cir. 1997). The court cannot deny from the corroboration the Respondents cause
deprivations on a conspiring secret agreement that will lie and discriminate. Dombrowski v
9 OF 76
P aster, 380 U.S. 479 (1965) Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) Anchorbank v Hofer (7l' Cir
2011) Levowitz v Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977) The motion is action to readdress the
conduct and acts that cause hostile possession as address the political vigilance causative of torts.
This application supports the justification need of a "first discovery" "new query" in difficult
financial and tortuous litigation. 28 USC 2072(b) 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure: Civil 1552, at p. 751 (197 1) Kendig, Procedures for Non - Routine Cases., Hofstra L.
Rev. 701. FDIC Corp. v Mason(C.C.A. 3d, 1940 115 F.(2d) 548. The Petitioner has conveys to
this honorable by this application to reopen lawsuit on the merits and moves this issue toward a
trial judge by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [Rule 52(b)]. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
[ Rule 59(b)(e)] The Petitioner as pro se has move this is matter through obstacle of executive
order that attempt to frustrate the administration of justice and where the Respondents refuse to
make a uncomplicated transfer of estate property, conceal inclusive effects on file and inhibit the
access to monetary account set aside to join the estate in claim. The litigation must solve by
judicial query, the action is improving the interest in suspicions that will defraud. The Pro Se has
identified "real illicit issues" in this suit that must remedy Meadow Gold Prods. Co. v Wright,
278 F.2d 867(D.C. Cir. 1960). The application to the justice prays to move the lawsuit into
further proceeding toward the open court. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Rule 53(e)(3)] in
respect to follow the Klein Conspiracy and Pinkerton Liability. The Pro Se contends to the
honorable court not to be on fishing trip all actions requested to pursuit is amicable.
E
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule [ Rule 53(4)(2)] the action is steps in fair case solutions
Discovery and Disclosure Practice, supra, at 44-45 (1997) Cf. Crawford -El v. Britton, 118 S.
10 OF 76
Ct. 1584, 1597 (1998) the pro se has provided enough facts to tailor discovery narrowly to proper
and constitutionally afford the lawsuit justice. The motion are amicable action and have good
cause. The Respondents utilize unconstitutional executive that must cease - desist by Title 12 and
Title 15. Article II section 4 the executive order must be nullified due to the infringement of the
4th Amendment and 15th Amendment. Korematsu v United States, U.S. 214(1944) the
Respondents are discriminative executive order cause loss of property and accounts. United
States v Ma=ei, 521 F. 2d 639, 649 -656 (3rd Cir. 1975) the executive action effectuate torts that
are functionally criminal. The litigation must purse thorough amending action initiating query.
The overacts that hinder matter leave the honorable court no other choice but move the motions
in compliance by a jury query considering the merits culpability of overacts that manifest in
pecuniary harm to Petitioner. Article II section 4 Halberstam v Welch, 705 F. 2d 472 (D.C. Dist.
1972) the Petitioner `s estate and account are unattainable by means other than the grand jury.
This contempt and discovery is the amicable direction. In re; Grand Jury Investigation of
William H Pflaumer & Sons, Inc., 53 F.R.D. 464 (E.D.Pa. 1971); James, Trial by Jury and the
New Federal Rules of Procedure (1936), 45 Yale L.J. 1022 Administration of Justice Act (193 3)
§6 and amended rule under the Judicature Act (The Annual Practice, 1937), Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure [Rule 381 The entire complaint, petition and all motion have raised specific
issue above the speculative level. Eldred v Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) Skilling v United
States, 561 U.S. 2010 Awabdy v City of Adelanto, No. 02 -57118 (2004) the Respondent
violate law 18 USC 645 and 18 USC 1001 the federal question to wrongful with hold and
intentions to procure estate property as well the adjoining accounts. The motion prays for the
honorable court to commence the action. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [Rule 15
(a)(c)] United States v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) justice requires the action to proceed due to
11 OF 76
merits, functional criminality and torts that adversely affect the Petitioner directly. The rehearing
affirmative action is required in the interest of justice and the integrities the honorable court; the
suit is egregious United States v Burkhalter, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 29282 (101 Cir. 199 1)
Rosenberg, Sanctions to Effectuate Pretrial Discovery, 58 Col. L. Rev. 480,492- 493(1958). In
the guide post and legal applications "Pinkerton Liability" "Klein Conspiracy" is the necessary
government standard in matters concerning the US Treasury. In Re: [Newsome, Armstrong v
Treasury, 2009 3155 (Fed. Cir.)]
7
Article II section 4 the Respondents executive order is oppressive In Re: Korematsu
46 Appendix 322 causing deprivation by administrative action that intentionally exceed the
constitution excited with political discrimination and undue political vigilance Younger v Harris
[Fairchild v. Hughes, (1922)] it has automatic standing by action of law "in the last resort, and
as a necessity ".1 the matter presents as imminent to the honorable The Petitioner has
deprivation, "dangers" and has a financial predicament or the Respondent are proximate cause of
effecting duress by political design and government origin. Respondents are the author's of the
situation United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966). The suit is legally amicable and has
enough facts manifesting as specific elements in the issue. The executive order is applications for
undue suffrage and the court must remove the conspiring politics and illicit politics in the suit.
United States v Liddy, 542 F. 2d 76 (D.C. Cir. 1976). the pro se has balance, merit in facts and
ingredients to reopen and accelerate this matter for further inquiry Horne v Huddle, CA 94 -1756
(D.C. Dist 2009) have some support for a complaint but need discovery to prove their case."
Frantz v. United States Powerliftinz Federation, 836 F.2d 1063, 1068 (7th Cir. 1987). The
Respondent are violating 18 USC 645 and are violating 18 USC 1001 the matter should reopen
12 OF 76
the matter has money and property involved This application to exceed the word and page is
directing the courts power to solve the issue Kraemer v Grant County, 892 F.2d 686 Seventh
Circuit 1990. The lower courts have no legal ability to close this lawsuit without first discovery
in consideration of the torts and the degree of the suit allegations. The Petitioner is request the
court maintain the on the merit in the issue as first impression. Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 159 is
protecting the suits issues. The Petitioner as pro se has concrete federal question, amicable
argument, credible to corroborate in the inquiry and genuine issue of injury in fact Clinton v
Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), Jones v Jones, 234 US 615 (1941); Otero v. Vito, et al., 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 86638 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 22, 2009). Loumiet v Office of the Comptroller, No. 10-
1288 (D.C. Cir. 2011) Armstrong v Treasures 2009 3155 (Fed. Cir.)The pro se is taking the
proper steps to purge the Respondents into compliance by the previous motions to improve the
court's interest and the actions is enabling the court judicially correct and remedy all
issue. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765
(2000), Article II section 4 the motions served on the Respondents should be immediately
activated by the powers of the court Halbstam v Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. 1972). ) Kassel v
Leavitt, No. 23557 (Supreme Court of West Virginia 1998) locus stand has the for the ability of
to demonstrate to the court sufficient connections to a course action and there is effectuating
harm from the executive order action. The Petitioner has demonstrates a valid reason for the
lawsuit and should not deteriorate for continuing with requested action is necessary. The
executive order and conduct of Respondent is undue influence in estate matter. The executive
order is forged an act of effort attempting unlawful procurement estate property and income
principal in accounts set aside by US Treasury prior to Respondents involvement since 2009.
Newsome v Treasuly, 2009- 30199(Fed. Cir.). The Respondents are conspiring to take an unfair
13 OF 76
advantage and negate their fiduciary duties by an obscured executive order of omission to not
comply and make an honest transaction or transfer to the Petitioner. The Respondents need to
show cause and actually have not valid reason to freeze or conceal the estate nor the accounts set
aside for the Petitioner Burchinal v. United States, 342 F.2d 982, 985 (10th Cir.). The
Respondents rely on the unconstitutional executive order to have ease of concealment. The law
will not permit improper influences to control the disposition of a person's property." In re
Reddaway's Estate, 214 Or. 410, 418, 329 P.2d 886 (1958)Article II section 4 locus standi the
executive order to obtain and procure by duress raises the matter of "forbidden defense" and
shame pleadings that obstruct this process. The Respondents attempt to circumvent the court,
conceal a fraudulent matter and desires to defraud the Petitioner's rights to claims and adjoining
accounts. [ Muschany v United States. 324, U.S. 49 (8' Cir. 1945)]Sabow v United States, 93 F.
3d 1445, 1446 (9'h Cir. 1996) [Pauly v Dept. ofArgiculture, No. 02 -3573 (9t' 2003)][Athey v
Mortkage Electronic Rezistration System Inc., No. 10- 0390(Supreme Court of Texas)] The
Petitioner thorough this application to justice requests rehearing the matter and move issue by
inquiry to avoid a financial loss suspicious of fraud.
10
The court must override Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911) the claim is not, the
petitioner has legitimate federal complaint. Burke v Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363(1987) United
ales v. Burkhalter, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 29282 (10th Cir. 1991 there is outstanding federal
question of unconstitutional torts surrounding the estate and financial dispute. The court must
reopen and solve the suit. The executive order is an element of dominance and the pursuit must
thorough invisibility and move matters thorough the "behind closed doors" where there is ease of
concealment. Article II section 4 the court has enough general knowledge of Respondents acts
14 OF 76
or activities concerning this estate matter has suspicious circumstances and inference of undue
influence has been raised above the speculative level. The matter is sufficient for rehearing and
further inquiry. The Writ Certiorari and the entire narrative complaint as well motion has a sound
formulized case direction and has accurate legal purpose that should reopen and remedy the
lawsuit Smith a Ellison, 171 Or. App. 289, 293, 15 P. 3d 67 (2000) . Sangster v. Dillard, 144
Or. App. 210, 216, 925 P. 2d 929 (1996)The petitioner is justifiable conveying through this
application to justice to amend and continue all action the Petitioner is proper request a new trial
in the same independent step where the action will remedy the problem United States v Tweel,
550, F. 2d 297, 299, 300 (1977) Bohus v Bell, 950 F. 2d 919, 924 (3rd Cir. 199 1) ) United States v
Cox 342 F. 2d 167 (5' Cir. 1965) United States v Keogh, 391 F. 2d 138 (2nd 1988) Taylor v
United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600 (1990) Korematsu v United States, 323 U.S. 214(1944)
The honorable court must remove the politics and remove the invisibility. The lower courts had
no legal ability to rule this matter as frivolous creates unusual circumstance considering the
politically directed vigilant matter with malice in an estate and money issue. The motion and the
complaint creates a reasonable doubt to majority for a new trial and inquiry by this honorable
court due to the improper influence in an estate matter. Smith v. Ellison, 171 Or. App. 289, 293,
15 P. 3d 67 (2000) . Sangster v. Dillard, 144 Or. App. 210, 216, 925 P. 2d 929 (1996).
11
The motion to amend is request to vacate the previous orders and move for a minimal
investigation or query. The Respondents executive order spawns illicit activity against the
Petitioner. The Respondents executive action intentionally complicate and inhibit claims process;
for the beneficiary as Petitioner to take possession of accounts and impede transfer estate
15 OF 76
property. United States v Veal, 153 F. 3d 1233, 1245 (11th Cir. 1998). The Respondents
intentionally obstruct and present malicious convolution to cause conflict that would not be
occurring. Cheney v Superior Court, State of California County of Butte, No. CM01607
No.003734 (Jan.2001). Steidl v Walls, No. 01 -cv -2249 (Cent. Dist. Ill. 2003) Knock v United
States, 1452- ORL -KRS (North Dist. Fl. Gainesville Div. 2005). The action is pursing fraud,
malicious persecution and "opportunistic duress" by abuse of position or abusing immunities of
the government official in Title 50. The Respondents executive acts adverse, erroneous and
unconstitutionally obnoxious. This motion is request the query to narrow and clarify the issue in
forecourt, remove the fraud that is unduly occurring keeping the Petitioner from obtaining
his inheritance assets. The executive order is the ability "to keep the assets of arm's reach" by
overacts appearing as maladministration and reckless to intentionally spoil this financial
situation. This application to the justices is a requirement for the page and word allowance that
must the suit as they are presented to the honorable court. United States v Syriuth, 98 F. 739,
747 n. 12 (3rd Cir. 1999) there is federal question and this litigation must prevail
against deterioration. United States v Burns, 15 F. 3d 211 (1st. Cir. 1994) the matter in
the motions of discovery and contempt are justified as well amicable to revive in the rehearing
compelling the needful action to pursue on the grounds and foreseeable future to manifest
compliance or fraud. The general knowledge of the executive order spawning adverse
effectuating activity is a just and probable cause to revive matters by federal question of the
intent, logic and reasoning of the executive order initiation against the Petitioner. Ballard v
United States, 329 U.S. 187 (1946). The executive order infringes upon Article I section 9. The
motion is amicable action to amend and vacate all previous order on the merits effectuation,
encompassed infections suit described in the suit is enough to revive matter on specific grounds
16 OF 76
of duress that cause interference and may effectuate as pecuniary harm in this estate financial
situation. This application to the justices conveys matter and issue that must revive and amend
[Brady v Maryland] the Respondents need to answer to the allegations. There are overacts and
issue has enough knowledge in the general public, the motion and application sustain a "live and
real predicament" before the honorable court. United States v Hillard, 752 F. 2d 578 revive the
litigation and matters are persuasive to the honorable court the readdress and re- docket the matter
due to the culpability of "other torts involved ". The Respondents must answer the honorable
court in a new query and discovery [Sangster v Dillard, 144 Or.App. 210, 216, 925 P. 2d
929(1996)] [ Smith v Ellison, 171 Or. App. 289, 293, 15 P. 3d 67 (2000)] United States v
Keogh, 391 F. 2d 138 (2nd Cir. 1988) "separation of power" is indicated in this matter
respondents are manipulating the judicial mechanics. The Respondents executive order attempts
to "steer the court" to unlawful benefit government interest. The requesting action is again
amicable and on the materiality that has yet to discuss the court. The action pursues to
uncomplicated, revive and amending to sustain the previously requested contempt as well the
discovery [(I) Pinkerton Liability] [(2) Klein Conspiracy]. In re: Ballard the motion is a
amending request to avert the natural consequence and avoid a financial loss of the estate and
avoid impressments of the beneficiary accounts; there is an obvious and vivid federal question
and culpability on behalf the Respondents.
12
Article II section 4 63 C Am. Jur 2d Public Officer and Employees In Re:Tutu Contamination
Litigation, F.R.D. 46 (1995), 78 -79 (D. Virgin Islands, 1995) the Respondents know that signing
executive order to act against the Petitioner will adversely destroy, sever and interfere with the
17 OF 76
judicial mechanics [Cheney v Superior, Court Butte County, California] the action of
executive order is defrauding and obscure the court viewpoints in the litigation. [Brown v
Mississippi] [Korematsu] Hanies v Kerner must the nullify effectuations and sue on the
supporting facts. United States v Nixon [Kessel v Levitt] is just and requesting to stand in
previous motions course action will inhibit the transfer of property and negate beneficiary
enjoyment. The executive order is malicious calculation to severe the trust and is effort to sever
connection to any right of or ability to possession "ready stage for claim" for the intended
beneficiary as Petitioner. This application to justice increases the magnification and clear the
cause for honorable manage the predicament [ Eldred v Ashcroft] 42.3 managing complex
litigation. The litigation is slandered and complicated due to the Respondents allegation,
manner and erroneous reason for executive order actions is overact of political zeal to
contaminate "with the effectuating desires" flowing from the author hand to spoil a legitimate
transaction. [.Iesey City v Hague] Mazzei, 521 F. 2d at 650. "'In order that material alleged in a
pleading may be privileged, it need not be in every case material to the issues presented by the
pleadings. It must, however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject of the
controversy that it may become the source of inquiry in the course of the trial. "' Stahl v. Kincade,
supra, 135 Ind. App. at 707 -08, 192 N.E.2d at 497, quoting 33 Am.Jur. Libel & Slander § 150
(1941). McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. (F1a.App. 1999) 742 So.2d 381, 388-
389[causes of action adequately stated for defamation; plaintiffs entitled to re -plead injurious
falsehood and interference with transaction]; that consequence is a reason for according it
constitutional protection." ' [Citations.]" (Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of New York State
Crime Victims Bd. (1991) 502 U.S. 105, 118 [112 S.Ct. 501].) 33 Am. Jur. Libel and Slander 50
Am.Jur. 2D Libel and Slander executive order is actual malice to inhibit the continuity of due
18 OF 76
process in the litigation the rehearing must follow Pinkerton Liability. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure [ Rule 591 is amicable action and "not a malicious fishing trip" by the pro se litigant.
[Eldred v Ashcroft] the pertinent matters presented to this honorable has no other choice to
pursue In re; Grand Jury Investigation of William K Pflaumer & Sons, Inc., 53 F.R.D. 464
(E.D.Pa. 1971); James, Trial by Jury and the New Federal Rules of Procedure (1936) This
application to the justices is reasonable diligence and amicable action for federal question to
vacate and amend in the futures further proceedings. The Petitioner is exceeding overages to
provide the honorable new information to re- docket and readdress matter with constitutional
adequacy. This motion is just to "awaken inquiry. Vernau, 896 F. 2d at 46 ((quoting Deemer v
Weaver, 324 Pa. 85, 90 187 A. 215 (1936) The honorable court is provided in the overages to
for the query to produce results in the litigations. Blair, 250 U.S. at 282 Calandra, 414 U.S. at
345. The litigation can be corroborated in the investigation and in open. The Petitioner has gone
on record to reaffirm the allegation by judicial notice in En Banc Court [United States v
Forness] 18 USC 2332 the executive orders is slanderous and infringe on the Petitioner "elbow
room" and "right to space to survive" [Korematsu] [United States v Veal] ex dolus malus ortio
actio. 5 USC 702.
Footnote:
LIS PENDENS: STILL A LAWYER'S LIABILITY
It is important to note is not seeking to require proof of malicious prosecution, with its additional
requirement of actual malice, for landowners to prevail in subsequent slander of title actions. All
that is required is that landowners show that there was no plausible legal or factual argument that
supported recording a particular lis pendensan issue that would be measured by the court on
an objective standard parallel to the probable cause prong of any malicious prosecution action.
19 OF 76
See, e.g., Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal.3d 863, 868 (1989) (holding that the
question of probable cause in a malicious prosecution claim "is purely a legal question, to be
determined by the trial court on the basis of whether, as an objective matter, the prior action was
legally tenable or not "); Hufstedler, Kaus & Ettinger v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.AppAth 55, 63
(1996) ( "If a court finds that the initial lawsuit was in fact objectively tenable, the court has
determined that the fundamental interest which the malicious prosecution tort is designed to
protect —the interest in freedom from unjustifiable and unreasonable litigation —has not been
infringed by the initial action ") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Swat -Fame, Inc.
v. Goldstein, 101 Cal.AppAth 613, 624 (2002) (following Sheldon Appel's position that the
standard for determining probable cause is objective). See also Braun, supra note 8, at 990
(recognizing that the "probable cause" element of a malicious prosecution claim is determined
by the court under an entirely objective standard).
13
Article II section 4 this application to the justices reinforcement as just action on the history of
corruption. The pro se is providing information adjust matter by persuasive bearing to purge
matter in spite of administrative invisibilities that is advantage to Respondents. This litigation
must sue and remedy the Respondent are "take advantage an administrative legal crease ". The
Respondents are forthcoming in honesty they are concealing the Petitioner accounts in malicious
administrative duress. Foster v City of Lake Jackson, 28 F. 3d 425 (5t' Cir. 1994) Awabdy
Ci!y ofAdelanto, No. 02- 57118(2004)[ Jersey City v Hague] 63 Am Jr the executive order is a
federal question to trust account in which the Petitioner is beneficiary Nation v United States.
The pro se is moving the issue 28 USC 2072 (b). [Korematsu v United States] is capable to
revive all matters and defends the Writ of Certiorari as well as the motion before the court.
20 OF 76
[Korematsu] the executive order is an erroneous assumption that spawns malicious investigation
that is capable to result is self- concealing conspiracy of financial or estate matter. The
allegations are "fruitless" and meritless in the mind of the author actus rea mens rea. The
executive order moves and allows adverse or discriminating effectuation as well as lower court
estoppels. The Respondents know and understand adverse political promotion can slander any
matter; the intention of the administrative act is interfering with this federal claim. The executive
order is effort to manipulate and increase the government reach on estate assets. The adverse
administration "clouds the specifics" and is intentionally conjectured due to the value of the
estate and the principle balance Respondents know the estate entire trust effects as a whole are
rapidly appreciating. [ United States v Syrith] United States v Veal, 153 F. 3d 1233, 1245 (11th
Cir. 1998) [ United States v Graham, 6t' Cir 2002] The issue are contaminated and corrupt
administrative design. The erroneous allegations surrounding assertions of the executive order
"will lie" [United States v Nixon] [Clinton v Jones] and excite popular hostility in reference to
the allegations adversely effecting this litigation. 33 Am.Jur. Libel & Slander 63 C Am. Jur 2d
the intention impact the ligation and situation "adverse effectuation" and "false light" of
political incitement. The Respondents distort the views by pursing a fruitless investigation
against Petitioner [ Jewel v NSA] to interrupt the judicial mechanics and add malicious
speculation or accusation to in the situation; evil casting of shadow to influence others into agree
in the political body, courts and in the public. United States v Saddey The executive orders have
physical help and "word of mouth" that have impacting materiality in this stage. The expecting
result and effectuation of the executive order is capable to sue [ Brown v Mississppi]; the reason
for the onset action is erroneous and fruitless. Maxim's of Law is the clarification due to the
total effectuation premeditated and undue freeze is "constitutional bit" to question. The executive
21 OF 76
order is an adverse action that desires and efforts to affordance of a negative impact to this
litigation. Younger v Harris The executive order is attempting "spoilage" of transfer of assets,
knowing there is an evil and diminishing effect in the futures "conflict" of the assertion. [Brown
v Mississppi][Korematsu] inhibits the litigation and claim issues to address the court concerning
the trust accounts set aside for the Petitioner. Article III section 2 this court has amicable
reason to address the issue "constitutional impact" and federal question that are at large
concerning matters concerning US Treasury. There is a "constitutional bit" that is being
violated. National Treasury v US Dept. of Treasury, 25 F. 3d 237 (5t' Cir. 1994)[Horne v
Huddle] the Petitioner as beneficiary has "special protections" and is connected to the US
Treasury and US Government. The Petitioner's "special protections" is sponsored "in keeping"
with accountability purposes of estates in discussion. [Jones v Jones] [Brown v Mississippi] the
erroneous allegations adversely effect this litigation. 33 Am.Jur. Libel & Slander reasonable
diligence of the rehearing court. The Respondents are evasive and have corrupt appearance.
In re; Grand Jury Investigation of William H Pflaumer & Sons, Inc., 53 F.R.D. 464 (E.D.Pa.
1971); Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule [Rule 59] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
[Rule 52(b)]. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [Rule 15 (a)(c)] This application to the justice is
supporting explanation to "remove the clouds" in the litigation, the overages are necessary to
narrow and magnify litigation under the "judicial microscope ".
14
Article III section 2 This Application to Justices is the Pro se assist litigation Hainer v Kerner,
404 U.S 519, the pro se must overcome the Respondents "special powers" that inject politically
to evade and frustrate the refute. Marbury v Madison the pro se argumentation and pursuit is
22 OF 76
amicable to sustain query under a judges "microscope" and "hearing views" of a jury. The
circumstances are clearly pled and must remedy to overcome the conjecture, the pro se present
enough materiality and pertinent facts to; vacate, reopen and move into further proceedings.
Hilton v Guyot,159 U.S. 113 The Petitioner has amicable and concise direction. Pro se prays and
asserts for accurate jurisprudence for query continuance to solve the issues presented motions is
liberal construction that will cure matters "in the storms suspicious to fraud ". This application to
justice assist the pro se to amend and purse remedies in the litigation; pro se to the honorable
court to excuse word and page overages it necessary in this complex matter. See, e.g., Sarah A.
Maguire, Precedent and Procedural Due Process: Policymaking in the Federal Courts, 84 U.
DET. MERCY L. REV. 99, 109 (2007); Gregory C. Sisk et al., Charting the Influences on the
Judicial Mind: An Empirical Study of Judicial Reasoning, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1377, 1499 (1998)
[ hereinafter Sisk et al., Charting the Influences on the Judicial Mind ]
15
Article III section 2 In Re: Skilling, United States v Burr, 309 U.S. 24 (1940)Mazzei. 521 F.2d
at 650. pro se prays and pleas to the honorable justices conveying proper information to afford
this financial dispute a fair opportunity to be heard in the honorable court immediately.
[Massachusetts v. EPA] [Eldred v Acshcroft] the presentation before the efforts to demonstrate
to court this issue have merit and capacity to sue. United States v Forness,C.C.A. 2d (1942)
Matter presented to the rehearing panel acting on motion by the panel first impression. This
application contends and presents "in the eyes of the court" in a traditional manner of
incorporating it into a reasoned legal opinion that supports a judge's preferred outcome. See
Ethan Bueno De Mesquita & Matthew Stephenson, Informative Precedent and Intrajudicial
23 OF 76
Communication, 96 AM. POL. SCI. REV. 755 (2002) (discussing judges' use of precedent to
communicate information to lower courts) . See, e.g., Sisk et al., Charting the Influences on the
Judicial Mind, supra note 4
16
In Re: [Ginsburg - D.C. Circuit Review: Wash. L. 1008, 1047 (1991) See id at 1025 ] the pro
se in this litigation has matters and issues of financial important; the presentations describe past
and present issue that effect the Petitioner as torts. The action and motions are amicable and
require judicial immediate intervention.
17
In Re: [Reiter v Cooper, 507 U.S. 258 No. 91 -1496] the suit is unconstitutionally labeled as
frivolous. Pro se has a justifiable the federal claim must have just opportunity to heard on all
accounts, should opportunity acquire compensation due to the torts and the Respondent need to
transfer estate as well as the accounts to the Petitioner. U.S. v Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, (1977) the
matter has administrative effectuating misconduct invisibilities and the Petitioner is due
compensation. The Petitioner request the honorable court arrive at a different conclusion and
interpretation of a the "live torts and aggravating facts" that are present and ongoing in this
lawsuit. [Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 (1965)] there matter before the has sound
outstanding materiality.
24 OF 76
W
United States v Veal, 153 F. 1233, 1245 (11th. Cir.1998) [United States v Graham, 275 F. 3d 490
560, 516 ( 6th. Cir. 2002)]this application to the justices is required to the pleading on the
motions before the honorable court. 41 Am. Jur., Pleading 336 the litigations is sound and
concrete fact of torts that requires consolidation. The elements in the issue and materiality is
persuasive affirmative action to pursue overruling defense. In Re: Nixon v Fitzgerald 457
U.S. 731 (1982) In re: [Veal, Graham] federal questions move the rehearing for a further inquiry
"in the storms suspicious to fraud ", "retaliation to conceal the fraud" . In re: Awabdy,[ Jersey
City v Hague, 115 A. 2d 8 ( Supreme Court New Jersey 1955)]. This application to the justice
clarifies further on all the pleading facts, compelling reasonable inferences and effectuations.
The executive order desiring goals and intent to accomplish must cancel by orders of honorable
court. The Petitioner has money set aside and estate property to be claimed. This application to
justice is a preliminary microscope; due to the illicit possibilities impressments of accounts and
the estates assets. The US Treasury has established prior intent uncomplicated disburse to the
beneficiary as Petitioner. The executive order has collaborative efforts "flowing from the
author's hand ". The executive action is breeching the trust by inhibiting or distorting transfer of
money form the US Treasury to beneficiary possession. The Respondents in the "force of their
office" cause deprivation and financial hardship. The executive order is crafted and "trickey
forged by instrument" to evade payment or disbursement to Petitioner.[ Otero v Vito, 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 8663 (M.D. Ga. 2009).] This application to the justice is a "rehearing compass"
and reiteration for increased reconsideration under this applications microscope "to observe
the administrative crease ". 5 USC 702 The executive order is unconstitutional. There is
25 OF 76
enough general knowledge in the system and controversy among public at large to solidify
compensation liabilities. The amending action purse "accountability" and liability" has a crease
for concealment of property and money that was deposited into Petitioner's name prior to the
Respondents involvement and prior to the adverse administrative action. "Pinkerton
Liability" guides the rehearing to vacate the previous orders. City of Santa Clara v County
Santa Clara (1969) 1. Cal. App. 3d 493, 81 Cal. Rptr. 643 Awabdy v City of Adelanto 02-
57118 (2004) Butler v Elle, 281 F.3d 1014(9th Cir.) [ Eldred v Aschroft 537 U.S. 186 (2003)] in
the considerations of the other torts that are encompassed in this application to justices the
pertinecy is amicable to "revive the fraud ". United States v Burr The possible enhancements of
sustain the suit is clearly capable to and must reverse to sue. [United States v Graham, 275]
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Rule 12g] Consolidation for motions to pursue, on the
counts, the values of estate, principal of account and flagrancy of torts "weigh on burdens the
persuasion" to commence the action. [Nixon v Fitzgerld, 457 U.S. 731 (1982)] cannot rescue
the Respondents. Burke v Barnes, 479 U. 361, 363 (1987). The federal question is strong
remove the politics in the controversy the executive order is undue bit of interference of in estate
and accounts transfer. [Sangster] [Fairchild] the matter has more than one tortuous overacts.
United States v Lewis, 759 F. 2d 1316, 1344 (8th Cir. 1985) [Halberstam v Welch]
19
This Application to the Justice is the Pro Se's enabling support the "rights of the beneficiary ".
31 USC 3733. Hainer v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 justifying the actions and legal techniques
amicable to reopen matters under the judicial microscope in a "slandered" and "egregious"
financial estate litigation. Petitioner /Pro Se [cities] and [follows]: Rutger's Law Review [Vol.
26 OF 76
60:4] at pp. 920 -950. The entire presentation before court is concrete way to vacate, amend and
accelerate under the "microscope of the justices "; query enlightens the issue, "removes the
distortion" in a hearings views. The entire complaint and Petitioner is reviewable and is capable
to sue [ Frothingham v Mellon]. This is application to justices to prays to re -raise and re- docket
on all the federal questions and culpable torts, the prejudice order and politics present as
obstacle and financial endangerment. See 523 U.S. 726, 728 (1998) [Justice Breyer, D.C. Cir.]
the Petitioner contends to sustain the lawsuit it is legitimate and has a remedy requirement.
Hilton v Guyot [ Breyer @ Id at 733] The issue and matter require adequate exhaustion; the
actions of motion "revive and sustain" the suit on the basic present grounds of unusual
administrative duress; business manners involving the government official and breech of
government trust in this estate and tortuous litigation. United States v Nation, 10 -382 (Fed. Cir
2011). This is a "live case" and viable suit the motion's implementation will convince the justice
to preserve a prescribed settlement and arrive at a just disposition. This litigating matters and
issues "ripeness" is prevalent element to commence the action. [Eldred vAshcroft]; 415 U.S.
452, 458 (1974); See also Re ,-'I Rail Reorg. Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 138 (1974). The
application to the justices is the request for action and motions to perform purging the
Respondents into compliance immediately due to political complications of "opportunistic and
selective conjectured duress ". Younger v Harris This application to justice is the assisting action
and compelling motions "control the nature of case ". The complaining and pleading facts of the
situation has potential for unnatural consequences in the Petitioner could incur. [ Idea of a Case,
42 STAN. L. REV. 227, 269 (1990)]. The Jurisprudence ofArticle III. • Perspectives on the
"Case or Controversy" Requirement, 93 HARV. L. REV. 297, 315 -316 (1979). This application
to justice is justifying the overages to legally que the judicial intervention and judicial initiatives
27 OF 76
"directing the powers of the court" to purge the litigation into settlement. The pleading facts of
the ligation as it presented to the court will withstand erroneous defenses, objections and refute
of the Respondents. Nat'l Park Hospitality Ass'n v Dept. of the Inferior, 538 U.S. 803, 808
(2003)[ US v Tweel][Skilling v United States][United States v Burr]. Federal Rule Civil
Procedure [Rule 521 this Application to Justices is defending and supports the requesting action.
Amicable Direction Respondents are violating 18 USC 1001 in a totaled rehearing's prospective
to engage and discuss matters in further query. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Rule 381
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Rule 53] the matter pleads in enough quality, infections and
tortuous issues to convince one judge in the open court to arrive at different disposition. There is
conflict of interest and discriminative issues that effectuate future injuries pecuniary harm;
"proximate cause" of financial loss of property and financial hardship. (1 Am Jur. 68)(33 Am
Jur Slander and Libel). The Respondents need answer federal questions concerning infringing
torts of Article I section 9 that exceed the Ninth Amendment.
20
Article II section 2 issues are "politically sensitive" [United States v Keogh] cannot assume
liability. This application to the justices clarifies legal acceleration in 46 Appendix 322 amicable
action to pursue matter. [33 Am Jur Slander and Libel] In Re: Harris, 847 So. 2d 1185, 2003-
0212 the executive order forged under the Respondent hand is "campaigning potential ",
proximate cause of "dangerous things ", deprivations and incites vigilant duress that directly
effectuate the Petitioner's basic civil liberties. The executive order is a threat of direct, indirect
and invisible administrative act. The that slander, destroy and complicate a federal claim of
estate that on the future assumptions will attempt litigate to take possession. United States v
28 OF 76
Veal, 153 F. 1233, 1245 (11' Cir. 1998) the executive order is abuse in Title 50. Am. Jur 2d,
Duress, Section 14. The executive order has illicit procurement and evil desire. The
Respondents know that it will totally affect the Petitioner directly and this litigation directly. The
issue is [Jones v Jones] 76 Am. Jur. Trust The executive order is attempting to "abolish the
trust" and " abolish rights to inheritance ". [Korematsu] moves against the executive order that
cause futures of conflict between the civilian as petitioner and law enforcement authorities, that
may investigation or moves on the executive order to directly affect the Petitioner. [ United
States v Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966) ]. The executive order from flowing the authors hand is
effectuating zeal of pecuniary harm and political vigilance; discriminating assumptive allegations
[Brown v Mississippi] The Respondents have adverse and convoluted interest of trust accounts
as well as the estate property 61 Am Jur Conversion (common law) 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late
2d, Sec 256: the executive order is unconstitutional act that causes injury and rights to property
1 Am. Jur 68. The Respondents have a pecuniary interest. [Mazzei] )[ Jersey City v Hague]
Smith a Ellison, 171 Or. App. 289, 293, 15 P. 3d 67 (2000) . Sangster v. Dillard, 144 Or. App.
210, 216, 925 P.2d 929 (1996). [ United States v Forness] the matter in the issue of this
litigation "as it sets" sequentially is proof of facts in the pleading to purse. American
Jurisprudence Proof of Facts, 3d. the Pro Se is not vexatious [Clinton v Jones] the counts of
enhancement overrule and outweigh. [Nixon v Fitz el] ][Armstrong v Treasury]Horne v
Huddle.
29 OF 76
21
This Application to the Justices is the request to allow overages word and pages in the entire
presentation; on the wisdom and interest of justice to reset this litigation as first impression.
5 Am. Jur due to the magnitude of the issue and vacate the previous orders. Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure [Rule 50] 2 Am Jur 2d Administrative Law 20 Am Jur Trials. The issue to
litigate in matter of trusted accounts that rightful to disburse to Petitioner; by [Title 12 Banking]
and [Title 15 Securities, Land Mangmement and Trust Accounts]. 76 Am Jur. [Anchorbank]
Jones v Jones, 234 US 615 (1941) Loumiet v Office of the Comptroller, Bank of Nova
Scotia v United States [ Otero v. Vito]. The honorable court consider in the complexity of
litigating issue of liabilities and trust controversy in connection to the Petitioner. The honorable
is compelled and must remain just as well as constitutional. The honorable court in the interest
safety and administrative responsibility is request and purse to deduce the controversy in this
litigation. In Re: Schiavo v Schiavo, [Mid. Dist. Fla. D. C. Docket No. CV -05- 00530] No. 05-
11556 (11' Cir. 2005).The federal constitution issue and federal constitution questions, the
petitioner trusts rights as beneficiary to land, policies outside government custody or
management and consider the Petitioner rights to inheritance from Petitioner the adopting
family. 76 Am Jur 33 Am Jur Libel/Slander The Respondents executive order is efforts that to
abolish inheritance and cause specific damage. Article I section 9 is the clearly controls matter
eminent is abolished the litigation requires restitution, compensation of torts and require the
transfer of all property as well set aside by US Treasury. [Veal] the Respondents are liable and
erroneous with reckless indifference the order is malicious vigilance to procure the estate and
impressments of accounts; "unconstitutional" the Respondents are "ajaxing duress" with the
30 OF 76
assistance of enforcement agency. Newsome v Treasuty, 2009- 30199(Fed. Cir.). [ Mazzei] 5
Am. dur [Horne v Huddlel, The executive order is oppressive and conceals the liabilities where
the Respondents are in management or custody of funds City of Santa Clara v County Santa
Clara (1969) 1. Cal. App. 3d 493, 81 Cal. Rptr [United States v Graham, 275] [ Jersey City v
Hague]. Idea of Case, 42 STAN. L. REV. 227, 269 (1990)]. The Jurisprudence ofArticle
III. Perspectives on the "Case or Controversy" Requirement, 93 HARV. L. REV. 297, 315 -316
(1979).( citing Rutger's Law Review [Vol. 60:4] at pp. 920 -950.) The litigation has
unconstitutional impacting issue that prays by this applications to justices is a "judicial
microscope" to assist in the opening the litigation in spite of [Nixon v Fitzgerald] [Fairchild v.
Hughes (1922)] "sand the litigation from contamination" In Re:Tutu Contamination
Litigation, F.R.D. 46 (1995), 78 -79 (D. Virgin Islands, 1995).[Sassower v Mangano] Litigation
needs protection due to abilities to conceal and retaliate to conceal fraud as well as torts.
"abusing powers of executive order" under at forged hand of an attorney as [a]
Respondent [United States v Graham, 275 F. 3d 490 560, 516 ( 6th. Cir. 2002)]Armstrong v
Treasury.
23
Worldwide Primates. Inc. v. McGreal, 87 F.3d 1252, 1254 (11th Cir. 1996). This application to
the justice is magnify to assist with general legal attack to annul all warring and political
conspiring infection in the litigation directed at the Petitioner. The Respondents have no basis for
executive order implementation. The executive order is bad faith effectuates "dangerous things ",
campaigns political zeal vigilance. The Respondent know upon initiation of conjecture campaign
31 OF 76
the potentials of specific damage and possibilities of "pecuniary harm" [Veal] Halberstam v
Welch. The Respondents executive order and conduct is draconian. Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure [Rule 50] 24 Am. Jur. Fraud and Deceit § 288. 15 Am Jur 2d Civil Rights no right
to cause the Petitioner a loss. 76 Am. Jur. PROOF OF FACTS 3D 193, supra note 72, § 32 the
petition amicable action to the measure of pecuniary harm arising from a violation of their
rights under the statute overcoming difficulties created by the passage of time. 32 Am Jur Proof
of Facts 3d Proof of a. Claim Involving Stolen Art or Antiquities § 2 ( 2008). 46 Am. Jur.
effectiveness to maintain ownership. 3 Yale J.L. & Human. 53 (1991) Principled Discretion:
Concealment, Conscience, and Chancellors; Hoffer, Peter Charles at 53 reasonable to sole the
quarrel and conflict where there they serve. [Veal] the Respondents are erroneous and
unconstitutionally obnoxious. The Petitioner is subject to undue scrutiny and discriminations
due to the values of estate. The executive orders and activities be nullified. [ Brown v Mississippi
] 76 Am Jur Trust effects of estate is pending for claims. 33 Am Jur Libel/ Slander 60 Am Jur
Official. The litigating matters should prevail to against the Respondents by 18 USC 645. 61 Am.
Jur. 2D Piracy § 1. (2010) (describing what constitutes an act of piracy). THE EMULOUS, 8
F. Cas. official for torturing by special government modalities; "cease and desist ".
24
42 USC 1986 75 Am Jur Trespass the Respondent are in fail to relinquish possession and
present with "constructive hostile possession ". The Respondents are forcing the "special powers
of the office to cause administrative duress to withhold in the "future procurement" 18 USC 645.
The Respondents causing are positional duress. United States v. Gainly, 380 U.S. 63 (1965).
32 OF 76
63 Am Jur 2d, Duress and Undue Influence, Section 17. The Respondents are attempting shield
the liability, abolish the trust and (hinder and delay) access to estate and the encompassing
accounts. "Warring and Conspiring "; The executive order carries invisibilities in government
secrecy from federal questions of liabilities. The Respondents are calculating the advantage to
abolish and negate any liabilities. City of Santa Clara v County Santa Clara (1969) 1. Cal.
App. 3d 493, 81 Cal. Rptr. The executive order is obstructive powers to circumvent and
manipulate the litigation. The executive order activity is warring and conspire against the
Petitioner rights as beneficiary [ 7 Am Jur (54)(63)(72)] . The Respondents are tortuous spoiling
the expectancy payments of benefits, attempt abolish access rights to the estate and its income as
"abolishing totality to accessibility ": negate fiduciary and evade the transaction by ignoring the
Uniformed Transfer Act. The executive order sever the government connection and distort the
all matters. "Pinkerton Liability ". The executive act attempt to abolish obligations sever the
intentions or obligations to payments of income producing estate effects Jones v Jones, 234 US
615 (1941) [Treasury Regulations] . The executive order improper influence in proper influence
and take advantage of the Petitioner vulnerabilities effectuating a targeted political zeal or
political vigilance directed at Petitioner. [Veal] [Sangster v Dillard] [Smith v. Ellison] 3 Am.
Jur. 2D Adverse Possession § 165 The Respondent know the Petitioner is vulnerable to slander
or other acts inconsistent with the Petitioner's interest, well being and management of the estate
asset. The Respondents know the Petitioner is "especially accessible" to the government and
especially vulnerable to Respondents. [Halberstam v Welch]
33 OF 76
25
16 Am. Jur The Application to the Justice is clarify the magnitude of the torts, overacts and "bad
faith actions ". The Respondents have no debatable defense they waived right to respond. The
Respondent know they executive order implementation as positional duress and will effectuate
the litigation and the Petitioner directly with strategies to campaign vigilant zeal [Korematsu]
The proximate cause of financial loss. The Application to the Justice is assistance for renewing
all motion. 5 Am Jur Trials Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Rule 381 Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure [Rule 50(b2)(c)] renewing condition ripe on the merits. Hanies v Kerner, 404 U.S.
519 Wall, Cooksey v. Loca1230 et al 3:97- CV00942(JCH)( Dist. Ct. Bridgeprt Div. 2005).
Petitioner's in this Application to Justice perpetuate the requirement for Remedies, and inquiry
15 Am. Jur This Application to Justice gives formalized contending explanation for overage is
due to the magnitude of damages involved in this litigation and prays for inquiry recommended
settlement. 16 Am. Jur. Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 381 (1994) This Application to the
Justice amicable direction to inquiry order entered upon Respondents. The "clouds of
corruption ", interest of justice and obstructions of such a magnitude vacating and reopening the
judgment is required. [Skilling] The issue is too large, constitutional impacting issue the federal
law must thoroughly address and complexities are too strong to re- litigate in lower courts. 28
USC 2332 The Respondents are causing predicaments in the civilian section where Petitioner
being adversely effected. The litigation has constitutional question and federal law question
requiring affirmative and amicable direction inquiry "corrupting appearance and matter" that
should que the Attorney General to assist this honorable court to produce the estate property
deed, money accounts, file and all the other payable or disbursing effects of property
34 OF 76
encompassed. The Estate of Washington, George; Mt. Vernon, Virginia. Jones v Jones, 234 US
615 (1941) [Treasury Regulations]. The Petitioner is the lawful, qualified and rightful
beneficiary to the estate of Washington, George; Mt. Vernon, Virginia. Article III section 2 this
Application of Justice is implies and suggest that 28 USC 547 "in the storms suspicious of fraud"
the Attorney General along with this honorable "checks and balance" "separation of powers" is
an obstacle for this litigation due to the unconstitutional executive order is attempts abolish a
trust and estate initiated by the Respondent erroneous zeal. 75 Am Jur " Trespass" 33 Am Jur
Slander /Libel. 1 Am Jur. 68 "Personal injury cause for action" 60 Am Jur "Force of office" This
honorable court is requested to reopen and re- docket due to "proof of facts" of live and serious
situation. 28 USC 2072(b) The Petitioner has taken the appropriate steps to remedy. There is no
other choice in the "views of hearing jury" and "under the judicial microscope" the
Respondents created at the minimum a "conflict of interest" [Eldred v Ashcroft] United States v.
Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966). 60 Am Jur Grounds relating to conflicts of interest § 234. The
Respondents are attempting and causing effectuation to abolish trust between the US Treasury
and the Petitioner as beneficiary heir. 76 Am Jur United States v Nation 10- 382(Fed.Cir.
2011) The Petitioner is consistent with law where there are issue concerning US Treasury
31 USC 3733, the Respondents are author and corruptor in the litigation. They act and conduct is
"positional duress" to conceal the issue, and property; politically causative. Younger v Harris .
In Re: Grand Jury Investigation of William H Pflaumer & Sons, Inc., 53 F.R.D. 464 (E.D.Pa.
1971) 5 USC 702 inquiry is the next request by requirement standard of the law to protect
litigation from deterioration and protect Petitioner for pecuniary harm or loss. [Newsome v
Treasury] [Clinton v Jones] [Nixon v Fitzgerald]
35 OF 76
28 USC 2072(b) 61 Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 581 [Eldred v Ashcroft] motions must decide
[Cooper v Aaron] on adverse or discriminative administrative policy effectuation. The
Respondent have no grounds waived right to refute, refuse settle out of court and refuse cease
and desist to comply with 18 USC 1001 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 obey the
Constitution. Article III section 2 official acts help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of
one's life. Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that
official to execute the duties of his office. Executive orders are repugnant to the Constitution
should null and void drawn there from. The Respondents are trespass Article I section 9. The
litigation must be taken most favorably to the Plaintiff. The executive order raise matter above
speculative there is "bit" of maladministration in the litigation. The honorable court is bound to
prevents a financial loss to Petitioner. 76 Am. Jur. 2d Trusts § 564See 76 Am.Jur.2d Trusts §§
325, 326 and 510.5 Protect the Petitioner from maladministration.
27
United States Supreme Court Rule [Rule 44] the motion is on the existing conditions that
continue to cause financial predicament. This Application to Justice is amicable action and
affirmative action request to vacate and all previous order Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
[Rule 58 (4)].The rehearing as a motion serious condition as first impression. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure [Rule 53(4) amending] condition and circumstance. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure [ Rule 52 (b) need additional finding] This application to the justice overages are due
requirement to purse a "renewed motion" first impression Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
36 OF 76
[ Rule 50(c) conditional new trial]. 28 USC 2072(b) The Petitioner request the honorable to
accept this Application to the Justice as an accepted method to attain decision allow overages is
new facts Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [Rule 49a(c)(C)] federal questions and
unconstitutional questions presented in all motions, Writ of Certiorari also has still outstanding
formal federal question Federal Rule Civil Procedure [ Rule 38(c) fact and issues] required
exhaustion should not have removed. This Application to the Justices is a compass to clarify the
intended sequence of motion to be sustained purse; purge. The motion may accompany a motion
for a new trial intervening on the circumstances by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [Rule
59(b)].Federal Rule of Civil Procedure[ Rule 12g]
W.
42 USC 1986 the Respondent are conspiring against the estate of Washington, George; Mt.
Vernon, Richmond, Virginia. Article II section 2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [Rule 15
(a)(c)] this application to the justice to amend is assist "burdens of persuasion" and interest of
justice to improve the interest in the requesting amending motion reopen and query the litigation
further. The Respondents executive order is obstructing and contamination the litigation. In
Re:Tutu Contamination Litigation, F.R.D. 46 (1995), 78 -79 (D. Virgin Islands, 1995) The
lower court cannot handle the complexity of matter United States v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
the executive order is assigning spoilage, egregious obstructions, and concealment of estate's
property as well as set aside accounts.. Loumiet v Office of the Comptroller, No. 10 -1288
(D.C. Cir. 2011). The executive order assigns effectuation that result in pecuniary harm;
adverse and scrutinized investigation the Petitioner as conjectured subject. United States v
Liddy' 542 F. 2d 76 (D.C. Cir. 1976). [ Jewel v NSA] The assigns executive order reasoning to
effectuate as spoilage is adverse fruitless and maliciously unmerited allegations. The Petitioner
37 OF 76
has "special government protections" for the accountability of the estate and asides dispensing
accounts by US Treasury. United States v Veal, 153 F. 3d 1233, 1245 (11th Cir. 1998) [ United
States v Graham, 6t' Cir 2002] the executive order is assigning and desire direct negative impact
to estate owner and convolutes the government involvement financial matter. The Petitioner has
constitutional protections that override the "government agency special protections" in the
accountability of estate. National Treasury v US Dept. of Treasury, 25 F. 3d 237 (5t' Cir.
1994) Horne v Huddle, CA 94 -1756 (D.C. Dist 2009) [Mazzei] 60 Am Jur [ United States v
Tweel ] The litigation must purge from the appearance of fraud. "Pinkerton Liability" protects
the ligation and sustains the query in a just amicable direction arrive the need to amend the live
issues in the breech, unconstitutional and federal question United States v Nation 10- 382(Fed.
Cir. 2011). The executive order "attempts ajaxing the liabilities" of trust accounts and estate
property. City of Santa Clara v County Santa Clara (1969) 1. Cal. App. 3d 493, 81 Cal. Rptr.
Article III section2 The honorable court has enough general knowledge executive order is an act
adverse effectuating tortuous conduct to suppression or aid spoliation. Loss of Prospective
Inheritance, 24 POF2d 211See 34 C.J.S. Executors and Administrators §§ 267, 269; 31
Am.Jur.2d, ... the plaintiffs expectancy of an inheritance ripened into a vested property right for
the ... jurisdictions have recognized a cause of action for the destruction, spoliation. The
executive order is in ignorance of Article I section 9 and effectuate in actual malice in a financial
issue 33 Am Jur Slander /Libel 76 Am Jur Trust Wasting and obstruction, obscure the facts in
government secrecy and executive order intentionally makes "special powers" to diminish and
destroy the beneficiary's permanent value and acquiescence of the inheritance.[ United States v
Burr, 309 U.S. 24 (1940)] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [Rule 15 (a)(c)].
38 OF 76
29
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), [Eldred v Ashcroft] This Application
to the Justice is an apology to the honorable court request and pleas please excuse the overages
of pages and words. The case is intricate and has is difficult issue to litigate Burke v Barnes, 479
U. 361, 363 (1987). Rutger's Law Review [Vol. 60:41 at pp. 920 -950. Hainer v Kerner, 404
U.S. 519 United States v Forness,C.C.A. 2d (1942) [Armstrong v Obucino][United States v Cox]
enabling support the "rights of the beneficiary ". The Application to the Justice is Pro se
defending all presented matter to honorable court to amend and purse-the Respondents waived
refute to litigation. Article II section 4 the litigation must settle and purse further inquiry;
Stewart v Wyoming Cattle Ranch Co., 128 U.S. 383,388 (1888) investigate the facts and
circumstances connected with the transaction. The executive order is suppression and oppressive
material fact in amicable to action to reopen and continue the inquiry. United States v. Perrin,
131 U.S. 55 (1889) any overt act performed by anyone of the alleged conspirators to effect the
object of the conspiracy sufficiently stated in the first count of the indictment to constitute a good
count in that particular. Brady v Maryland, 76 Am Jur Trust 33 Am Jur Slander /Libel 60 Am Jur
Official's Act. [ Jersey City v Hague]. Awabdy v City ofAdelanto [ Mazzei].
WHEREFORE, I, Tony Curtis Barrino, is by the submission of this Application to Justices
prays and requests. This application is supporting to clarify for amicable controlling effect,
circumstances of substantial matter to intervene in with a judicial direction that will sue and
judicially assert on the grounds presenting as they set "under the judicial microscope ".
Commence motions instant action for a new trial as a instant rehearing [Eldred v Ashcroft] on the
39 OF 76
merits of this application to the justice and following motions language. Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure [Rule 59(b)(e)] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule [Rule 52(b)] is the Petitioner
request to the honorable court.
Respectfully requested and submitted,
Date: April 19th", 2012
40 OF 76
Tony Barrino
Petitioner /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Tony Curtis Barrino, having been first duly sworn and state that; I have served a copy the
attached Notice of Application to Justices concerning Motion to Amend for New Trial on the
Respondents; named on the cover page. The Solicitor General was served by mail at 950
Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20503 on April 19' , 2012.
Signed and sworn before me on this day of April, 2012.
My Commission expires on
Notary Public
41 OF 76
Tony Barrino
Petitioner /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
No. 11 -8563
IN THE
SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES
TONY CURTIS BARRINO
Petitioner/Pro Se,
V
DEPARTMENT of the TREASURY
TIMOTHY GIETHNER
BARACK OBAMA
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Respondents,
MOTION FOR RHEARING TO AMEND FOR NEW TRIAL
On Writ of Certiorari on Areal from Fourth Circuit Court of A1212eals
Tony Curtis Barrino
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
(704)637 -9355
42 OF 76
SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES
TONY BARRINO
Petitioner/Pro Se,
UT
DEPARTMENT of the US TREASURY
TIMOTHY GEITHNER
BARACK OBAMA
Respondents,
No. 11 -8563
Writ of Certiorari
In Forma Pauperis
on Direct Appeal
Fourth Circuit of Appeals
No. 11- 1713
MOTION FOR RHEARING TO AMEND FOR NEW TRIAL
COMES NOW, I Tony Curtis Barrino, as Petitioner /Pro Se is acting on his own behalf request
as pursuant in this Honorable Supreme Court of the United States. The Petitioner is pursuant by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [ Rule 59(b)(e)]; this is formal request for rehearing is a
Motion to Amend and New Trial prays for reconsideration supported on the proper grounds
submitted before this court on this day. The Petition is proper to pursue in this Honorable court
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [Rule 52(b)] to reopen the entire lawsuit and move suit on
the original action and motions submitted in this court. The Petitioner prays to the court; this
action and previous motion is the appropriate technique for relief from all previous judgments.
United States Supreme Court Rule [Rule 441 is this courts provision to allow the requested
motions course of action, cause for action and legal effort in reasonable and adequate exhaustion
on the circumstances outlined in the entire narrative presentation of this suit. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedures [Rule 12(g)] the merits contained within the suit allows this Honorable Court
to consolidate the (3) previous motions submitted to assist the court in the storms suspicious of
43 OF 76
the fraud to settle the suit with just and different disposition. Evans Inc. v. Tiffany & Co., 416
F.Supp. 224, 244 (N.D. Ill. 1976). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [Rule 15 (a)(c)] the
Petitioner declares that is action must vacate and amend all previous orders "shall be freely
given when justice so requires ". The Respondent forces a misstep by initiating a executive order
in the situation and creates an administration perplexity uncommon to proper in the examinations
of institution in federal claims process . Skilling v United States, No 08 -1394 (5b Cir.2010).
United States Supreme Court Rule [Rule 17] the requested inquiry pursuing by this motion and
all previous submitted motions are justified pleadings on the original action of Writ of Certiorari.
The merits of this lawsuit is grossly aggravating and is suspicious to fraud; the motions and
petitions point out elementary indicators that will defraud prior to this motion to amend.
Memorandum of Law
United States v Forness, (C.C.A 2d. 1942) 125 F. 2d 928 cert. denied (1942) 316 U.S. 694 This
motion for rehearing points out the need for fact finding. This entire matter should be re -open
and re- docketed, the suit has had outstanding corroboration from the very first initial filing of
complaint the in district court. The corroboration was available in the initial filing and still is
available to withstand the Respondents refute of the allegations. This matter is not frivolous, the
motions and petitions presented in the eyes of the court at this present time can sustain and
withstand the shame pleadings by the Respondents, stand against the court reluctance and may
withstand as it sets before the court against any non - advantageous assumptions in previous
ruling or orders. The Petitioner contends through this and all other submission credibility to
allegations as fact to constitutionally warrant a new inquiry and different dispositions. Clinton
v Jones, 520 U.S. 681(199) Bohus v Bell, 950 F. 2d 919, 924 (3rd 1991). Article II section 4
44 OF 76
The matter desires a inquiry and will manifest more pertinent findings and ultimate facts the
Petitioner contends or conveys to the honorable is catalyst to pursue and reopen. The suit is
egregious and will defraud the Petitioner and this action awakens the court for query likely to
reveal fraud, inter alia ex dolo malo non oritur actio The matter has strong impression and
solid fact to acts that are predicting fraud, this is financial complaint that should not be continued
closed in the prejudice of the lower court that unduly propel complications that has caused a
hardship and elevated the potentials for financial loss; also has increased the issue's probabilities
in pecuniary harm. Therefore this matter should not been contaminated in the lower court, the
motions served on the Respondent thorough honorable court is general attack and reasonable
approach that should prevail and purge the issue for a just settlement. In Re: United States v
Forness (1942), this motion request to rehear the whole matter, the presentation a fact driven and
fact based. The Respondents need purge from the matter and answer the court, the petitions set
forth in this is sufficient to take over accounts and estate property. These actions that are
pursuant is proper legal acceleration. The Petitioner has followed all the normal sequence of
steps in diligence and request a rehearing in good faith prays by probable cause to amend the
matter for inquiry. This lawsuit given it materiality will deteriorate and likely to succeed on the
allegations 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Civil 2575 at 692-693.-Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure [ Rule 59(b)(e)]; In Re: Grand Jury Investigation the is enough issue
and enough questionable torts to amend this previous order and compel inquiry by the discovery
in contempt requested. 28 USC 2672 and 28 USC 2072(b).
45 OF 76
THE PETITIONER STATES BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT:
BACKGROUND
On March 26 th , 2012 the Petitioner for Certiorari was denied in this Supreme Court of the
United States in matter concerning the Estate of Washington, George; Richmond Virginia. That
estate generates income from gold in the entrusted custody of the US Treasury for managmental
and security. Money was printed and set aside for the Petitioner to claim as beneficiary of that
account prior 2009; the accounts have set dormant for claim by Petitioner. The Petitioner makes
effort to claim since December 2008 in reasonable diligence to take possession of the all tangible
property and accounts involved. The Respondents impede the transaction since the beginning of
their in office January 2009. The matter has become complicated, convoluted and obstructed by
administrative device or scheme since their involvement. The matter was presented to this court
with issue for the jury issue. On March 26th, 2012 the honorable court prematurely denied
certiorari. The matter has been plagued with blocks due to the Respondents implementation of
executive order that has infected this lawsuit. The Petitioner submitted three motions before the
court to deduce and narrow for settlement. Article II section 4 United States v Keogh, 391 F.
2d 138 (2nd 1988) Sassower v Man gano, (Southern District, New York 1996) the matter must
constitutionally process thorough this honorable court against defendant in discovery. The
matters of the entire complaint or lawsuit needs affirmative action to avoid injustice considering
the merits and must not be further contaminated due to the lower court reluctance or oversights.
Fairmont Ins. Co v Superior Court (Stendell), 22 Cal. 4th 245[92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 70, 991 P. 2d
156] No. E022378 (Court of Appeal, Fourth Dist., Div. Two, 2000) The Writ of Certiorari
connecting motions did not process consecutively properly. [28 USC 2072(b)] United States v
46 OF 76
Tuohey, 867 F. 534, 537 (9'h 1989) the previous maintain the pursuit and guards against
deterioration.
GROUNDS THAT SUPPORT TO VACATE AMEND FOR NEW TRIAL
In Re: Renfro, 732 F. Supp at 1117 this motion removes the fiction; this suit is egregious and not
frivolous. The suit proves as it presented in the eyes of the court to move this suit by this
amended consolidation and instant action for further inquiry. Bohus v Bell, 950 F. 2d 919, 924
(3rd Cir. 1991) all motions before this Honorable court is liberal construction in the storms
suspicious of the fraud. The ingredients and materiality are ample to purse for viable probable
cause action withstanding against noncompliance and wanton conduct of the Respondents.
Article II section 4 the Respondents are capable of fraud connection with Department of Justice
that allows unconstitutional executive order activity. This matter pierces the vail of the judicial
conscience to address this issue due to the appearance of corruption dealing with land and
financial matter in government officers or government agency. In Re: Grand Jury Investigation
Palm Beach Coun1y Investigation 2009. In Re: Grand Jury Investigation Investigation of
Misconduct and Mismanagement ICITAP. OPDAT and Criminal Division Office o �
Administration (Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives 2000) at this inquiry is
necessary due to the fact the Respondents are evasive and commit torts that distort and impede a
financial claims that must settle by law. Jewel v National Security AgencX, Nos. 10- 15616, 10-
15638 (9' Cir. 2011). Horne v Huddle, CA 94 -1756 (D.C. Dist 2009) United States v LiddX, 354
F.Supp. 208 (D.C. Dist. 1972) this action remove the politics reluctant to address the undue
activity that is functionally that effect the Petitioner. This petition moves the popular hostility
that may influence or court confront the court to criminally address matters of torts where there
47 OF 76
is wrongful, distorted and convoluted use of government agencies involved in the matter. The
executive order rendered is unsubstantiated adverse action or activities and obstruct well as
impede the financial matter pending to transact in transfer to Petitioner. The Petitioner has
protections in law that guard this situation from invasion and spoliation of general civil liberties,
estate matter and the monetary accounts has general protections in bank. The Petitioner as
general and reasonable expectations in accordance with "clean hands doctrine" and "honest
services" that should conform the Respondents conduct. Hammerschmidt v United States, 265
U.S. 182 (1924) the matter has been set forth by 18 USC 402 in contempt as well as cease and
desist. The executive order was initiated and promoted provoking political vigilance or direct
conjecture to transfer. The matter presents to this court to address the intent and question
malfeasance due to effectuation direct at the Petitioner. Article II section 4 commence for
instant action due to the fact the Respondents in conjunction with others, government agency
and the congressional body direct cause unusual duress. The Respondents caused a
administrative complication unduly and unjustifiably that would and is causing pecuniary harm
or deprivation to the Petitioner. The acts of the Respondents is intentional creation of
predicament and created a malicious financial dispute. Article I section 9 is instant
criminalization by employing executive order to frustrate and spoil the assets or estate to be
transferred to the Petitioner. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [ Rule 59(b)(e)] Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure [Rule 52(b)] presents necessary as good cause to avoid a financial loss and
prevent injustice; United States v Tuohey, 867 F. 534, 537 (9' 1989)Tanner v United States,
483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987) Dennis v United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The Respondents
impair and attempt to defeat laws the legitimate function of government as will impair the
administration of judicial process in financial accounts and land matter. 18 USC 402 moves the
48 OF 76
suit against Respondent will impairment of entire matter. United States v Munday, 222 U.S.
175 United States v Nation, 10 -382 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Skilling v United States. No 08 -1394 (5th
Cir.2010) The Respondents have unethical, malicious manner and wrongful objective. The
Respondents nor the court can deny the fact the Respondents are utilizing others and unusual
modalities in the attempt to procure the assets with a complicated delay to transaction. United
States v Yusuf 536 F.3d 178, 184 (3rd Cir. 2008) United States v Gregg, 226 F. 3d 253, 257 (3rd
Cir. 2000) United States v Mazzei, 521 F. 2d 639, 649 -656 (3rd Cir. 1975) .
The illicit acts in this litigation violate 18 USC 1001 as a whole judicial matter; ripe for
immediate jury deliberation for settlement and proper disposition. Newsome v Treasury-2009-
30199(Fed. Cir.). United States v Liddy, 354 F.SuM. 208 (D.C. Dist. 1972). Levowitz v
Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977) Hale v Townley, 45 F. 3d 914, 921 (5th Cir.) Daugheny v
Ellis, 97 S.E.2d 33 (Supr. Court of Appeals of West Virginia-1956) United States v Cox, 342
F.2d 167(5' 1965). 31 USC 3733 This action must legally accelerate against the Respondents.
The Petition is civil demand reference through law in this superior court and compels this action
for consistency with accurate jurisprudence 28 USC 1291 demand US Attorney DOJ and
Respondents to remedy this settlement and nullify all adverse executive order activity affecting
the Petitioner. 18 USC 645 is the accelerating statue that moves against the Respondents. This
motion is effort to disturb and nullify the Respondents order violate Article I section 9 initiated
against the Petitioner accounts, property and encroach the overall civil liberties in 2009. The
Department of Justice and the Respondents must follow the law due to this superior court legal
assertion against them. Taylor v United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600 (1990) this action is
addressing the administrative invisibilities that are concealing the financial truths, tangible
property and documentations. The attempt to conceal money accounts, documentation and
49 OF 76
estates property. United States v Schierson, 116 Fed. 2d 881 C.C.A (3d Cir. 1940) Burchinal v
United States (10th Cir. 1965) United States v Tweel, 550, F. 2d297, 299,300 (1977) United
States v Montilla Ambrosiani, 445 US 930 (Is' Cir. 1980).
II
United States v Powell, 379 U.S. 48(1964) [Adams v Fiserv, D05 1778 (Super. Ct. No. GIC
837421(4th App. Div. I California 2008)] the entire is due the minimal investigation suspicious
to the fraud. The motion is to amend is improving the interest of the court due to the fact the
petitions and motions are sufficient for course of action against Respondents wrongful
administrative practice that are causative of the financial predicament and financial deprivations
Anchorbank v Hofer (7th Cir 2011) Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S.1 (1958). The discriminative
adverse administrative order or executive act is not justified against the Petitioner nor is
justified against the Petitioner's accounts Loumiet v Office of the Comptroller, No. 10 -1288
(D.C. Cir. 2011) Armstrong v Treasures 2009 3155 (Fed. Cir.) Newsome v Treasury, 2009 -3019
(Fed. Cir.). This motion reopens the lawsuit in storms suspicious to the fraud and raise inquiry to
question matters of torts that are functionally criminal and depriving the Petitioner of accounts,
property and title deed. Burke v Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363(1987) the motion is contends to solve
a financial issue that has not been afforded enough legal opportunity to settle United States v.
Burkhalter, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 29282 (10th Cir. 1991)
III
The action of this motion must amend in proper interest of justice. This rehearing guards against
deterioration of this lawsuit and avoids a financial loss; in which the Respondents violate 18
USC 1001. Risinger, Honesty in Pleading and Enforcement "Striking" the Problems with
50 OF 76
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11, 61 Minn. L. Rev. (1976).Am. Jur 2d Fraud and Deceit,
this action to amend and move the Respondents in compliance by new trial. This suit was not
afforded due process. The situation of suit entirely spells out an infection, error and flaw forming
a constructive, extrinsic and intrinsic issue that can only be remedy in this honorable superior
court. This action move the entire suit back on the docket for inquiry for a new trial that should
address and purge all the issues of conduct that causes a fraud, unreasonable freeze and
deprivations to the Petitioner. This motion requests the court to strike all previous orders and
allow the ultimate fact of this suit to reach a jury inquiry as first impression. The Respondents
continue to show hostile possession by organized political vigilance concerning the entire
financial matter. Sigsworth v City ofAurora, 487 F. 3d 506, 512 (7t' Cir. 2007) National
Ecolomical Found v Alexander, 496 F. 3d 466, 477(6' Cir. 2007) Newsome v Treasury, 2009 -
3019 (Fed. Cir.) Huddleston v United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988). The issue as it sets before the
court presents a necessary action to consolidate the all motion and move the issue into the open
court forum_
IV
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [Rule 12g] Piscotta, 499 F. 3d at 633 (7t' Cir. 2007) is the
proper prescription for the inquiry course of action "in the pain it takes to remedy" in suspicions
of the fraud and address the unconstitutional torts in financial matter; the action is justifiable
reasonable diligence. Moore and Rogers, Federal Relief from Civil Judgments (1949) 55 Yale
L.J. 623, 653 -659; 3 Moore's Federal Practice (1938) 3267. United States v Nation, 10 -382
(Fed. Cir. 2011) is accurate jurisprudence and guidepost of the issue as it sets before this court
pursuing against the Respondents. This motion acts on the manifested and obvious probable
cause to continue the action of the previous motions.
51 OF 76
MA
The court has enough general knowledge to concur to compel this action in judicial conscience
and in the interests of justice. The matter can acquire reinforcement and is capable to gain more
corroboration to the allegations. The Respondents executive order is an unlawful and
unconstitutional act, which violates the Ninth Amendment. There is enough issue in the
element to arrive a reasonable conclusion that the Respondents intentional unusual and
extraordinary efforts of political duress heighten the controversy in conjecture thus has created a
conflict of calculated advantage. The actual malice in this matter must avert to avoid loss and
solve endangerments of pecuniary harm that is known to court also as danger things by political
incitation. The act of executive order and conduct is abrasive; the entire description or intricate
details of the matter show oppressive manners that deprive the citizen of life, liberty and property
United States v Yusuf, 536 F.3d 178, 184 (3rd Cir. 2008) United States v Gregg, 226 F. 3d 253,
257(3 rd Cir. 2000) United States v Ma=ei, 521 F. 2d 639, 649 -656 (3rd Cir. 1975). The motion is
action to nullify for safety and protect the financial situation. The Respondents cannot plead
surprise of inquiry with perjuring themselves at this point. The Respondents have been afford
ample opportunity in service of process and has made no credible nor good faith attempt for the
settlement. The Respondents are trespassing the fact of a reasonable expectations and general
financial standards where issue should not incur nor accrue any no species of duress. The
Respondent show flagrant disregard of numerous federal bank statues, ignore financial acts of
control and safety and is obnoxious to violate several constitutional amendments. In Re: Mazzei,
the Respondent take advantage of "behind closed doors" opportunities by forging executive
order knowing that would result in financial predicament and know that executive order would
obsure the judicial mechanics Article II section 4 this motion is appropriate to avoid financial
52 OF 76
loss, (cease and desist) and (detach and diffuse) the flagrant political vigilance that should
recognized as actual malice intended to cause loss. New York Times v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254
(1964) Younger v Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The executive order is the attempt to take away
the ability to complete a financial transaction. The executive order is the origin in this matter to
chart a course and justify action; to address issue in this lawsuit flagrant and conspire against the
Petitioner's civil rights to take possession of estate property and accounts. United States v
Graham, 275 F,3d 490, 516 (6' Cir. 2002). 18 USC 912 this is a financial issue that is just and
ripe to pursue in further inquiry. Kessel v Leavitt. No. 23557 (Supreme Court of West Virginia
1998), Halbstam v Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. 1972). Bohus v Bell, 950 F. 2d 919,924 (3rd Cir.
199 1) This motion for new trial and inquiry is the correct judicial approach to solve the matter.
The Respondents since 2009 are reluctant to follow the law and is clear abusing the position of
trust and cause effectuations outside the norms of financial institutions that is acceptable or
expected by government officials United States v Burr, 309 U.S. 24 (1940). Atherson v FDIC.
95 -928 (3rd Cir. 1997) United States v Miller, No. 09 -40438 (51h Cir. 2010) Mercer v Lence, 96
F. 2d 122 (1938)
VI
United States v Liddy. 354 F.Supp. 208 (D.C. Dist. 1972) the Respondents are noncompliant
and the Department of Justice must address nullify action that trespass Article 1 section 9. The
politics must be removed from the matter as it presents to this court. Respondents ignore the fact
that Eminent Domain is abolished.28 USC 1291 The Respondents and DOJ constitutional
immunities are overrode in this action by this superior court due to monies involved. The
Respondents violate the fundamental financial protection act and fundamental real estate
protection acts that protect the Petitioner. This suit's torts are flagrant and "effectuate out -of-
bounds" or exceed the norms government standards in official conduct. This court must address
53 OF 76
the improprieties that affect the Petitioner in a government financial affair that has issue for
further proceedings. Maryland v Holton, No 91 (July 2011) Maryland v Holton 193 Md. App.
322 (Maryland Appeals) In Re: Lockwood, Misc. 394 (Fed. Cir. 1995) The Respondents fail in
noncompliance to lift the executive order or continue to apply wrongful discriminative
administrative sanction against the Petitioner. Korematesu v United States, 323 U.S. 214(1944)
The Respondents efforts is to stretch the executive order to create a new invisible illicit
administrative crease to gain a calculated advantage in a financial issue and know that order
effects is depriving as well as conspire against the Petitioner civil rights. This action addresses
the trickery or modified scheme to avoid payment of owed money. Otero v. Vito, et al., 2009
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86638 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 22, 2009). This action is just and should move to the
open court, the executive order and ruling is controlled in federal claims by 28 USC 2672. This
action should override and strike all previous order the lower court did not follow the law, error
in the interpretation and erroneous in disposition.
VII
Article II section 4 Taylor v United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600 (1990) Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure [Rule 15 (a) (c)] the Petitioner declares that is action must vacate and amend all
previous orders "shall be freely given when justice so requires ". Federal Rule of Civil
Procedures [Rule 12(g)] The Petitioner has constitutional right to reopen this lawsuit and has
right to join all motions previous submitted to recovery property as well seek the compensation
for torts committed by Respondents. Bell v Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) there still remains
outstanding federal questions and there still is a federal financial issue that requires inquiry [ 28
USC 2072(b) ] action of this motion to reopen, amend and move the issue into a discovery from
the original action. The relevant subject matter contained in the entire suit was prejudiced from
54 OF 76
the first complaint in the district court as is causing a hardship and is injustice. 5 USC 702 This
is clearly financial issue with complications that serious and need to solve in with a proper
process. The political personality need not to influence and all interference deem a need to be
omitted. The unconstitutional offenses occurring present an outstanding federal question. This
suit needs to solve by equal protections of financial law and civil law. The allegations and tort
are serious will prove moreover in the open court and with further inquiry; considering the
amount of written argumentation the Petitioner should be given the benefit of the doubt that there
is serious problem. The court must protect the Petitioner and the integrities of the court process
with complicated matter that must solve with proper exhaustion. This motion must solve
through adequate judicial diligence for sanctions of contempt and discovery to purge situation.
The Petitioner is justified through the "powers court" for legal acceleration against the
Respondents, this motion request the court to go to the next step See Rosenberg, Sanctions to
Effectuate Pretrial Discovery, 58 Col.L.Rev. 480, 492 -493 (1958). The motion consolidated is
the next step considering the merits contained in narrative presentations in the court system to
view. The motion is action for relief from all previous orders, allow the issue to expedited and
re- docketed; "the most obviously compelling reasons" 2A Barron & Holtzoff Federal Practice
and Procedure 447 -47 (Wright ed. 1961). This motion is a justifiable action to assure there is
ample opportunity and attain reasonable efforts of exhaustion to reach the just disposition in this
federal claim and dissolve controversy. The suit must develop further as aggravated issue
suspicious to conspiracy of overacts and omissions that may defraud. This lawsuit is a "real
judicial issue" in fact; in which prays to commence the action to pursue a federal financial
problems or aggravated government affairs issue. See Connolly, Holleman & Kuhlman,
Judicial Controls and the Civil Litigative Process: Discovery 77, Federal Judicial Center (1978).
55 OF 76
This motion is a truthful, reasonable and good faith inquiry in financial matters that warrant this
approach to solve. Kinee v. Abraham Lincoln Fed. Say. & Loan Assn, 365 F.Supp. 975
(E.D.Pa. 1973). The Petitioner needs affair outcome, must given fair credibility and believability
in this lawsuit. Clinton v Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). Armstrong v Treasures 2009 3155 (Fed.
Cir.) United States v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). The Respondents have a calculated advantage,
advantage of the political office and is skilled to evade these issue truths. The executive order in
this matter is clearly impeding the judicial mechanics that is administratively concealing
financial matter from the court view. Discovery and Disclosure Practice, supra, at 44, United
States v Burr, 309 U.S. 24 (1940) Anchor bank v Hofer, (7th Cir. 2011) the action is relevant to
this financial lawsuit or relevant to this total federal claim; good cause exists for the court to
reopen, amend and authorize further inquiry on the previous motion due to the obvious
misconduct. There is no parts of this lawsuit or complaint frivolous. It is a financial accounts
and estate matter complicated by government agency involvement. United States v Nixon, 418
U.S. 683 (1974) There unlawful and unconstitutional directives of executive order implemented
by the Respondents are to impede or conceal issues; estate property, monitorial accounts and
government file with more facts. Jewel v National Securiiy AgencX, Nos. 10- 15616, 10 -15638 (9t'
Cir. 2011). Horne v Huddle, CA 94 -1756 (D.C. Dist 2009) United States v Nation. 10 -382 (Fed.
Cir. 2011).
VIII
Article II section 4 this action prays to address the political vigilance, actual malice and hostility
in which the Respondents have incorporated others inside as well outside the confines of
government to adversely effectuate the matter. The activity directed at the Petitioner is unusual
duress, unusual conjecture and unusual controversy. The Respondents manners asserted as
56 OF 76
authors in this issue is not usually found in government affairs concerning financial accounts
and estate's issue neither in custody nor in management by US Treasury where the citizen is the
beneficiary. This matter is a political designed scheme that effectuate as " dangerous things"
due wrongful and unconstitutional administrative practice that is intentional applied against the
Petitioner where the goal is a financial predicament, perplexity or loss to incur from the
executive order activation with discriminative political tactics coinciding to settle or transfer.
United States v Saadey. 393 F. 3d 669, 675 (6'i' Cir. 2005) United States v Gre , 226 F. 253,
257(3 rd Cir. 2000) Ma=ei, 521 F. 2d at 650 United States v Perrin, 131 U.S. 55 (1889). Younger
v Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). The conveys in the
considerations of this motion to amend and reopen. The Respondents are carrying on a large
scheme that will defraud, impede or is injurious involving others and is clearly abusing the
position of trust in accounts management. United States v Hill, No. 07 -14602 (11' Cir. 2011)
Skilling v United States. No 08 -1394 (5t' Cir.2010). United States v Graham. 275 F, 3d 490,
516 (6'i' Cir. 2002). Newsome v Teasuty, 2009- 3019(Fed.Cir.) Anchorbank v Hofer, (7th Cir.
2011). The Petition and motion must stand on the merits in the eyes of the court that reasonably
conclude compelling enough to move matter into the jury trial stage immediately the Respondent
have enough time and have manifested extraordinary efforts to conceal the matter. Mercer v
Lence, 96 F. 2d 122 (1938). The issue before this Honorable court is with a minimum and
simplified conclusion is a common law fraud that should go to the next step as an amended
inquiry where the court will find moreover issues proving in complex fraud or illicit complex
financial matter. Bohus v Bellhoff. 950 2d 919, 924 (3rd Cir. 1991) In Re. Hall, 96 US at 41_
Burke v Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363 (1987).
57 OF 76
IX
Article II section 4 is legal acceleration the political officials as Respondents in this suit. The
issue proves in the eyes court that the Respondents are affecting the Petitioner by the aggravating
facts The Petitioner met the burden of persuasion in narrative presentation, for this motion to and
amend all previous order and move for further inquiry. United States v Rabbit, 583 F. 2d 1014
(8' Cir. 1978). The Petitioner moves this for further inquiry of financial issue by Title 12. This
action assists court to reopen and obtain a different judgment by the course of inquiry processes.
The Respondents need to comply with constitution and statues that are being infringed upon.
This action prays that this action in honorable court to move thorough the political prejudice in
this lawsuit. Political prejudice is an obvious problem that contaminates issue from the lower
courts. This action moves thorough the controversy caused raised in the courthouse by
Respondents due to their executive order activity. United States v Liddy, 542 F. 2d 76 (D.C.
Cir. 1976). The Petitioner compels the court to re- docket as a cease and desist proceeding in
Title 12 immediately. United States v Burr, 309 U.S. 24 (1940) Anchorbank v Hofer, (7th Cir.
2011). The Respondent continues to complicate and convolute matter; and function in the
capacities of their office criminally. The Respondents continue to be non - compliant to settle and
come forward settle this financial matter. United States v Nation, 10 -382 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The
court must remove the fraud the executive action causes and conduct a minimal investigation on
unreasonable assertion from the executive office orders that is reckless indifference to cause
deprivations as a whole to Petitioner. Knock v United States, 1452 ORL -3 1 -KRS (North Dist.
FL Gainesville Div. 2005)Steidl v Walls, No. 01- cv- 2249(Cent. Dist. 1112003). Cheney
Superior Court, Case #CM 01607 Case #C03734 (State of California County of Butte,_Jan 2001)
Korematsu v United States, U.S. 214 (1944). Article II section 4 the Petitioner does not have to
58 OF 76
be in custody to assert this motion for new trial is constitutional correct. In Matters of
Application: United States Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation v Cammisano, 655 F. 2d
1232 (D.C. 198 1) Luce v United States, 469 U.S. 38 105 (1983). Tots v United States, 319 U.S.
463 (1963). The Respondents violate Article I section 9 and exceed the limitations of the Ninth
Amendment. The Respondents have neither grounds for executive order to investigate nor any
grounds for administrative assertions of executive order to freeze and neither deny access to
neither the Petitioner's accounts nor estate. Loumiet v Office of the Comptroller, No. 10 -1288
(D.C. Cir. 2011)Medicare/Medicaid of the United States v Brown, 988 F. 658(6' Cir. 1993)
Jones v Jones, 234 US 615 (1941); the Respondents have no justifiable reason to issue or forge
order against the accounts and property of the Estate of Washington, George. The Petitioner has
full right to access accounts take possession set aside prior to the Respondents involvement. The
Respondent are hostile possession and manifest aggravating factors causative of the withhold
Anchorbank v Hofer, (7th Cir. 2011) Huddleston v United States, 485 U.S. 681 (6' Cir. 1988).
Newsome v Treasury, 2009- 30199(Fed. Cir.).
F
CONCLUSION: Grounds to Reopen "non frivolous suit"
The Pro Se is moving the litigation to reopen the matter of estate and banking issue that are
sufficient in judicial regard, the motion move through the lower court assumptions. The previous
orders a re erroneous and equal respect is due to the pro se with accurate jurisprudence for just
remedy in compared to those previous case of similarity. This is a total action in Honorable
Supreme Court of the United States to override the En Banc Court of Appeals and District
Court respectfully. Jones v Jones, 234 US 615 (1941); Hilton v Guvot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895)
Loumiet v Office of the Comptroller, No. 10 -1288 (D.C. Cir. 2011) Anchorbank v Hofer (7' Cir
59 OF 76
2011). The motion to amend with concise reasoning formalized to purse an inquiry in discovery
that is clearly necessary. Coppedge v United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) The Petition requests
as pro se to be allowed continue the action in "burdens of persuasion" to prove further
perplexing matters before this rehearing totals as precursor of an intended fraud or there is
contemplation of a later conversion to Petitioner accounts as the lawful beneficiary. Guidry v
Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund, 39 F. 3d 1078 (10th Cir. 1994) Bank of Nova
Scotia v United States, 487 U.S. 250 (10th Cir. 1988). The matter should process for discovery
and strike previous orders the issues compiled in the entire complaint are not frivolous. There are
gross aggravating torts in this financial dispute that can and will defraud the Petitioner. The
prejudice ruling in the lower is dangerous to the lawsuit and will cause a financial loss. This
action removes obstructions that impair the court mechanics in financial and civil matter contain
in this suit. United States v Keogh, 391 F. 2d 138 (2nd 1988) United States v Cox 342 F. 2d 167
(5th Cir. 1965) Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill. 140,143(1921) In Re. Hall, 96 US at 41. Burke v
Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363 (1987) the petition is maintaining interest in this financial affair in
which the government is breaking the law and fail to adhere to the normal and accepted practice
financial banking that include government directly. The entire complaint or the overall petitions
chart a course of tortuous overacts that interfere with transaction and litigation. Kassel v Leavitt,
No. 23557 (Supreme Court of West Virginia 1998).
XI
United States v Burr, 309 U.S. 24 (1940). The Respondents have had ample time to cooperate;
the Respondents can show the formal communications for settle and cannot refute this matter to
without any applied culpabilities in torts that effected the Petitioner. Armstrong v Treasury,
2009 3155 (Fed. Cir.). The have financial predicament and a vigilant political controversy. This
60 OF 76
action moves the situation through the political opposition and political controversy that shield
criminality and civil torts in the issue. United States v Liddy. 354 F.Supp. 208 (D.C. Dist.
1972)Marbi y v Madison ,5 U.S. 137 (1803) the matter must thorough all convolution in issue
before this honorable court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [ Rule 59(b)(e)] Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure [Rule 52(b)] is the next step to consolidate all matters and move the issue into
the open court by Title 12 and Title 31 The matter is functionally criminal and is set forth in
presentation to join the submitted motions.
XII
The motions served on the Respondents are in good faith; stand as true allegations and stand
already proved financial or bank law infractions. The action is compelled to pursue in the interest
of justice, safety and court conscience in reasonable constitutional exhaustion. The pro se must
be afforded the opportunity to be heard in government financial affairs. The matter is not
frivolous and deserve diligence to remedy "in lieu of invisibilities that will lie" United States v
Tweel, 550, F. 2d 297, 299, 300 (1977) United States v Nation, 10 -382 (Fed. Cir. 2011) The
court has been provide enough to question and reopen the entire suit due to the provided
information. The issue "in the eyes of court" concluding accurate at this point to pursue and
commence the action because of the opportunities of financial loss or due to possibilities "foul
play ". Horton v Cockrell, 70 F. 3d 397 (5t' Cir. 1996). This requested action protects the
integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin,
621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cent. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980). This action moves against
the respondents to purge from the contempt motion previously submitted. The Petitioner as pro
se compel this court to address all issues that have adverse effectuation in the petition necessary
to litigate at this time. Farley v United States, 354 U.S. 521 (1957). The Pro Se has
61 OF 76
implemented the proper technique and made the efforts according to the judicial process that will
purge the matter. United States v Tuohey, 867 F. 534, 537 (9th 1989) moves this to reopen the
suit with "strong probable cause ". The matter is a self concealing conspiracy that will defraud
the Petitioner. The action moves the court's considerations against the adverse executive order
frustrate the judicial mechanics that makes a modality to continue a complex scheme. The
executive act inhibit the transfer and effect the suit's process Skilling v United States, No 08-
1394 (5th Cir.2010) The litigation is in accordance with the proper federal rules of procedure
"ready to the solve issue" for a just and different disposition. The discovery and contempt is
appropriate for inquiry to proceed by this pro se 's submissions to the court. Finch v Hughes
Aircraft, 926 F. 2d 1574 (Fed. Cir.1991)State of Colorado Attorney General v Western Paving
Construction, 833 F. 2d 867 (10th Cir. 1987)FairmontIns. Co. v Superior Court (Stendell), 22
Cal. 4th 245 [92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 70, 991 P. 2d 156] No. E022378 (Court of Appeal, Fourth Dist.,
Div. Two, 2000).
XIII
United States Supreme Court Rule [Rule 21.41 The matter is set forth in the honorable court has
liberal construction and request to process the actions on a independently consolidating basis
necessary to purge. This is motion action contends to pursue due to exigent and suspicious
circumstances presenting ready to move this suit for a new trial. The merits are viable and will
sustain in view of a jury inquiry Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [12g] moves all pleadings
and motions to accomplish their intentions respectfully. The Petitioner is resetting matters in
this Rehearing, clarifies and narrows the issue that is defrauding and depriving the Petitioner.
This action prays to court for relief from all previous orders and amend the entire suit due
violations of Article I section 9. This motion is affirmative action on the standards and on
62 OF 76
contending merits. Article II section 4 Fiske v Burder (C.C.A. 1942) 125 F. (2d) 841. Federal
Reliefrom Civil judgments(1941)(1946)55 Yale L.J. 653 -659. The merits of the issue have
presented to the court prior to this motion are necessary, "categorically ripe" due to solve this
financial and estate dispute. 6 Moore Federal Practice par. 59.09 [2](2d ed 1953) Lebeck v
William A. Jarvis Co., 250 F. 2d 285 (3rd Cir. 1957) The must be fact finding on record and this
matter requires a reasonable exhaustion to eliminate the difficulties. The issue is request to be
reopened and re- docketed to the high degree of aggravating probabilities of incurring undue
pecuniary harm in which the Respondents are the proximate cause of a perplexing financial
issue. Skilling v United States. No 08 -1394 (5t' Cir.2010) Armstrong v Treasury, 2009 3155
(Fed. Cir.). 28 USC 3904 the petition's issues need constitutional adequacy to prevailing in
plain sight that show an injustice, financial loss has been avoided. There must be judicial address
of a facilitating predicament in which "civil torts" are functionally criminal and compensatory.
This motion's action address all issues in the entire complaint and lawsuit. The court must
deduce the infection of the suit United States v Burkhalter, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 29282 (10th
Cir. 1991
XIV
28 USC 2072(b) is this petition's supporting to law to re address and re- docket this suit; matters
concerning Article I section 9. United States v Forness, (C.C.A. 2d 1942)125 F. 2d 928. 3
Moore's Federal Practice (1938) 3119 Hurwitz v Hurwitz, (App. D.C. 1943) 136 F.(2d) 796.
The illicit complexity of matter is prevalent and is due "new determinations "; the issue has not
been examine according to the law this action. The order and prejudice of the lower court is
outside the constitutional limitation of Seventh Amendment. Korematsu v United States, U.S.
214 (1944). This is a reasonable action to court nullify executive orders that adversely effectuate
63 OF 76
the Petitioner and adversely effectuate this suit holistically. Anchorbank v Hofer (7' Cir 2011)
Loumiet v Office of the Comptroller, No. 10 -1288 (D.C. Cir. 2011) United States v Tuohev, 867
F. 534, 537 (9'i' 1989) United States v Burr, 309 U.S. 24 (1940). Dennis v United States, 384
U.S. 855 (1966) Mazzei, 521 F. 2d at 650. Newsome v Treasury, 2009 -3019 (Fed. Cir.) United
States v Powell, 379 U.S. 48(1964)The matter is proper to move by this action and serve
summons against Respondents. This petition prays for this honorable to sustain the matter
prescribing immediate contempt and accelerate in "discovery storms" due to aggravating factors
that will defraud without a constitutional inquiry. Bohus v Bellhoff. 950 2d 919, 924 (3rd Cir.
1991).
XV
46 Appendix 322 the Respondents have actual malice, scienter and all ingredients of reckless
indifference; " specific elements in the issue" to accomplish a foreseeable goal. New York Times
v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) Kessel v Leavitt, No. 23557 (Supreme Court of West Virginia
1998), Halbstam v Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. 1972).-The narrative descriptions thorough the
entire complaint and petition show a course of common scheme Mercer v Lence, 96 F.2d 122
(1938). The presentations are demonstrative of unequivocal adverse duress and overacts that are
"categorically ripe" to join all matters as first impression to spawn a new investigation. The
action is encouraging the settlement and improving the interest of court. The situation of the suit
"bears more fruit" that prove this action with "good cause" to pursue against the Respondents.
United States v Powell, 379 U.S. 48(1964) United States v Tuohev, 867 F. 534, 537 (9' 1989)
United States v Forness, (C.C.A. 2d 1942)125 F. 2d 928. The original complaint, the En Banc
64 OF 76
review and Certiorari must reopen. There is criminality in this suit. The Respondents need to
purge from the politics and conflict of interest that plague and contaminate the matter. United
States v Liddy. 354 F.Supp. 208 (D.C. Dist. 1972) United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169
(1966). The executive order that act as proximate cause is impropriety that cannot prove as a
lawful act by Article I section 9. The previous ruling orders are erroneous the Uni ormed
Fraudulent Transfer Act affords the petitions and motion opportunity for new determinations.
XVI
Article II section 4 the matter should go forward in inquiry to protect against pecuniary harm
and financial loss. The matter is not frivolous, "in on -going matters" at this stage of litigation is
suspicious above the speculative level which requires query to re -open and amend to pursue. The
executive orders obstruct the judicial mechanics in financial estate matter with infected intent of
pecuniary harm against innocent estate owner. The Respondents cannot expect the protection of
the court to shield the executive privilege United States v Keogh, 391 F. 2d 138 (2nd 1988)
Clinton v Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) This alleged is a "behind closed doors" maladministration
effectuate the Petitioner by a criminal acts "flowing from the hands" of the Respondents to
intentionally effectuate the Petitioner. The Respondents are executive order or executive are
unreasonable, erroneous, meritless and unconstitutional. United States v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683
(1974) Respondents the executive order is an oppressive act in government matter to
unlawfully procure and unlawfully inhibit a transaction. The matter should re -open, the matter is
set for before the his honorable for discovery. Wall, Cooksey v. Local 230 et al 3:97-
CV00942(JCH)( Dist. Ct. Bridgeprt Div. 2005) The entire complaint, petitions and motions are
legally sufficient to do so. Dougherty v Harper's Magazine, 537 F. 2d 758 (3rd Cir. 1976) the
65 OF 76
immediate contempt is just due to the deliberate acts that conspire against the Petitioner.
Halbstam v Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. 1972). This is motion to amend the act against the
Petitioner is jepordizing the ownership the estate and the acts endangers the Petitioner basic
civil liberties surrounding the estate. The query is a "good faith" argument. Horton v Cockrell,
70 F. 3d 397 (5' Cir. 1996) This action is must re -open the matter to protect the Petitioner from
political vigilance, unusual duress and violent acts in connection with the estate and in connect
beneficiary as Petitioner government account that spawn from the estate's commodity of gold.
This action is due to the prevalent controversy in the matter. The Petitioner in Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure [Rule 12g] revise the matter for proceedings against the Respondents and the
issue to purge from the assertions implemented by the Petitioner. Dougherty v Harper's
Magazine, 537 F. 2d 758 (3rd Cir. 1976) Horton v Cockrell, 70 F. 3d 397 (5' Cir. 1996) the
lower courts are erroneous they fail to protect the Petitioner from pecuniary harm and undue acts
the matter is clearly not frivolous. The Respondent have culpability in lawsuit and must answer.
Hammerschidt v United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924) Newsome v Treasury, 2009 -3019 (Fed.
Cir.) Armstrong v Treasures 2009 3155 (Fed. Cir.). Mazzei, 521 F. 2d at 650. The Petitioner
moves this motion by the "powers of the court ". The executive order action must nullify, cease
and desist. The Respondents executive acts cannot take the estate nor adversely effectuate the
Petitioner direct nor indirect. The matter has outstanding enhancement. There are pertinent
issues of federal question concerning the Fifth Amendment. This petition prays for process to
amend by this rehearing due to the abuse of authority. United States Supreme Court Rule [Rule
21.41 United States Supreme Court Rule [Rule 441
66 OF 76
WHEREFORE, I, TONY CURTIS BARRINO, on behalf of myself as pro se is pursuant
in this Motion to Amend and New Trial; by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [ Rule 59(b)(e)];
against the named Respondents. The Petitioner request this motion be granted in this Honorable
Court; Supreme Court of the United States in the statutory allowance for the above reasons and
grounds by 28 USC 2072(b) United States Supreme Court Rule [Rule 44].
Date: April 3`d , 2012
Respectfully Submitted,
67 OF 76
Tony Curtis Barrino
Petitioner/ Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
(704) 637 -9355
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Tony Curtis Barrino, having been first duly sworn and state that; I have served a copy the
attached Notice of Motion and this Motion to Compel on the Respondents; named on the cover
page. The Solicitor General was served by mail at 950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington,
DC 20503 on April 3rd, 2012.
Signed and sworn before me on this day of April 2012.
My Commission expires on
Notary Public
68 OF 76
[Seal]
Tony Barrino
Petitioner /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
NOTICE OF MOTION
To:
Solicitor General of United States
Attn: for Barack Obama
Timothy Geithner
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, on April 3rd , 2012; as soon as counsel can be heard before the
Honorable Supreme Court of the United States. The Petitioner is requesting action in Federal
Court by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [ Rule 59(b)(e)]. The following motion is attached;
the Respondents need to comply immediately.
Date: April 3 d , 2012
69 OF 76
Tony Curtis Barrino
Petitioner/ Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
(704)637 -9355
PRESS RELEASE — TRILLIONAIRE COMMUCATIONS
18 USC 402 C.J.S. Executors and Administrators §§ 267, 269; 31
Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 Watkins v. United States (No. 261)
98 U.S.App.D.C.190, 233 F.2d 681, reversed and remanded
SUPPORTS THE NEW TRIAL IN CONTEMPT LITIGATION— WATKINS
HORNE V HUDDLE— JEWEL V NSA- BROWN V MISSISSIPPI – KOREMATSU V
UNITED STATES —VEAL – MAZZEI --- (JERSEY CITY V HAGUE)- COOPER V AARON
Watkins v. United States
No clear understanding of the "question under inquiry ". Held: Petitioner was not accorded a fair
opportunity to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer, and his
conviction was invalid under the Due Process Clause .
has no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms
of the functions of Congress. P. 187
No inquiry is an end in itself, it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of
Congress. P. 187
When First Amendment rights are threatened, the delegation of power
to a congressional committee must be clearly revealed in its charter.
United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41. P. 198.
(g) A congressional investigation into individual affairs is invalid if
unrelated to any legislative purpose, because it is beyond the powers
conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. Kilbourn v. Thompson,
103 U.S. 168. P. 198.
Due process requires that a witness before a congressional investigating
committee should not be compelled to decide, at peril of criminal
prosecution, whether to answer questions propounded to him without
first knowing the "question under inquiry" with the same degree of
explicitness and clarity that the Due Process Clause requires in the
70 OF 76
expression of any element of a criminal offense. Sinclair v. United
States, 279 U.S. 263. Pp. 208 -209.
BLOCKING Langley and the "UPPER ECHLON SAT COM USE
AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS "AJAXING- SMEARING
AIDING AND ABEDDING" MELL WATT QUDICARY
COMMITTEE) – KNEW I HAVE DIPOMATIC IMMUNITY AND
NOTHING OUSTANDING IN THE "STATUES LIMITATION NOR
NOTHING TO SHOCK THE JUDICAL CONSEICENCE —THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER AND WHITE HOUSE IS CONVULTING the
charlotte and nc media as well as the national "PEJURED "erroneous
vigilant AND MALIOLICOUS In Re: {VEAL} United States v Veal,
153 F. 3d 1233, 1245 (11th Cir. 1998) United States v Saddey
This contempt and discovery is the amicable direction. In re; Grand
Jury Investigation of William H. Pflaumer It Sons, Inc., 53 F.R.D. 464
(E.D.Pa. 1971); James, Trial by Jury and the New Federal Rules of
Procedure (1936), 45 Yale L.J. 1022 Administration of Justice Act
(1933) §6 and amended rule under the Judicature Act (The Annual
Practice, 1937), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Rule 38]
22 REASON WHY TRILLIONAIRE TOTALLY RIGHT AND IS VICTIM In
re {MAZZEI} and 22 REASON TO WHY UNDER 28 use 2332 WHY THIS
LITIGATION SHOULD NOT STOP
--- "DETERTIORATION OF CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES"
[ANTI -CORRUPTION - CELANS HANDS DOCTRINE)
PLUS THE LITGATION "BARACKS QUEST" INFINGES 5 CONST- AMENDS
4 HUMAN RIGHTS ARTICLES
71 OF 76
Watkins v. United States, SHOULD IS JUST CAUSE TO
SUSTAIN AND OVERTURN - -- "TRILLIONAIRE IS
RIGHT BY WATKINS" (JONES V JONES 1941)
42 USC 1986 - 18 USC 1291 -32 CFR 11.4 — (21 USC 848)
The lower issue cannot handle the situation - - -- contamination
2 USC 288 - 18 USC 402 Cammer v. United States, 350 U.S. 399
(1956) CIVIL CONTEMPT (CRIMINAL) IS AMICABLE DIRECTION -
{VEAL} In Re:Tutu Contamination Litigation, F.R.D. 46 (1995),
"[m]isbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions."
THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY TRAFFIC ACROSS SAT COM , RADION OR
TELEVISION FOR THE "THE UPPER ECHLON OR LANGELY FROM
ORDERS OR BRIBERY FROM THE G30 NOR THE PRESIDENT
(1)- 33 Am.Jur. Libel Et Slander (2)- 33 Am.Jur. Libel Et Slander (3) 63 C
Am. Jur 2d (4) Am. Jur 2d, Duress, Section 14 (5) 76 Am. Jur. Trust (6) 61
Am Jur Conversion (common law) (7) 16 Am Jur (6) 5 Am. Jur (8) 2 Am Jur
Am Jur 2d Administrative Law (9) 20 Am Jur Trials (10) 24 Am. Jur. Fraud
and Deceit § 288. (11) 15 Am Jur 2d Civil Rights (12) 32 Am Jur Proof (13) 46
Am. Jur. Effectiveness (14) 60 Am Jur Official (15) 61 Am. Jur 2D Piracy
(16) 63 Am Jur 2d, Duress and Undue Influence, Section 17 (17) 7 [ 7 Am Jur
(54)(63)(72)] (18) 3 Am. Jur. 2D Adverse Possession § 165 (19) 15 Am. Jur
(20) 75 Am Jur " Trespass" (21) 1 Am Jur. 68 "Personal injury cause for
action "(22) . Loss of Prospective Inheritance, 24 POF2d 211 See 34
C.J.S. Executors and Administrators 55 267, 269; 31
UNITED STATES V KEOUGH - UNITTED V COX — SASSOW
MANGANO- TAYLOR V UNITED STATES- COBELL V
NORTON LEVOWITZ V CUNNINIGHAM
{VEAL} In Re:Tutu Contamination Litigation, F.R.D. 46 (1995),
the Bill of Rights, since contempts are summary in their nature, and leave determination of guilt
to a judge, rather than a jury. It is in this Constitutional setting that we must resolve the issues
here raised."
72 OF 76
326 U.S. at 326 U. S. 227. We consider the judicial power here in that same setting. Cf. United
States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 350 U. S. 15 -16.
24 C.J. Executors and Administrators ? 1156 n.
For background on
the historical development of the criminal -civil distinction (as well as a short
argument for the
necessity of summary process for direct criminal contempt), see Joseph H.
Beale, Jr., Contempt of
Court, Criminal and Civil, 21 HARV. L. REV. 161 (1908).
.... liberty and entitlement over the tyranny of coercion and ..... LAW OF
EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS 36 -39 (2d Am. Ed., Francis J..... Id. at 33-
34. 60 ...
{The Yale Law Journal 2003 [Vol. 112: 1223 pp at 1223 1561
Why Contempt Is Different:
Agency Costs and "Petty Crime" in
Summary Contempt Proceedings
Eric Fleisig- Greene
Note, Judicial
Assessment of Punitive Damages, the Seventh Amendment, and the
Politics of Jury Power, 91
COLUM. L. REV. 142 (199 1) (citing the jury as a means to prevent
legislative tyranny and to offset
judicial bias toward governmental interests)
-The system of the jury ... appears to me to be
73 OF 76
a consequence of the dogma of the sovereignty of the people that is as
direct and as extreme as
universal suffrage. These are two equally powerful means of ensuring
the predominance of the
majority." Id. at 125; see also Essay by Hampden (Jan. 26, 1788),
reprinted in 4 THE COMPLETE
ANTI - FEDERALIST, supra note 16, at 198, 200 ( "[T]he inestimable
right of a trial by jury ... is the
democratical balance in the Judiciary power. . .
RONALD L. GOLDFARB, THE CONTEMPT POWER 5 (1963).
7. The boundaries between different types of contempt of court have never been completely
settled,
settled„ and it is not within the scope of this Note to do so. For an excellent
overview of what is
acknowledged to be a "hodgepodge of case law, constitutional law, and statutory
regulation [that]
has yielded no unified structure," see Dan B. Dobbs, Contempt of Court: A Survey,
56 CORNELL
L. REV. 183, 282 (1971).
37. The justification for extending the jury right to criminal contempt
was one of analogy,
supported by the fact that potential criminal sanctions for contempt were
similar to those for
ordinary crimes:
Our experience teaches that convictions for criminal contempt, not
infrequently
resulting in extremely serious penalties, are indistinguishable from those
obtained
under ordinary criminal laws. If the right to jury trial is a fundamental
matter in other
criminal cases, which we think it is, it must also be extended to criminal
contempt
cases.
74 OF 76
Id. at 207 -08 (citation omitted).
38. See, e.g., City of New Orleans v. Steamship Co., 87 U.S. 387 (1874).
18 use 402 is sustaining the for the safety and interest of the Petitioner
54. See, e.g., Pounders v. Watson, 521 U.S. 982, 991 (1997) (reinstating a summary contempt
order that the Ninth Circuit had vacated on the ground that it "went beyond those necessities
pertaining to the ordered administration of iustice "); Ruth M. Braswell, Comment, The Role
of Due Process in Summary Contempt Proceedings
a signed order of contempt relating the relevant
facts.facts. See, e.g., FED. R. CRIM. P. 42(a). Beyond this, however, summary
contempt —at least in federal court — consists solely of the judge's declaration
that the individual is being held in
contempt of court.
C
The overacts in the contamination—executive order that is cause unjustified torts "right to space
to survive" — "diminishing the Petitioner elbow room"
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.)
335 (187 1) (sustaining judicial immunity from a civil suit arising from a holding of contempt,
regardless of refute by the respondents - -- sham pleading - - -- the respondents need to purge or
there is enough to order summons —show cause instant - - - - -" whether the contempt exceeded the
judge's jurisdiction or was malicious or corrupt " - - -- -show hearing).
34 & 39 C.J. Administration & Estate Am Jur HISTORY & RESEARCH —
ADDITIONAL
75 OF 76
290 F.2d at 895 (emphasis added) (quoting 37 C.J.S. Forgery § 8, at 38 )...... had
authority, as administrator of her mother's estate, to act as administrator of.
34. C.J.S..... A scheme to extort money or some other benefit by arranging to catch ...
estate administrator, executor, or guardian to properly account for estate funds.
76 OF 76
TRILLIONAIRE COMMUNICATIONS – CHERYL OPRAH VICK RAINES
GUILTY OF NATIONAL SECURITY BREECH- ACCESSORY TO DEFRAUD
TORTIOUS INTERFERE WITH AN INHEIRANCE EXPECTANCY – 120
YEARS —THEY BREAK LAWS CONCERNING FCC —LAW STATUES- 18 USC
2403,18 USC 1344,18 USC 1343,21 USC 848,18 USC 2331 – STATUES IN TITLE
12 AND "DOCUMENT FRAUD " - -- IS CASE WITH OBAMA ---- THEY VIOLATE 32
CFR 11.1 - -- SERIOUS CORRRUPTION - - -18 USC 912 AND USAM 948 - - -" THAT'S
HOW ROTTEN OPRAH CREW IS " - -- RATIONALIZING AND LIE LIKE HELL
JEALOUS SPITEFUL INSTIGATORS - -- YOU GOT MONEY DON'T TELL OPRAH
No. 11- 8563
IN THE
SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES
APPLICATION to the JUSTICE
(pro se as Petitioner in forma pauperis allowance to exceed petition and motions
limitations)
TONY CURTIS BARRINO
Petitioner /Pro Se,
v
DEPARTMENT of the US TREASURY
Timothy Giethner
Barack Obama
Respondents,
I
1
Article III section 2 the Petitioner is requesting in forma pauperis to exceed the normal
page limitations concerning the Motion to Compel by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 37 ; submitted on February 21, 2012 amended and revised on the February 28,
2012. There was confusion in the exact requesting action the covers format. United
States Supreme Court Rule [Rule 22]is this applications provisional allowance in the
request, correction and pursuit before the Honorable court The matter is direct appeal
from the en banc court; the simplified explanation for the Motion Compel is efforts to
schedule the matter for cease and desist proceedings. This is a grossly aggravated
financial matter that is requires affirmative action cited before this court in criminal
contempt 12 USC 4631. [In re Newsome v Treasury] the Respondents are liable to
punititive and compensatory sanctions by all [Title 12] provisions.
28 USC 144 is the application statutory assistance for request this to relax the standards
for the pro se as a competent litigator to overturn the lower court orders and pursue. The
matter is suffers an egregious condition that warrants a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 37 and Rule 42(b). It is pro se understanding that this court must have adequate
information and sufficient grounds to sustain in the pursuit. The Motion is to be the best
and most effective legal manner to arrive at a new and just disposition. The motions
submitted before this court require in depth and extremely accurate approaches of
jurisprudence. [Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)] the unconstitutionality of
the executive orders that deprive ruling is frustrating to court and must override the
hostility or controversial reluctances that works against the Petitioner rights in this
litigation.
2
II
Clinton v Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) this action is civilian versus politician in which the
wrongful administrative allegation of misconduct is "behind close doors" in the
confinement wall of government. Article II section 4 The pro se is using the contempt
and discovery technique to narrow the situation before the honorable court. This
application is a formal legal request to extend allowance to exceed the word and page
limitations; to make ready instant embracement of allegations requirement to sue on
Petitioner's behalf. Jewel v National Security Agency, Nos. 10-15616,10-15638 (9t' Cir.
2011). This Application to the Justice is a necessary legal explanation to support the
entire suit. The Respondents evils obsession creates resistance, hostility and judicial
administrative perplexities to commit a fraud. The adverse activity initiated and
encompasses a executive order must have a formulized legal attack for acceleration in
accurate jurisprudence to avoid a financial loss. Skilling v United States, No 08 -1394
(5' Cir.2010).
III
The action by the requested motions is pursuing efforts to insure there is no deterioration
of the lawsuit. The inquiry pursuit is required due to abuse of position. This application
and the submitted motion is a justifiable and "ripe" for the discovery and contempt to be
constitutionally sustained through this honorable court because the lawsuit presents a
need to readdress the point of the suit by 3131.3 (United States Sentencing Guide.)
In Re Skilling, Newsome v Teasury ,2009- 3019(Fed.Cir.)Anchorbank v Hofer, (7th Cir.
2011). This lawsuit conjugation, accurate jurisprudence for inquiry actions of contempt
and discovery is reasonable in pursuit against the controversies, overacts and
extraordinary effort that retaliate and conceal the fraud. United States v Graham, 275
F,3d 490, 516 (6th Cir. 2002).the discovery action will identify the crimes of hostility and
address the retaliation overacts to conceal the fraud, promote pecuniary harms and
commit civil torts. The executive order forged into the matter by the Respondents is a
conspired administrative obstruction constructed to effectuate the Petitioner with actual
and direct malice. United States v Biheir, 356 F. Supp. 2d 589 (E.D.Va 2005). The
executive order is abusing a position of trust intentionally to obstruct, cause intentional
deviation from the norms of accounts managed within the US Treasury custody. United
States v Burr, 309 U.S. 24 (1940) the extraordinary wanton conduct is facilitated due to
political vigilance or by a popular conjectured motivations. The abrasive empowerment
encroach and deprive the assets of estate. The excited political vigilance gives this issue
solid intent to the conspiracies that will defraud initiated from the Respondents position
of authority. Younger v Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (19710. Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S.
479. Art II section 2 the Respondents executive order activities of vigilance adversely
disturb the domestic tranquilities that would not usually affect a financial government
affairs matter concerning a beneficiaries rights and access to that estate or accounts at the
point of transfer. United States v Miller, No. 09 -40438 (5th Cir. 2010). The overacts of
the executive order and Respondents conduct is liable for the use of modalities and
"political manners "; especially since the actions is maliciously spawn to make efforts to
defraud and to accomplish an impressments goal. The adverse action against the
0
Petitioner is an effort to cause hazards, hostility, and jeopardizing situation, viewed as
"unusual political duress" and "unusual administrative duress ". The adverse effectuation
is conspiring against the innocent estate owner and accounts beneficiary. Halbstam v
Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. 1972) The Respondents have malicious vigilance spawn from
political discriminations and display "reckless indifference of manners" concerning of the
estate's asset belonging to the Petitioner as beneficiary. The lower courts orders should
be stricken due to the statutory issue involved. The suit is credible, the Respondents
overacts are provable. Taylor v United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600 (1990)the government,
Respondent as representative, is the lawbreaker and the lack of documentations not in the
presence or not on the court record to support the requested contempt and discovery is
not relevant to move this action against the Respondents. Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill.
140, 143 (1921)Bohus v Bellhoff. 950 2d 919, 924 (3rd Cir. 1991) there is enough general
knowledge of wrongdoing to sustain purse the inquiry by discovery due to the statutory
violation of Respondents. This court must consider the abuse of position as start point of
inquiry the executive action is malicious and attacks the simple civil liberties of
individual Petition with undue vigilance and wrongful organization that is motivation in
actual malice to commit a fraud, cause a loss and raises probable opportunities of a
dramatic event. United States v Abul -Aziz, 486 F. 3d 471,478 (8t' Cir. 2007)Korematsu v
United States, U.S. 214 (1944) Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S.1 (1958)C E v Capistrano(9t'
Cir. 2011). The lower courts did not consider the abuse of position and did not consider
the possible enhancements in abuses of the administration that effectuate hostilities and
be causative of the unconstitutional deprivations. The motions are brought forward to
process against the Respondent in interest of justice to avoid a loss and the Petitioner's
safety. The Respondents are hostile, maliciously magnifying the Petitioner that spoil the
suit. This entire suit has not been afforded reasonable exhaustion to satisfy constitutional
adequacy. This action requested through this honorable would purge the settlement or
will find, manifest abuses of position that make possible the concealment of the fraud. In
Re, Bolus United States v Nation, 10 -382 (Fed. Cir. 2011) this Application to the Justice
is need for the motion submitted to be allowed in this Honorable Supreme Court of
United States by Rules 22 and 21.4.
IV
Boa,- v MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364 (91h Cir 1982) the request to exceed the word and
page limitations is the reasonable diligence to avoid a financial loss the pro se must
improve the language for diligent inquires and proper process. Anhorbank v Hofer,
(7th Cir. 2011). The Petitioner prays in this application to request all motion and
petition go forward and weigh on the interest of justice "in their entirety" on the
submissions present in the eyes of the court due to the fact the narrative or written
articulations perpetuations is the pains it takes in the persuasions that arrive at the
right conclusion of this suit. 5 USC 702. The Petitioner has submitted a Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26 Motion for Discovery as another needed separate
and instant action nothing else follows as the pending reviews, contempt and
discovery processes before this court.
Date: March 13th, 2012
Respectfully requested and submitted,
I
Tony Barrino
Petitioner /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Tony Curtis Barrino, having been first duly sworn and state that; I have served a copy
the attached Notice of Motion and this Motion for Contempt on the Respondents; named
7
on the cover page. The Solicitor General was served by mail at 950 Pennsylvania Ave.
N.W., Washington, DC 20503 on March, 13th, 2012.
Tony Barrino
Petitioner /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
Signed and sworn before me on this day of March, 2012.
My Commission expires on
Notary Public
No. 11 -8563
IN THE
[Seal]
SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES
TONY CURTIS BARRINO
Petitioner/Pro Se,
u
DEPARTMENT of the TREASURY
TIMOTHY GIETHNER
BARACK OBAMA
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Respondents,
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
On Writ of Certiorari on Areal from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
Tony Curtis Barrino
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
(704)637 -9355
SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES
TONY BARRINO
Petitioner/Pro Se,
No. 11 -8563
V Writ of Certiorari
In Forma Pauperis
DEPARTMENT of the US TREASURY
TIMOTHY GEITHNER
BARACK OBAMA
Respondents,
6
on Direct Appeal
Fourth Circuit of Appeals
No. 11- 1713
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
The Honorable Supreme Court of the United States docketed Writ of Certiorari and
Motion for Civil Contempt on January 31, 2012; by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 42(b).The Honorable Supreme Court of the United States on February 21, 2012
Motion to Compel was submitted and amended on February 28, 2012 Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure Rule 37. The Respondents continue in non - compliance and has
attempted no answer to the allegations; ex dolo non oritur actio on this day in the
Honorable Supreme the Petitioner within this motion moves the court for discovery on
the merits of this suit.
COMES NOW, the Petitioner is this action is acting on his own behalf and moves
the Honorable Supreme Court of the United States. Article III section 2 is the
constitutional balance for this action pursuant by Federal Civil Rules of Procedure
Rule 26; this requested Motion for Discovery is legally appropriate and will
substantiate from the results of the investigative or due process action originating
from petitions before the court in Writ of Certiorari and Motions for Civil Contempt.
The Petitioner is pursuant by Federal Civil Rules of Procedure Rule 26 against the
Respondent by Article III section 2 the action averts to purse unconstitutional
deviations from the due processes of litigation in a financial and torts matter United
States Supreme Court Rule Rule 10. This Motion for Discovery is the prescription to
deduce the argumentation and controversies outline in the original petitions action
10
United States Supreme Court Rule Rule 17.2. This motion requested action is
concurrent action because the suit is within the statue of limitations of the fraud in
which this action will find the first illicit acts of Respondents. The action is in the
interest of justice to remove the obstruction in the construction that makes
opportunity for fraud to result. United States Supreme Court Rule [Rule 211 the
Petitioner is pursuant against in this motion by 5 USC 702 to address and reopen an
egregious legal situation that is causing deprivations and torts that adversely affect the
Petitioner.
DISCOVERY GROUNDS
1.
Article II section 4 it is the pains it takes to remedy to move this court in a discovery
inquiry there issue that would be of interest to the grand jury spawning from this
action United States v Krogh, 366 F. Supp. 1255 Crim. No. 857 -73 (D.C. Dist.
1973). The Respondents executive order affects the public that would injure the
Petitioner in a federal government issue in an estate claims process. The Respondents
use extraordinary efforts of political vigilance to accomplish the impressments. The
Respondent's vigilance is raises and presents hostility that manifest as pecuniary
harm; the matter is sufficient to move this suit because breeches of national security
not yet discussed in the presentations that are punitive and compensatory. The
Respondent executive order is discriminative and points to this court the exact origin
of an unconstitutional act that incurs an injury and financial loss due to the political
officials as Respondents impropriety. Allen v Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1934)
11
2.
Article III section 2 this discovery action is in a conscientious effort to undo an
injustice in the lower courts review. In RE Moore v. Dempsey, supra United States v.
Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348 (1969) United States vBurkhalter, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS
29282 (10' Cir. 199 1) the discovery is the judicial efforts to meet the constitutional
requirements. There is a procedural error and the Respondents are questionable about
monetary instruments to access the accounts of the Petitioner. The Respondents fail to
comply it is this court jurisdiction to question obtainment of all need records
requested and it is this court jurisdiction to question the Respondents conduct,
executive order and action as well the order on the open court record. United States v
Deutsch, 475 F. 2d 55, 57 (5t' Cir. 1973) Newsome v Treasury 2009 -3019 (Fed. Cir.)
United States v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)The Respondent violate 18 USC 1001 the
access card, title deed and request files belong to the Petitioner; there should be an
audit file turnover to the Petitioner. The Respondents are the instigator of "torts" that
impede the transaction. This discovery motion is necessary stretch out the investigate
of the court to avert loss of federal documentation or items in the care of government
personnel without discerning adherence to the laws involved that deem all
government transfers without any species of duress. Article II section 4 the issue, the
amount of money or the values of estate and statutory violations must pursue in this
discovery action matter before the court. United States v Bryant, 142 U.S. App.
D.C. 439, F. 2d 642, 650 (197 1) United States v Cox 342 F. 2d 167 (5t' Cir. 1965)
Sassower v Mangano(South. Dist. New York 1996)Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill
140,143(1921) this discovery will require and be necessary to move the storms of
12
inquiry in the suspicion of fraud through the congress and agency that allow the
deprivation by an executive order oppressive action to the Petitioner. This motion is
the Petitioner right's with force of the federal court in 2 USC 288 to quash political
oppositions that offend and block a transaction or unlawfully seize money from a
citizen by a politically designed impressments that is actual fraud. The executive
order is conflict interest that withholds documentations, money and property as well
as causes possible injury to the Petitioner. This action in discovery overrides the
Attorney General and the Department of Justice along with the Respondents will not
comply with 18 USC 645. The items are discoverable within this court's jurisdiction
the acts and torts the adversely affect the Petitioner is criminal. United States v
Liddy, 354 F. Supp. 208 (D.C. Dist. 1972). United States v Johnson, 383 U.S. 169
(1969)United States v Jef erson, No. 1:07cr 209(E.D. Va 2008) United States v
Copper 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 341, 1 L. Ed 859, 25 F. Cas. 626 (1800) This action is
necessary in further proceeding because the withheld documentations and article are
necessary for this suit that will prove favorable to the Petitioner. United States v
Schniderman, 106 F. Supp. 731 (S.D. Cal 1952).Horne v Huddle, CA 94 -1756 (D.C.
Dist 2009) this discovery is in the pursuit of the truth and remedy that encompassed
in those requested article. The action is accelerating against the Respondents with
accurate and fundamental jurisprudence in difficult and complex litigation of
government affairs that are infectious and contaminated. See Canon 22, Canons of
Professional Ethics, 62 A.B.A.Rep. 1112 -1113 (1937).
3.
13
Bolus v Bellhoff, 950 2d 919, 924 (3rd Cir. 1991) in the storms of suspicious fraud
this motion for discovery is appropriate as it set in the eyes of the court on the
following possible imputable standards that should disturb the Respondents into
compliance immediately. The Respondents acts is wanton conduct that will defraud
Newsome the Respondents knowing the results of their conduct and acts in initiation
of a unconstitutional executive order would result is dangerous things, pecuniary
harm and financial loss. The action is reasonable to overcome the administrative
obstacles and purposeful discriminations that are depriving the Respondents of civil
liberties Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S.1 (1958) the Respondents have liability and is
imputable for effectuations flowing from the authors hands or flowing the corruptors
executive order; all harm that resulted from acts committed by the Respondents that
occurred during the commission of the offense or in preparation for that offense.
4.
Article II section 4 the Respondents overacts provide the enough specific issue in
the element in the intent to defraud United States v. Fine, 975 F.2d 596, 599-
600(9thCir.1992).Anchorbank v Hofer,(7th Cir. 2011)3 CJS Ain. Jur. 2d Fraud and
Deceit 145 (1968)the fail to adhere to statues that is provisional to complete a
legitimate transaction, the Petitioner stipulate to move for further legal acceleration in
18 USC 912 USAM 948. The issue has ingredients to move the matter into discovery
investigations on the following legal grounds: United States v Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297,
14
299 (1977) Mercer v Lence, 96 F. 2d 122 (1938) the action awakes the silence,
moves into the open the invisibilities and purges the concealment. Morrison v
Coddin ,-ton, 662 P 153, 155 Ariz. 480 (1980)the Respondents are manifest hostile
possession the yield and facts presented will shock the judicial conscience; the
discovery will result in different disposition given the application of adequate and
reasonable exhaustion. Huddleston v United States, 485 U.S. 681 (6th Cir. 1988) Horn
v Huddle, CA -1756 (D.C. Dist 2009) Halbstam v Welch, 705 F. 2d 472 (D.C.
Dist. 1972) Armstrong v Treasures 2009 3155 (Fed. Cir.)The discovery is disturbing
the truths in the suit in the Respondents are suspicious to conspire against the
innocent owner of estate where the is "severe recklessness" that will defraud, cause a
financial loss and causes probabilities of harms that ordinarily the Petitioner would
not be susceptible to. The discovery is pursuing on the following 2011 federal
guidelines that can indict the Respondents with inquiry: (enhancements clarifies and
shows to the appearances of corruption in this suit the possible enhancement are
pertinent in burdens of persuasion of the Petitioner that need this action to move
against the Respondent into compliance for settlement)
5.
THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ENHANCEMENT
Disruption of governmental function ( §5K2.7)
The Respondents conduct resulted in a significant disruption of a governmental function,
the court may increase the sentence above the authorized guideline range to reflect the
15
nature and extent of the disruption and the importance of the governmental function
affected. Departure from the guidelines ordinarily would not be justified when the
offense of conviction is an offense such as bribery or obstruction of justice; in such cases
interference with a governmental function is inherent in the offense, and unless the
circumstances are unusual the guidelines will reflect the appropriate punishment for such
interference.
• Criminal purpose ( §5K2.9)
The Respondents committed the offense in order to facilitate or conceal the commission
of another offense; the court may increase the sentence above the guideline range to
reflect the actual seriousness of the Respondent's conduct.
Coercion and duress ( §5K2.12)
The Respondents committed the offense because of serious coercion, blackmail or
duress, under circumstances not amounting to a complete defense, the court may
depart downward. The extent of the decrease ordinarily should depend on the
reasonableness of the defendant's actions, on the proportionality of the Respondents
actions to the seriousness of coercion, blackmail, or duress involved, and on the
extent to which the conduct would have been less harmful under the circumstances as
the Respondents believed them to be. Ordinarily coercion will be sufficiently serious
to warrant departure only when it involves a threat of physical injury, substantial
damage to property or similar injury resulting from the unlawful action of a third
party or from a natural emergency. Notwithstanding this policy statement, personal
16
financial difficulties and economic pressures upon a trade or business do not warrant
a downward departure.
Public welfare ( §5K2.14)
This issue has national security, public health, or safety is significantly endangered or
manipulated, the court may depart upward to reflect the nature and circumstances of the
offense.
Extreme conduct ( §5K2.8)
The Respondents conduct was unusually heinous, cruel, brutal, or degrading to the
victim, the court may increase the sentence above the guideline range to reflect the nature
of the conduct. Examples of extreme conduct include torture of a victim, gratuitous
infliction of injury, or prolonging of pain or humiliation.
§3ALL Hate Crime Motivation or Vulnerable Victim
(a) This will discovery be the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of
guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the
object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color,
religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual
orientation of any person, increase by 3 levels.
§3131.1. Aggravating Role
Based on the Respondent's role in the offense, increase the offense level as follows:
17
(a) The Respondents is an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved
five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 4 levels.
(b) The Respondent is a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader)
and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise
extensive, increase by 3 levels.
(c) The Respondent is an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any
criminal activity other than described in (a) or (b), increase by 2 levels
§3B1.3. Abuse of Position of Trust or Use of Special Skill
The Respondent is abusing a position of public or private trust, or used a special
skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the
offense, increase by 2 levels. This adjustment may not be employed if an abuse of
trust or skill is included in the base offense level or specific offense characteristic. If
this adjustment is based upon an abuse of a position of trust, it may be employed in
addition to an adjustment under §3131.1 (Aggravating Role); if this adjustment is
based solely on the use of a special skill, it may not be employed in addition to an
adjustment under §313 1.1 (Aggravating Role).
§3C1.1. Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice
(1) The Respondents are willful to obstruct or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or
impede, the administration of justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution,
or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction, and (2) the obstructive conduct
related to (A) the Respondents offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; or
(B) a closely related offense, increase the offense level by 2 levels.
IN
§1131.3. Relevant Conduct (Factors that Determine the Guideline Range)
(a) Chapters Two (Offense Conduct) and Three (Adjustments). Unless otherwise
specified, (i) the base offense level where the guideline specifies more than one base
offense level, (ii) specific offense characteristics and (iii) cross references in Chapter
Two, and (iv) adjustments in Chapter Three, shall be determined on the basis of the
following:
(1) (A) The suit entails all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted,
counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant; and
(B) This suit of a jointly undertaken criminal activity (a criminal plan,
scheme, endeavor, or enterprise undertaken by the defendant in concert with others,
whether or not charged as a conspiracy), all reasonably foreseeable acts and
omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity,
6.
Conduct for Which the Defendant is Accountable
Acts and omissions aided or abetted by the Respondents; requirement that the conduct
of others be in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity and reasonably
foreseeable scheme. Requirement that the conduct of others be in furtherance of the
jointly undertaken criminal activity and reasonably foreseeable; scope of the criminal
activity. The Respondents effectuations are a "Harm" that includes bodily injury,
19
monetary loss, property damage and any resulting harm. If the offense guideline
includes creating a risk or danger of harm as a specific offense characteristic, whether
that risk or danger was created is to be considered in determining the offense level. A
discovery will present a common scheme or plan" and "same course of conduct" are
two closely related concepts.
7.
DISCOVERY CONDITIONS THAT PRESCRIBE THE ACTION
Article II section 4 the suit has beyond a speculative where all the specific ingredient
that indicate to accelerate to uncover the wanton conduct and malfeasance that will
conceal or defraud. The discovery is action of inquires prescribed to purse Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26 that should commence the action on the following
prescribed in guidepost. Bohus v Bell, 950 F. 2d 919, 924 (3rd Cir. 1991). The action
necessary addresses the materiality of this suit in the action on the grounds set forth.
The suit requires a "broad search of the facts and matters "in the storms of possible
fraud" which will aid the court in orders for the Petitioner to avoid a loss as well as
take possession. The Petitioner is compelling this court to forward into other
compensatory and punitive issue spawn from the torts committed. Engl v Aetna Life
Ins. Co. (C.C.A 2d, 1943) 139 F. (2d) 469; Mahler v Pennsylvania R. Co. (E.D.N.Y.)
8 Fed. Rules Serv. 33. 351 Case 1. The narrative language and fruits of this suit has
ingredients and ripeness that are described as malfeasance. The evil of this suit is
egregious and has corrupting infection; therefore in the conjunctions of a discovery
and contempt in place is the proper prescription. Cf. 4 Moore's Federal Practice 26-
20
16 [1] 2d 1966. The contempt action and the discovery action is investigative to purge
the Respondents into settlement before having trial 2A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal
Practice and Procedure 647 1 , nn. 45.5 45.6 (Wright Ed. 1961). There is ample
necessity and justification considering the materiality. The total entire suit dynamics,
materiality and pertinence as the suit sets before this court has all elements that will
defraud. the suit requires further proceedings to remove the clouds for the
concealment and address the torts the lead duress or interfere. In re Rvan 823(A. 2d
509, 511 (D.C. 2003) element of the criminal v United States, 677 A.2d 1022, 1030
(D.C. 1996).Hickman v Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) The discovery is address the
professional activities that have spawn deprivations and would result in dramatic
events that would render inability to claim the asset unduly by an executive order
sanction. Those executive orders are exceeding the Ninth Amendment as is causing a
hardship. The Respondents waived the right in briefs in the opposition and did not
comply with any of the request. The Respondents have had ample time to make an
exchange of possession; since onset of the Respondent tenure there has been increases
hostilities and they manifest extraordinary efforts to evade or jeopardize the
Petitioner in various due to the assume vulnerabilities. The evasion in which the
Respondents waived brief in opposition is relevant matter to this court that the
Petitioner has made all the right and proper to gain the benefits of the assets set aside
before the Respondents impropriety that has improperly to influence a financial matter
of estate and accounts. The Petitioner in legal acceleration in a discovery has a
"constitutional cause" that proofs the requirements of pursuance conjugated due to
Respondents unreasonable deviations from the "norms of financial institutions and
21
government affairs that practice with clean hands ". Article II section 4 there is
serious torts involved. Connecticut Mutal Life Ins. V Shields, 17 F.R.D. 273
(S.D.N.Y. 1959) Houdry Process Corp. v Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 24
F.R.D. 58 (S.D. N.Y. 1955). This court will prove from this discovery action the
Respondents are clearly exceeding the lawful and constitutional allowance that
aggravate and cause an undue financial as well as legal predicament. Guildford
National Bank v Southern Ry. 297 F.2d 921 (4t' Cir. 1962)Schlagenhauf v Holder,
379 U.S. 104, 117 -118 (1964) Guilford, supra at 926 the Respondents present and
manifest completely hostile and show intentional as well as unusual administrative
duress. Tannenbaum v Walker, 16 F.R.D. 570 (E.D. Pa 1954)The Respondents are
shielding with an executive order that intends to maliciously persecute and utilize the
executive privilege that will lie to further the scheme and concealment or
unreasonable freeze. The Respondents ignore the Uniformed Fraudulent Transfer Act
and ignore the Bill of Attainder Clause; that stand as the fundamental safeties against
losses and undue injury or harms. The discovery action is to remove all the fiction,
deduce the complication and address the malicious duress that effectuates the
Petitioner in cognizable injury. Kaeppler v James H. Matthems & Co., 200 F. 200 F.
Supp. 229 (E.D.) see also Younger, Priority of the Pre- Examination in the Fed.
Courts- AComment, 2A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure 447-
47 (Wright cd 1961). Article II section 4 the Petitioner as pro se is proper an is not
abusing the discovery abilities. The Petitioner has concrete credibility and has
communicated the prima facie. The Petitioner is contends this not frivolous nor a
vexatious action the discovery in proper technique and the sequence of diligence
22
process where this suit's situation is flawed, stagnated and has been subject to
contamination in the lower courts. The discovery is the protections of the Petitioner
substantial rights, the discovery action is make sure there is no more errors that
overlook Bell v Hood 327 U.S. 678 (9t' Cir. 1948) The executive order is a conspire
act that make undue legal situations that would seize or increase the difficulties to
attain the estate in process. P. Connolly, E. Holdeman, & M. Kuhlman, Judicial
Controls and Civil Litigative Process (Federal Judicial Ctr. 1978). This Motion for
Discovery is not a malicious assertion, nor frivolous and not colored. The
Respondents have profound culpability in maladministration that purposeful
discrimination in connection with the "secrecies of government" to accomplish an
impressments of Petitioner. Horn v Huddle, CA -1756 (D.C. Dist 2009). Article II
section 4 this action must pursue and cause the Respondents to purge form the
contempt; to insure the requested documentation, title deed and monetary instruments
are turnover without any further conspiring conflict of interest. 18 USC 1001 The
Department of Justice and the Attorney must show cooperation and consistency to
superior court due to the fact that the executive order is functionally criminal in the
modalities of procurement or fraudulent retention. United States v Liddy, 354
F.Supp. 208 (D.C. Dist. 1972)This court must nullify and move through the political
controversy or political improprieties that is capable to defraud by wrongful use of
government agency and by a illicit generalized political scheme. This discovery is
improving the interest in a land matter that will override the non- compliance of the
Respondents. Levowitz v Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977)United States v
23
Johnson,383 U.S. 169 (1969)United States v Burr, 309 U.S. 24 (1940). Mississippi v
Louisiana, 346 U.S. 862 (1955).
8.
REASONABLE SUSPISICION DISCOVERY WILL UNCOVER THE FRAUD
46 Appendix 322 it is reasonably probable that the Respondents has committed or is
committing an offense. U.S. v. Marin, 761 F.2d at 430 -31 [ (7th Cir. 1985) ]The
Respondents are aware the executive order with the excitement of the vigilance and
duress will cause a loss. This court has general, members of the media, members of
political body and the Petitioner perpetuates in the presentation the executive order
activity and the deliberate indifference to complete the transaction. It is proper so long as
the knowledge of the court directing the discovery, or the collective knowledge of the
investigative inquiry , is sufficient to constitute probable cause. United States v.
Rodriguez, 831 F.2d 162, 165 -66 (7th Cir. 1987). The unusual activity and unusual
controversy is enough to determine by the courts suspicion of overacts and criminal
wrongdoing is reasonable. This court "must evaluate the totality of circumstance."
United States v. Boden, 854 F.2d 983, 992 (7th Cir. 1988). Bohus v Bell, 950 F. 2d
919,924(3 rd Cir. 1991) the discovery in the suspicious circumstances will uncover the
fraud and more facts. Newsome v Treasury, 2009 -3019 (Fed. Cir.) Daugherty v Ellis,
142 W.Va 340, 357 -8, 97 S.E. 2d 33,4203 (W.Va. 1956) Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P.
2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480 (1983).
9.
24
Article II section 4 the discovery is improving the quality of the lawsuit by judicial
inquiry. The matter require a reasonable exhaustion to address the wanton conduct of the
Respondents. Burchinal v United States (10th 1965) The Respondents use an executive
to defeat the law and conceal money or assets belonging to the Petitioner. This discovery
address the white collar crime issue in which the Respondents are imputable. See Project,
Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev (generally
discussing 18 USC 371). The Respondents entered into agreement of an executive order
knowing that it intent was to withhold on erroneous, discriminative and malicious
reasoning. The Respondents know the effectuation of their act in the promotion of
vigilance would or could result in pecuniary harm. United States v Perrin, 131 U.S. 55
(1889). The discovery is accurate and fundamental jurisprudence. The Respondents
knew and have intent for the executive order to affect the court and deteriorate the court
proceeding or mechanics. The executive order is the Respondents attempt to circumvent
the court's levies of the law in the situation Lund v Yost et. Al Document 28, Lund v
Yost, 07 -4180 (JBS)(New Jersey District 2008). The Respondents forged an agreement
to impair or circumvent the normal and legitimate function of the US Treasury. The
Respondents as author and corruptor is conspiring to impede a transaction. Those given
fact and general knowledge to pursue a discovery is "good enough for one count ".
Article section 4 the discovery must pierce the veil of the immunities and shields that
prevent the administration of justice. The executive order attempts to defeat the ends of
justice that will perpetuate to a fraud or for financial loss to the citizen as Petitioner The
executive order accomplishes a crime and evades all the petitions lawful request of the
executions i processed motion that have been served on the Respondents for transaction
25
of estate and accounts. This motion for discovery is equal protections to avoid a financial
loss of assets and benefits. The discovery is the next sequence to recover the assets. The
inquiry must be brought into the open court the Respondents can be afford the luxuries to
conceal the fraud. The discovery is the efforts to earn unequivocal credibility in the
inquiries of the discovery. The discovery is overriding the En Banc and District Court
reluctance to address the issue. The Petitioners request in discovery is overriding the
normal obstacle and popular hostility that is prejudicing the suit. Melikan v Corradetti,
791 F. 2d 274, 277 (3rd Cir. 1986) Clinton vJones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)Hilton v Guvot,
159 U.S. 113 (1895) United States v. Manion, 339 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). This
discovery is the proper legal acceleration against the Respondents. This motion for
discovery is assertions on the fundamental grounds. The Respondents have course from
the conspired together to interfere with a transaction intended for the Petitioner as
recipient. Kessel v Leavitt, No. 23557 (Supreme Court of West Virginia 1998).
RETAILATION TO CONCEAL THE FRUAD
Article II section 4 In re Newsome. The Respondent use executive order is creationism
to raise the political hostility, raise political opposition and steer the agencies of the
government that will come involved from the executive order action by Respondents.
This motion for discovery is the abort activities to that conceal the scheme and conceal a
fraud. Deuelle v Gamilli, 664 F.3d 192( 7t' Cir. 2011) The Respondents raise hostility
and unusual duress directed at the Petitioner to withhold, impede and intentional
convolute the matter. The act of executive order is proactive and continuous retaliation to
push matter in actual malice in the public suggestion to be conjectured to the subject.
26
This court must use binding precedent case in accurate jurisprudence compelling the
petition in the Writ of Certiorari is this suit foundation to move this action for discovery
due discriminative political promotion and vigilant political campaigns that will hide the
fraud. The originating action of the writ cited case in their understanding is capable
retaliation invisible to conceal the a fraud and scheme. See Certiorari Table of
Authorities in the storms of suspicious of the fraud the suits foundation contains prima
facie strong enough to move against the Respondents in discovery action with probable
cause.
11.
CAUSE FOR ACTION
Article III section 2 This action will discover the oversights by the lower courts. The
executive orders are to adversely and distort this suit was implemented prior to the first
original submission in the North Carolina Western Division 2010. The Respondent knew
that Mr. Barrino as the Petitioner had started a paper trail of complaint in the District of
Columbia District that also complains of other members of the executive branch in the
concerns of this same suit. The executive order is retaliations of improper influence that
is deteriorating the abilities to take possession of the estates property and income it
generates, cause malicious persecution and cause unconstitutional obstruction of process.
The executive order is a constructive scheme that will defraud the Petitioner. The suits
counts of in the suspicions of the fraud starts in 2009. The executive order is violating.
Maxims of Law that breakdown the judicial machinery. Keys v Dunbar, 405 F. 2d
955(9th Cir. 1969). The action is the Petitioner's reasonable diligence to purge the
Respondents into compliance `by the stonns of the fraud ". United States v Liddyy, 354
27
F.Supp. 208 (D.C. Dist. 1972 The investigate inquiry address the forged administrative
duress under the hands of the Respondent. Lund v Yost et. Al Document 28, Lund v
Yost. 07 -4180 (JBS)(New Jersev District 2008).The executive order accrues the counts of
fraud due to the fact the wrongful action allows the Respondent to be severely reckless,
be omitting, evasive and apply WAITER V ADLER, 716 P. 2d 524, 527 (Kan. 1986)
This is an actionable discovery, based on the scienter obviously_ present on the court
record. The Respondents have been served numerous times on with proper process of
service. This motion is compelling on the discovery rules that requires a civil penalties
where there is obvious "wrongdoing and dishonest services ". The Respondents are able
to violate 18 USC 645 by the use of executive order that has effectuates to deprive the
Petitioner of money accounts and the benefit of estate property since 2009. Bailey v
Glover, 88 U.S.(21 Wall.) 342 (1874) SEC v Koenig, 081373(7th Cir. 2009). The
predicament as it sets in the eyes of court, the narrative crosses enough fmancial and
general enhancements to sustain contempt and uphold discovery action. This is action is
the pains it takes to remedy the issue in course of scheme since 2009.The Respondent
have conspired extraordinary efforts legally chartable in culpabilities. The lower courts
order are erroneous the torts are clearly outlined. The discovery is the constitutional
affordance of adequacy to avoid an injustice and avert financial loss. This action inquiry
nullifies the lower court decision. Article II section 4 the fraud will be discovered in
reasonable exhaustion or by a jury investigation. This discovery is a spawn as first
impression due to the fact the Respondents did not answer the Petitioner whatsoever and
did not make attempt to settle. The Respondent has continued the political vigilance,
hostile retaliation and continues to assert or encroach upon the civil liberties to conceal
and retain. This discovery address the criminality in this suit the is defrauding.
Petitioner. Kenner v Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 387 F. 2d 689,691 (7th Cir. 1968)
United States v Nixon. 418 U.S. 683 (1974). This action is retro readdress of the violated
statues and the violations of constitutional torts consolidate to compile the matters into
fraud courts since 2009. Landgraf v USI Products, 511 U.S. 244, 279(1994) . This suit
has fluctuating values to estate and gold holding that are appreciating upward in value.
The values of estate is compelling discovery to avert impressments and malversation of
public property. 31 USC 330 this discovery is purge the Respondents into the constraints
of law in a financial matter where this government suit has a strong inference of
corruption, spawning from the breaches of trust. United States v Sriyuth, 98 F.3d 739,747
n. 12 0' 1996)Newsome v Treasury 2009 -3019 (Fed. Cir.) United States v Burr. 309
U. S.
24(1940).
12.
This action is removing the constructive and extrinsic factors that is defrauding the
Petitioner. The executive order rig an injustice that must require an in inquiry, the
Respondents cannot use it agencies and resources in an unconstitutional manner to cause
any undue deprivations of property, money or liberties. The executive order is a
conspiring political and individualized government official's effort to cause undue
financial dispute. The discovery is inquiries in the storms of suspicious action that is
defrauding by discriminatingly deceitful, evil and wrongful authorizations to withhold,
liberties, benefits and asset. Hale v Townley, 45 F. 3d 914, 921 (5th Cir.)Cheney v
Superior Court, State of California County of Butte, Case #CM 01607 Case 9C03734(Jan
29
2001)Daugherty v Ellis, 97 S.E.2d 33 (Suer. Court of Appeals of West Virginia
1956)The discovery is action to override and diffuse the discriminative hostility that are
erroneous, unlawfully ridiculous and obnoxious to constitution that perpetuate from the
executive order reckless indifference. The wrongful action effectuation to dangerous
things dramatic events and moral hazards directed at the Petitioner. The Respondents
convolute and confuse the government policy with unconstitutional administrative
implication by order, forged in existence to intentionally adversely affect the Petitioner.
Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). CF v Capistrano USD, No. 095569O(9th Cir. 2011)
The executive order is spawn from the Respondents handed down in demeanors and
campaigns that promote hostility for the acquirement or procurement in the threatening
effectuation of pecuniary harm. Korematsu v United States, U.S. 214 (1944) The
executive order is depriving by unconstitutional governmental instrumentation to conceal
a fraud and impressments scheme. The executive order is obstructing a lawful
government function. United States v Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133,156 (S.D.N.Y.) United
States v Licciardi, 30 F. 3d 1127, 1 13233(9th Cir. 1994). The Respondents order action
impair the government and judicial function that is defrauding and unreasonably freezing
of monetary account, blocking the transfer property and accompanying title deeds and is
proximate cause of other torts. This inquiry is actions to further access the courts due to
Respondents attempt to frustrate the administration in claim process and nullify the
unconstitutional activities are effecting the Petitioner. This action is reasonable efforts to
address the lawless conduct. Foster v City of Lake Jackson, 28 F. 3d 425 (5th Cir. 1994)
United States v Allibani, 939 F. 244,299 (5th Cir. 1991)in the storms of suspicious fraud
this inquiry is justifiable. The executive order as an act and Respondents conduct as fact
30
"in the eyes" court by explanative narrative is ignoring the constitutional controls of the
Ninth Amendment. This discovery is efforts to acquire a just exhaustion in the pains it
takes to remedy to avoid the injustice profoundly controlled and forbade by Bill of
Attainder Clause to cause acquirements with by obvious advantages of government
entity. The discovery will net a different disposition and avert a fraud. This inquiry action
is the legal dispose of the lower court orders and conclusion and is proper acceleration to
remove the invisibilities as well as removes all ambiguities of the suit. Knock v United
States, 1452 ORL -3 1 -KRS (North Dist. FL Gainesville Div. 2005)Steid v Walls, No.
01- cv- 2249(Cent. Dist. Iii 2003). The inquiry and discovery is the acceleration on the
merits seriousness and capable species of duress that is a detrimental kind, flowing
Respondents hand by a selective executive order as author, corruptor and instigator.
Nicaraaua v United States, ICJ (1984). Article III section 2 this inquiry action is acquire
property, money and settlement of torts committed by Respondents. JJSC 7.Li i 2n.7
13.
United States v Reynolds, 189 F. 3d 521 (7th Cir.1999) the Respondents devised a plan to
circumvent the law that is threatening to defraud the Petitioner. The Respondents intent is
to accomplish money and property by illicit impressments stemming from an executive
order. The order act is using other people. This discovery is in the consideration of the
merits. The lower courts did not pursue inquiry on the materiality_ presented for record in
the review. There is participation of others in which Respondents have incorporated to
enhance concealment by vigilance and makes the obstruction of the transfer more
possible. There is participation that is concealing a fraud by political design. United
States v Hill. No. 07 -14602 0 Cir. 2011) Horn v Huddle_CA 94 -1756 (D.C. Dist 2009
31
There is participation of others that assist in the ability to retaliate to conceal the fraud.
The Respondents utilize the political governing body, government agency and the media
to accomplish the evils of the vigilance. [Marbury v Madison] The political oppositions is
accomplishing the planned or intention orchestrations, of the political scheme that
effectuates as a dangerous that is committing pecuniary harm and malversation, in the
consolidation is committing a fraud scheme by corrupt political design. United States v
Yoon, 128 F.3d 515, 525 (7th Cir. 1997) This action of discovery is justifiable due to the
Respondents abuse the authority and management authority of accounts belonging to the
Petitioner. United States v Allender, 62 F. 3d 909, 915 (7th Cir. 1995) This inquiry is
frowning on the inference to executive order to gain access or unduly control under false
pretense belonging to the Petitioner. The political empowerment and colors of office is
wrongful by 18 USC 645. The executive order in covers and shield of the executive
privilege and government secrecy "is capable to lie ", based on the history of political
arena. The Respondent executive order by law perpetuate extrinsic and constructive
offence that is defraudiniz the Petitioner. Kellet v United STATES. 21 F. 3d 419 (1st Cir.
1994) The executive order is knowing administrative act in the initiation and continuum
of scheme the is defrauding the Petitioner. The discovery is action to move through the
political opposition because the individuals involved know the Respondents are
intentionally oppressive in matter. This discovery action is in the interest of justice. The
Petitioner is pursuant with in applications of accurate jurisprudence to purge all the fact
and materiality that is shock to the judicial conscience. United States v Powell, 379 U.S.
48 (3rd Cir. 1964) the discovery is action is reasonable due to the materiality and
circumstances. The acts of the Respondents are clearly unconstitutionally laboring
32
against the process and labor in vigilance against the person of the Petitioner. In Re:
Estate Arbuckle, 98 Cal. App. 2d 562 (1950) inquiry in discovery action is the next
reasonable step where there is corruption to commit actual fraud in a estate matter. This
discovery action is due to unusual duress that inhibits an estate financial matter before
this court. The Respondents wanton conduct influences the process of the claim. The
Respondents show clear actual malice in the vigilance to wrongfully_ procure. The
Petitioners should suffer no pressure due to principal of accounts nor due to values of
estate's asset. The Respondents attempt to impair the courts functions with conspiring
wanton conduct and unconstitutional administrative enactments the perpetuate a adverse
predicament. Bullochv United States, 763 F. 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985) The action is
just because of the compensatory tort involved. The executive order is the attempts to
impair and convolute matters that should be introduced to this court and reach ajur .
Burke v Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363(1987) Article II section 4 this motion for discovery is
action of inquiry capable to maintain and sustain judicial interest in the entire suit
presented before this honorable court; legally predicating to aggravated common law
fraud. In Re Lockwood, Misc. 394 (Fed. Cir. 1995)Mercer v Lence, (10th Cir. 1938)
Hilton v Guvot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895) Kessel v Leavitt, No. 23557 (Supreme Court of
West Virginia 1998). This motion for discovery in the request for pursuit against the
Respondent has been applied with accurate jurisprudence and binding precedence case
decision to compel this action with the force of the federal court by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 26 . The preceding motion in contempt are to stand as separate and
instant action, that pray through the courts process for the Respondents to purge and
33
comply with motions conveyances immediately. United States v Liddy, 354 F.Supp. 208
(D.C. Dist. 1972).
Sassower v Man gano,(Southern District, New York 1996)Levowitz v
Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977) Newsome v Treasury, 2009- 30199(Fed. Cir.)
United States v Nixon, 418 U.S 683 (1974)Halbertstam v Welch, 705 F. 2d 472
(D.C.1972)Anchorbank v Hofer, (7th Cir. 2011)
27 of31
WHEREFORE, I, TONY CURTIS BARRINO, on behalf of myself as pro se is pursuant
in this Motion for Discovery; by Federal Civil Rules of Procedures Rule 26 against the
named Respondents. The Petitioner request this motion be granted in this Honorable
Court; Supreme Court of the United States in the statutory allowance for the above
reasons and grounds above. This requested motion is submitted to honorable court to
pursue through the United States Supreme Court Rule 21.4 as an emergency action in
conjunction with the Writ of Certiorari.
Respectfully Submitted,
Date: March 13th, 2012
" ny C is Barrino
L.f etitioner/ Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
(704)637 -9355
34
TO: FBI DIRECTOR MULLER
CHIGAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT
DOD AND JAG
FROM: TONY CURTIS BARRINO
FORMAL COMPLAINT MEMO
DATE: 1 MARCH 2012
SUBJECT: PANETTA NEEEDS TO ANSWER TO UCMJ - -- FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE ACT OF 1949 - - -18 USC 1030--- -
COMPUTER SECURITY ACT OF 1987 - -- UNITED STATES V IFFH --- UNITED
STATES V CASTILLO ----- TITLE 32 PROCUREMENT IN THE CIVILIAN SECTOR-
LEGAL ACCELERATION - -- FEDERAL CIVIL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 6
CHECK INTO THE OPRAH WINFREY INVOLVEMENT IN HER SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS- TELEVISION AND RADIO ACTIVIES IS OFFENDING
ARTICLE I SECTION 8 AND SECTION 9 - -- DISTRUBING "DOMESTIC
TRANQUILITY " - - -- THE WINFREY INVOLVEMENT TREASSPASS
NATIONAL SECURITY 32 CFR 11.4 - -- TITLE 46 FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS –IN SHE INTEREFERES WITH MATTER CONCERNING
OF THE US TREASURY —THE "POLITICAL TEA PARTY" IS ILLICIT
FINANCIAL DURESS OR INTERFENCE OF ESTATE TO MR. BARRINO FROM
THE WRONGFUL DIRECTION OF RESPONDENTS " OBAMA'S DIRECTED
CUEING" TO EXCITE POLITICAL DURESS OR EXCITE POLITICAL
VIGILANCE DIRECTED AT Mr. BARRINO -. THE OPRAH WINFREY EFFORT
ARE CONSPRATORY AIDDING AND ABEDDING IN THE IN INENT TO
DEFRAUD— THE INVOLVEMENT IS COERCION. Kassel v Leavitt, No.
23557(Supr. Ct. West Virginia). Habersham v Welch, 705 F. 2d 472 (D.C. 1983).
ARTICLE III SECTION 2 IS SUSPECT AND LIABLE IN THIS INVESTGATION OF
A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION DEPOSIT IN WHICH SHE IN GUILTY OR VERY
QUESTION IN TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH MALICE HER ORGANIZED
ACTS IS IMPUTABLE BY THE PATRIOT ACT SECTION 7 IN WHICH THERE IS
EXTORTIVE OR CERCION – SPOILATION. - -- -MRS. WINFEY CAUSES AND
JEAPRODIZE LOSS TO MR. BARRINO.
TRILLIONAIRE COMMUNICATIONS 31 USC 310 -- 31 USC 3733 "motorola
do OFFICE" overacts FCC SAT - - -- 32 CFR 11.4- national security infractions that
violate 21 USC 848 - - - -" the issue is proper as it sets before the court 18 USC 912
USAM 948 - - - -- -the executive order against the petitioner is erroneous JUSTICE
CLEARANCE THOMAS—GOVERNOR PURDUE—SENATOR GRAHAM HAVE
SUBPEONEAOS INFROM THE DC DISTRICT DATED IN 2009 - - -- "statue of
35
limitations of fraud from the first overacts or suspected activity was reported and file in
court." ACCELERATION
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE
OBAMA G30 ISSUE LAWSUIT PREPARATION- - -- TODAY'S NOTE S 29TH THE
ATTACHED FILE IS SUPPORTING INFORMATION TO ADDRESS MRS.
WINFREY INVOLVEMENT.
SINCERELY,
TONY CURTIS BARRINO
RIGHT TO LIFE:
SUBJECT: EIGHT AMENDMENT
BIO- ETHICS
HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION
HUMAN RIGHTS ARTICLES
NOTE:
I AM COGNITIVLEY ENHANCED BY A GOVERNMENT ENGINEERED
BIOPAHSE OR BRAIN COMPUTER INTERPHASE I DID NOT KNOW IT DONE
IT WAS DONE IN REGARDS TO MY CONNECTION TO GEORGER
WASHINGTON AS AN INFANT I WAS IMPLANTED WITH A MIROCHIP AND
THE COMPUTER SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED. THE MICROCHIP WORKS OF BIO-
CHEMISRTY AND NEUORLOGICAL SYNAPSE AND SIGNALING-- -
NUEROSCIENCE BIO MEDICAL ENGINEERING. I FOUND OUT THIS WHOLE
SITUATION IN LATE 2008. THE CONNECTION TO THE GOVERNMENT IS THAT
I AM HEIR TO AND HAVE RIGHTS TO 250 TONS OF GOLD HOLDING THE US
TREASURY ALSO THE ESTATE MOUNT VERNON, VIRIGINA. THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION BY THE TREAUSRY REGULATIONS HAS CUT ME A
LARGE SUM OF MONEY AN PUT INTO A BANK ACCOUNT 7 YEARS STATRED
OR ORGINIALLY PLACED BY JOHN SNOW, BUSH'S TREASURY "CLEAN
HANDS DOCTORINE ".......
THE IS MATTER PRESENTS COMPLEXITY IN THE FACT THIS COMPUTER
SYSTEM MAIN FUNCTIONING IS IN THE CIA BUILDING AND THE SYSTEM
HAS MANIPULATED TO REVERSE THE SIGNALLING IN A WAY THAT VERY
DISTRUPTIVE MY EVERYDAY LIFE. "ADVERSE MEASURES" ...... THEY
THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD IMPAIR MY CONGITIVE OR FUNCTIONING OF
THOUGHT PROCESS ENOUGH TO BE MADE STIR CRAZY. THEN HAS PUT
INTO THE LOOP. THE COMPUTER MUST BE PUT INTO SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS LOOP; THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS GOT OTHER
PEOPLE INTO THIS SATELLITE RIGHT INTO THE COMPUTER SYSTEM THAT
IS AFFECTING MY PERSON. THEREFORE CREATING A PYSHCOLOGICAL
AND PHYSICAL ADVANTAGE TO IMPAIR ENOUGH TO TAKE THIS ESTATE
OR THE ASSETS INVOLVED.. THIS UNDER THE ORDERS OF BARACK OBAMA
AND TIMTOHY GIETHNER
36
THE WHOLE SITUATION IS PREMEDITATED SINCE BARACK WAS STARTED
HIS BID FOR THE PRESIDENCY. GITHENER IS ASLO INSTIGAITVE. WHAT'S
HAPPENING IS THAT THEY ARE TORTURING ME WITH THIS SYSTEM. THEY
HAVE LUXURY TELECOMMUNICATIONS OR TECHNOLOGY INVSIBILITES
THE SIMUTANEOUSLY STARTED MALICIOUS VIGILANCE OF CONJECTURE
AND DISDAIN THE ADMINISTRATION DUE TO ORDERS OF THE OVAL
OFFICE IS SUGGESTIVE OF EARLY DEMISE DUE TO THE VALUES OF THE
ASSET AND MONEY IN MY ACCOUNTS.
PROBATION!!! CIVIL CONTEMPT – IT IS A FORM OF PROBATION
CONSIDERING THERE IS PRE - PRESIDENTAL "FOUL PLAY "....NOW
EXCEEDING THE NINTH AMENDMENT TO PREMEDITATED DEPRIVATIONS =
CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD = ARTICLE I SECTION 8 & 9 - - -- DOMESTIC
TRANQUILITY —BILL OF ATTAINER CLAUSE CAUSES "LIFE LAND
PROPERTY AND MONEY"
IT IS GOOD PROBATION FOR OBAMA AND THE G30 TO KEEP AMERICA
FROM BECOMING BEIRUIT
No. 11 -8563
IN THE
SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES
TONY CURTIS BARRINO
Petitioner/Pro Se,
u
DEPARTMENT of the TREASURY
TIMOTHY GIETHNER
BARACK OBAMA
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Respondents,
37
BRIEF MOTION TO COMPEL - CIVIL CONTEMPT
On Writ of Certiorari on Areal from Fourth Circuit Court of App als
Tony Curtis Barrino
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, N.C. 28144
(704)637 -9355
SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES
TONY BARRINO
Petitioner/Pro Se,
No. 11 -8563
v Writ of Certiorari
In Forma Pauperis
DEPARTMENT of the US TREASURY
TIMOTHY GEITHNER
BARACK OBAMA
Respondents,
on Direct Appeal
Fourth Circuit of Appeals
No. 11- 1713
MOTION TO COMPEL — CIVIL CONTEMPT
The Honorable Supreme Court of the United States docketed Writ of Certiorari and
Motion for Civil Contempt on January 31, 2012; by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 42(b).
COMES NOW, the Petitioner is this action is acting on his own behalf and moves the
Honorable Supreme Court of the United States. Article III section 2 is the constitutional
balance for this action pursuant by Federal Civil Rules of Procedure Rule 37; this
Motion to Compel is sustaining the Writ of Certiorari and Motion for Civil Contempt.
Rule 37(b)(2), contempt sanctions may be sought by either the court or a party; it is
appropriate under the circumstances. This entire action is reviewable. National Hockey
League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1976). As long as the case is
not exempted by local rule, the court must issue a written scheduling order even if no
scheduling conference is called. The order, like pretrial orders under the former rule and
those under new Rule 16(c), normally will "control the subsequent course of the action."
See Rule 16(e) Case Management and Court Management in United States District
Courts 17, Federal Judicial Center (1977); encourages the court to become involved in
case management early in the litigation, it represents a degree of judicial involvement that
is not warranted in many cases. Rule 16(b) assures that the judge will take some early
control over the litigation; to stimulate litigants to narrow the areas of inquiry and
advocacy to those they believe are truly relevant and material. The Petitioner attempts to
eliminate trial surprise, and improving, as well as facilitating, the settlement process. See
6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil §1522 (1971).
39
The Writ of Certiorari and Motion for Civil Contempt has legal certainty to succeed on
the factual merits of the issue in logical reasoning that would insist to review and sustain
with binding precedent. 46 Appendix 322 the Respondents since 2009 have conspired
against the Petitioner to gain access of the estate accounts. The Respondents activated
executive order to administratively freeze and cause vigilance or conjectured controversy
to support the action to obstruct the transaction of estate and accounts. The executive
order makes the financial become egregious. The executive action assist frustrate the
examination of institution. The executive action desires procurement by the zeal of
maladministration that makes concealment. The aggravated concealment and hostile
possession is the first legal order to address in this honorable court sustained by this
motion to compel. DisStefano v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 846 So. 2d 572,
574(Fla. 1st DCA 2003) The executive order disguise the conduct to conceal the asset in
administrative freeze. The contempt is efforts to move the issue; the Respondents violate
18 USC 1001 by t their overacts. The Respondents overact intentionally make the estate
and accounts out of reach; the Respondent are warring against the Petitioner with
executive order. Aoude v Mobile, 892 F. 2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989) Anchorbank v
Hofer, (7th Cir. 2011). The executive action intentionally hamper the ability to gain
possession. The vigilance is purposeful discriminations the cause deprivations and
inabilities to gain direct physical access due to civil effectuations directed at the
Petitioner. Korematsu v United States, U.S. 214 (1944). The binding precedent powers
that apply to the Respondents'administrative duress and make a legal means under
microscope or commence the action in suit. Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, (1958) is the
general attack of legal scrutiny to address a developing administrative matter that is made
IN
conjectured from the political purposeful discrimination. The contempt is the legal
microscope that question the evasion and absconding of the transaction; the effectuations
keep the asset out of the reach and complicated the attainment of property by the rightful
owner. United States v Burr, 309 U.S. (1940). Dobrowski v Prfister,380 U.S. 479
(1965)The Petitioner attempts to avoid a financial loss.Yusem v South F1a.Water Mgt.
Dist., 770 So. 2d (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) Beta Real Corporation, etc v Lawrence
Graham, 839 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)This motion to compel is action to disturb
the Respondents for compliance and settle the suit.
The Petitioner is pursuant of action for a Motion to Compel to sustain in Federal Civil
Rules of Procedure Rule 37 against the named Respondents, on the grounds and fact that
follow.
DISCUSSION - REINTERATION
Article III section 2 the contempt before the Honorable Supreme Court is request to
enforce, sustain and compel in contempt actions for an accelerated docket until a final
disposition can be reached. The Petitioner contends to in this motion to compel; there is
money involved and this is a probable cause for further proceeding to remove the clouds
around the issue. The Respondent are using legislative, political and executive powers to
retain information; the Respondents cause controversy. The financial documents,
financial information, security of Petitioner and right of full disclosure are accelerating
the matter; the Respondents are circumventing the court and manipulating the process to
41
retain information and retain money. Wirtz v Hon. Quinn, No. 111903 (Supr. Ct. Ill.
2011) Nos. 1 -09 -3163, 1 -10 -0344 (1st Jud. Dist. App.Ct. 2011). This Supreme Court
should overturn, sustain and review on the merits that move against the Respondents.
Electronic Frontier Foundation v Office of the Director of National Intelligence and
the Department of Justice, No. C -08 -2997 (JSW), No. C -08 -0123 (JSW)(North.
District California 2009). Article III section 2 there federal conflict of interest and federal
government ethics issues that improve the court's interest. The rp o se is at a calculated
advantage. The contempt is pursuant against the appearances of corruption common -law
and constructive fraud. This contempt can sustain, the Judicial Canons compel against
the tactics of Respondents that interfere with judicial mechanics and attempt to frustrate
the justice in this suit. The contempt is the first step in achieve constitutional adequacy,
the issue is capable of extrinsic offence. Clinton v Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) the issue
directly involves the oval office and is committing torts in the civil sector that "make
dangerous things ". The situation commits an injury to individual citizen that this court
can and should interpret as "functionally extrinsic criminal activity ". The potential
counts may outweigh the immunities of the executive privilege. United States v Nixon,
418 U.S. 683 (1974) Evans v United States, 504 U.S. 255 (11th Cir. 1992). Horn v
Huddle, CA 94 -1756 (D.C. Dist. 2009). The pro se in this stage of litigation is pursuant
and sustains the suit against; Federal Civil Rules of Procedure Rules 12 and 12(b)
defenses from the Respondents.
Legal Acceleration
42
I
The Petitioner reaffirms to the court 18 USC 402, the Respondents are not going honor
their fiduciary duties and negate obligations as officers of the US Government in
legitimate transaction to transfer property and accounts to the Petitioner. 18 USC 402 is
legal acceleration in the pains it takes to remedy. The matter is unconstitutional
contumacious and egregious. The aggravating factors are financial threatening; the
invisible acts of maladministration their affects is and can be dangerous to the perspective
Petitioner or citizen. The action is pursuing with indirect and direct contumacious
assertions against the Respondents. The Respondents are absconding and fail in their
ability to comply. The Respondents present severe reckless disregard of their fiduciary
duties to complete the transaction. The Respondents are violating 18 USC 645 and refuse
to turn over accounts attached the Estate of Mt .Vernon, Virginia; the Estate of
Washington, George. The Petitioner is the legal and rightful heir to the estate and the
monetary accounts set aside produce from the gold security that is encompassed in the
estate of Washington, George. Jones v Jones, 234 US 615 (1941); the Respondents
violate 18 USC 1001 in attempts of unlawful impressments of the estate as a whole.
Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002); the action in contempt is sustainable due to the
fact; the Respondents refuse to turn over accounts and the estate. Bruzzi v Bruzzi, 322 Pa.
Super. 346, 352; 481 A 2d 648, 651 (1984). The Respondents are offending or ignore the
statues that safeguard the Petitioner from a loss. The matter before this court is
functionally criminal, encompassing all the other ultimate facts that are effecting the
Petitioner. The acts create a predicament. The matter requires further proceedings. The
dignity of the administration of justice is offended; the executive order that are
facilitating the scheme is manipulating and complicating the ability for Petitioner to move
43
this settlement through the judicial process. The court is requested to address the matter
from a civil and criminal contempt perspective. The Respondent needs to refrain from the
activities that jeopardize the ability to settle. People v Gholson, 412 Ill. 294, 106 N. E. 2d
333 (1952). The extraordinary circumstances present duress affecting the need for
contempt support to sustain the suit against the Respondents. The Petitioner is governing
the narrative presentations in this motion to compel against the Respondents erroneous
defense and unlawful actions this critical stage by Federal Civil Procedure Rule 11. The
Respondents must purge from the contempt, Rule 11 is giving the Respondents adequate
allowance and legal respect to come into compliance in this suit. The Respondents
cannot use Rule 12 to hide and shield; there are too many counts against in their
executive privilege. The Respondents have been legally requested by Petitioner to settle
and pay without further delay, any inability to pay or settle is enough to sustain the
contempt, sustain the Writ of Certiorari or move for further proceedings. Labor Board v
Deena Artware, Inc., 361 US 398 (6t' Cir. 1960) United States v Burr, 309 U.S.
(1940).The Respondents practices are suspicious and inconsistent the norms of legitimate
practice of the US Treasury. There is complicated management of government financial
and estate matters. The situation is inconsistent with government financial practices.
Cheff v Schnackenburp, 384 U.S. 373 (7t' Cir. 1966). The contempt is viable and
necessary, also within constitutional allowance to protect the Petitioner from unusual
forms or modalities of duress that is hamper and obscuring the administrative process in
the Sixth Amendment. United States v Nation, 10 -382 (Fed. Cir. 2011). This action is
justified legal acceleration to reopen and sustain the suit, the Respondent cause a danger
and questionable matter in government financial account management. The court must
..
maintain the integrities of government and the US Treasury. The Respondents under their
own hand implemented executive order and executive action. The Petitioner contends the
action unusual zealous and potential for reckless abandon "in the eyes" of the court that
breech government trust to cause specific damage. The unconstitutional use of "implied
power" creates a danger of pecuniary harm. In re Nation The motion in contempt purges
the truth and is pains it takes to remedy. Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002). The court
must remove the cloud around issue suits that involve the government where is money is
object. The court must protect Petitioner the citizens safety and protect against monetary
losses by unlawful acquirement or by constructive procurement. Article III section 2 the
contempt should be sustained by this court the materiality and ultimate facts can proof
maladministration in the situation. United States v Prudden, 424 F, 2d 1021 (5th Cir.
1970). The Petitioner and motion for contempt is first impression in this court. The
Respondents need to purge from the contempt. The Respondents liability of torts and
overacts outweigh those discriminations in the reason for implementing a wrongful
executive ordered freeze of accounts. The contempt is a judicial challenge and questions
the intentional deprivations to Petitioner.
Footnote:
United States v Montilla Ambrosiani, 445 US 930 (1St Cir. 1980) Atherson v FDIC.95-
928 (3rd Or. 1997) Lefowitz v Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977) N,- Fung Ho y White, 259
U.S. 276 (1922).Lund v Yost, et al Document 28. Lund v Yost, 07 -4180 (JBS) (New
Jersey District 2008).Otero v. Vito, et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86638 (M.D. Ga. Sept.
22 2009. Cobell v Norton, CA 996 -1285 F. Supp. 2d 24, 27 (RCL) (D.C.C. 2001).
Armstrong v Treasury No. 2009 -3155 United States v Nixon 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
45
United States v Burr, 309 U.S. 24 (1940) Dobrowski v Prfister,380 U.S. 479 (1965)
II
Article III section 2 this motion is legal acceleration and pursue through the
administrative duress and executive freeze order issue in this suit. The Respondents take
advantage in the harbor of government administrative invisibilities. The contempt moves
18 USC 1001 against the Respondents to purge from the contempt. 28 CFR 68.28 the
Respondents are resisting the process due to executive order implementation that is
affecting the Petitioner suit. The Respondents negate the fiduciary duty to turn over the
requested documentations, title deeds, monetary accounts information and monetary
instrument (access card). The order is obstruction and frustrations in the process of this
suit. The orders are derived from erroneous allegations; the actions malicious persecution
and maladministration. In exercising those powers is enough to sustain the contempt; the
order are rendered and in continuum of action that is "knowing concealment"
28 CFR 68.23. That is intrinsic matter in document disclosure 8 USC 1270.2 The
Respondents are manipulating the court and ignore the statues of document fraud.
Armstrong v Treasury No. 2009 -3155 United States v Nixon 418 U.S. 683 (1974)In re
Nation This motion to compel the contempt shows to this court the Respondents are not
within the conformities of Administrative Procedure Act in government affairs. The
Petitioner has made valid attempt for compliance. The contempt is viable and sustainable,
United States v Private Brand Co. & Private Brand Inc.,(OCAHO) No. 95A00083
(1997). United States v Allen Holding Inc.,(OCAHO) No. 20A0059. United States v
MarvLee Inc.,(OCAHO) No. 94A00158. There is maladministration creates a
predicament. The Respondents should take note of the "clean hands doctrine" in real
M
estate matter, the executive order is causative of administrative fraud. The continuum will
commit malversation and the situation is tortuous interference. The Respondents have
culpability and rely on the invisibilities to accomplish an illegal impressments. The
Respondents are tortuous, have erroneous defense and "fruitless reasoning for delay ".
This motion to compel to reinforce the contempt is pertinent in Title 5 and Title 12; this
situation has issue in which the Respondents conduct is not consistent with norms of bank
and banking governance that dictate fair dealing in matter that involve the citizen and the
US Treasury/US Government. The government expectations in money and government
issue when together involve the public should be without corruption or without any
species of duress. This motion to compel has support to pursue and sustain. Ray v
Lehman, 55 F. 3d 606, 610, 34 U.S.P.Q 2d 1786, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 1995) the contempt is
the attempt to purge from the intrinsic offense being committed by the Respondents
executive order wrongful action or wrongful direction. United States v Syriuth, 98 F. 739,
747 n.12 (3rd Cir.1996) the executive direction is monetary motivated that adds to the
ingredient of intent to defraud 18 USC 912 USAM 948.The money does not have to
move to be imputable considering the already committed tort against the Petitioner.
III
Horn v Huddle, CA 94 -1756 (D.C. Dist. 2009) The Petitioner contends to this court to
sustain the contempt. The Petitioner is attached to a government agency in matter
concerning the estate and gold security in the management custody of the US Treasury.
The Petitioner is involved with or has contact for security and accountability. The
Petitioner has enhanced personal security measure implemented by the US Government
in the intelligence agency. The Petitioner stipulates to reopen this suit and sustain the
47
contempt, In re Huddle . The government has intent to settle and turn over the estate to
the Petitioner. The Respondents have special access to the Petitioner in "top secret
modalities" in the intelligence agency. The Respondents have no credibility, they
conspire and war against the Petitioner by those government intelligent modalities. The
Petitioner has established prima facie, the contempt is purge the issue into the open court.
The Respondents maladministration in the agency is causing a potential for loss. The
Respondent have no reason for the affliction of pecuniary harm, the Petitioner has no
legal issue or no government infraction to use executive order. The Respondent know that
Petitioner is "especially vulnerable" in a top secret protections. Government secrecy and
executive privilege will lie, they Petitioner did not have full nor proper understanding of
the government intelligence agency contact concerning this estate matter. The US
Government made special protection for protection for the Petitioner. The Respondents
created a conflict of interest and conspired against the Petitioner owner due to the value
of the estate. United States v Calzo, (Ct. 1994) Mercer v Lence, 96 F.2d 122 (1938). The
Petitioner has established prima facie is sustaining the contempt and is pursuant against
the Respondents. The Respondents have reckless disregard for acts that conspire against
the Petitioner as heir and kindred of Washington, George. The legal owner of Mt.
Vernon, Virginia. The Petitioner has established prima facie and understand pathology to
accomplish a specific goal in which the overact would accrue a loss and create a danger
to the Petitioner. In re Huddle government secrecy and fiduciary duty will lie. Workman
v Bell, 227 F. 3d 331, 336 (6' Cir.2000). The Writ of Certiorari and Contempt will
pursue. The narrative complaint explanations; in the lower court is pertinent and consist.
The explanation that is before court should not be surprise to the Respondent. The issues
.•
within this suits argumentation can broaden against the Respondents by tortuous
interference of an inheritance expectancy. The Petitioner reinforces to the court to pursue
In re Huddle; the Petitioner conveys and wills suit on the merits and on the materiality to
be reopened. The Respondents do not have accomplish the goal of any specific damage
nor do the Respondents have to be successful with pecuniary harm.
Footnote:
Halberstam v Welch, 705 F. 2d 472 (D.C. 1972) United States v Lambright, 320 F. 3d
517, 519 (5' Cir. 2003). United States v Kennedy, No. 10- 15891(11' Cir 2011)Mar ly and
v Holton, No 91 (July 2011) Maryland v Holton 193 Md. App. 322 (Maryland Appeals
2009) United States v Crandall, No. 06- 50592, 06 -50593 (9'i' Cir. 2008) United States v
ial,
D 757 F. 2d 163, 168 (7t' Cir. 1985) United States v Tweel, 550, F. 2d 297, 299, 300
(1977) United States v Munna, 871 F. 2d 515 No. 88 -3393 (5t' Cir. 1989) United States v
Winkle, 587 F.2d 705,708 (5t' Cir. 1979) Dale v Jennings, 90 Fla. 234, 107 So. 175, 180
(1925) Creel v Johnson, 162 F. 3d 385, 391 (5t' Cir. 1998)
IV
5 USC 702 The contempt is proper, "it is the pains it takes to remedy ". Ray v Lehman,
55 F. 3d 606, 610 U.S. P.Q. 2d 1786, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The court cannot substitute
its own judgment for that would rescue the Respondents. The Respondents would have
diminished capacities to be causative of the predicament; without the assistance of the
agency under an executive order in directions. The court in its considerations agency and
political body create the materiality of adverse political vigilance and political opposition.
The direct vigilance effectuate the situation warrants the need to sustain the contempt.
The adverse political effectuations is the infection of the entire suit. The Respondents
creationism is assisted with agency and within congressional body. The Respondents
..
have political empowerment to design carry and execute the tactics in the artifice and
scheme. The matter has ingredients in judicial importance there is money, land and gold
holding involved. The matter is to sustain the contempt and overturn; the suit has futures
in this court for further proceeding. The issue should manifest "in the eyes of court" as
conspiracy with extrinsic and intrinsic factors or matter. This sustains the contempt by
this reinforcement motion as an independent action and instant action. The motion to
compel removes, affirms, and clarifies any problems as obstacles in this critical stage.
The Petitioner makes suit more feasible to legally accelerate and pursue in the first
impression against the Respondents. This motion is the assistance in the justification to
overturn the previous orders to sustain both the Writ of Certiorari and Motion for
Contempt. Brooks v United States, 686 A. 2d 214, 219 (D.C. 1996). The elements are
obvious in the narrative presentation or submission in the court; the violations need
protective acts. The illicit dynamics need legal address due to those violations that are
imputable. In re Ryan, 823 A. 2d 509, 511 (D.C. 2003)(quoting the elements of the
criminal v United States, 677 A. 2d 1022, 1030 (D.C. 1996) Swisher v United States, 572
A. 2d 85, 89 (D.C. 1990).
(1)
In re Brooks 686, The court has enough issue in the element to bring forth order and
sustain the contempt. The court should rely on the political judicial history. The matter
before this court "is capable" of an extrinsic crime and shows there is profound extrinsic
matter. The Respondents are the author and the instigator of overacts to accomplish a
scheme that is fraudulent or the Respondents are the proximate cause of "unusual
administrative duress ". United States v Jefferson, No. 1:07cr209(E.D. Va. 2008) The
Respondents have overacts of communications to conspire in fraud; discouraged in
50
political or government affairs as "corrupting conduct or corrupt acts ". The contempt is
proper to abort the executive orders an act that cause a series of events that will
accomplish extrinsic fraud, common - law fraud and constructive fraud would be result.
The court must peak through the "smokescreen of the issue ". The Respondents created a
conflict of interest with political coercion or causative political duress. It is a government
official's design and scheme. The contempt brings out clarity and "weighs in" on the
burdens of persuasion. The suit has infections, effectuations and the appearances of
corruption are a judicial concern. Evans v United States, 504 U.S. 255 (11th Cir. 1992).
United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966).
(2)
[In re Jefferson; In re Huddle] The complaint, petitions and contempt has established
obvious prima facie to sustain the matter for further proceedings. The matter has enough
torts, intrinsic and extrinsic matter. The materiality in the entire complaint is prima facie
to reopen by this review.Armstrong v Treasury No. 2009 -3155. The presentation show
there is clearly knowledge, wrongful intent, actual malice and scienter. The issue present
action of maladministration in which extrinsic fraud would result. The matter in
continuum is will malfeasance and malversation. The Respondents are tortuous and
causative of aggravated interference in the intent that would defraud; involving others to
intercede with financial transaction. The involvement of other person with interest add to
a conjectures controversy impede on this matter of estate and incite as unconstitutional
51
encroachment of the Petitioner civil liberties. United States v Manion, 339 F. 3d 1153,
1156 (9' Cir. 2003). The prima facie and pertinentcy is prevalent to be conclusive on the
fact that pecuniary harm is occurring that effectuate the Petitioner. Armstrong v
Obucino, 300 111 140,143 (192 1) United States v Cox, 342 F.2d 167(5' 1965). Due to
the conduct of political or government officials; all the previous order should be stricken
the court must prudent and consistent to maintain proper conduct in the examination of
financial institutions.-Article III section 2 Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, (1958) the
contempt is sustaining by violating the statues. The executive order undermine the judicial
process and the executive act is violating the Ninth Amendment. United States v
Stonehill, No. 10 -35789 D.C. 3:65cv00127 (P.A.)(9t' Cir. 2011). In re Stonehill will not
to rescue the Respondents ; the materiality, pertinentcy and facts are stronger in the
conflict of interests that will offend the Federal Government Ethics Act of 1978 section 6.
The allegations are sound in to prove. The controversy in conflict is obvious. The
Petitioner can corroborate the matter in general knowledge with others in the community.
United States v Tweel, 550, F. 2d 297, 299, 300 (1977). This review is moving through
the invisibilities that warrant the contempt; the dangers as financial threat are outside the
courtroom control. The contempt does not that allow the evil has to achieve and operate,
in the expectations of pecuniary harm to occur. The evil's origins and author of the evil
desires are to operate intrinsic and effectuate extrinsically. The "clean hand doctrine"
overrides and overrule issue similar in this suit ((United States v Stonehill, (9t' Cir.
2011). This is motion to compel is satisfactory to assist this court legal accelerations.
The court sustains on the pertinency. The Respondents executive activities and orders is
unconstitutional prevention from presenting his claim or defense to reach a just
52
disposition by jury. Kimes v Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1127 n.3 (9th Cir. 1996). The
Respondents should adhere to 46 Appendix 322 and 10 USC 881 the reasoning is
wrongful discriminations that conspire against the beneficiary enjoy and liberties.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, (1979) The Respondents executive orders are
activities that is improper to influence the court or claims process to retain property and
monetary accounts.
V
The executive order should be nullified by the contempt action. The Respondents are
causative for a potential financial loss, from order given under the author hand. It
adversely affects the administrations of justice in federal claims. The court had
knowledge of the executive activities at the submission of the initial complaint. The
Respondents create a calculated advantage to that is impacting the issue and manifest as
financial threat to the Petitioner.The circumstances create a dangerous or unusual
predicament. Lund v Yost, et. Al Document 28; Lund v Yost, 07- 4180(JBS)(New Jersey
2008). The Petitioner is not required to have the exact proof The court does not have to
have proof to sustain the contempt. It is general knowledge in the community, the orders
activities and desires of the Respondents in known fact and reason for their
implementations to intentionally cause a predicament. People v Totten, 118, I11.2d.
124,514 N.E. 2d. 959, 113 Ill. Dec. 47 (1987). United States v Wilson, 421 U.S. 309, 44
L. Ed 2d. 186 95 S.Ct. 1802 (1975). People v Jashunsky, 51111. 2d 220, 282 N.E. 2d
(1972). The contempt can sustain against any facts of adverse action or wrongful series of
events that desires an evil vigilance. The contempt is sustaining. The Respondents have
unusual and conventional political modalities to assert a undue vigilance. The enablement
53
that will accomplish the wrongful intent or attain by illicit for a specific goal. The nature
of the situation is enough to warrant overrule the previous order, the court should judicial
notice of the value of estate and the amounts money involved. The issue was set for
transaction to the Petitioner to take possession, before the Respondents involvement or
tortuous interference. The issue is sustained in this court by accelerations and
requirement of the contempt process. The Petitioner has established and in verified prima
facie or materiality to demand the Respondents to purge from the contempt and dissolve
the appearance of fraud or the court needs to intervene on the "fraud inference ". The
contempt is the first step forward in facilitating the settlement. The matter in the eyes of
court in reasonable determination is capable to pursuit in a jury investigation. United
States v Zolp, 479 F. 3d 715, 718 (9th 2008) United States v Stoddard, 150 F. 3d 1140,
1145 -46 (9th Cir. 1998). United States v Manson, 902 F. 2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir. 1990).
The Respondents have culpabilities and need to answer to questions. They are
responsible for their overacts that conspire and war against the Petitioner as an innocent
estate owner or heir as blood kindred. Halberstam v Welch, 705, F. 2d 472 (D.C. 1972).
The suit is serious and egregious. The Respondents need to purge from the contempt.
United States v Bussell, 504, F. 3d 956, 964 (9th Cir. 2007). The Petitioner contends to
this to court to sustain this matter. The entire complaint or suit in the submissions into the
court's record is an ultimate fact or has ultimate factors that effectuate adversely the
Petitioner. The Petitioner is balancing the court. The motion is relevant matter to pursue
by 18 USC 912 USAM 948. The presentation before the court "in its entirety" is likely
to succeed on the counts not yet in discussion. The sustainment in this review will show
both sides of this issue and why there it is due justice or why it is due process off the
54
contempt actions. United States v Cont'l Can Co., 378 U. S. 441, 449 453 (1964)Sloan
v Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. 475 F. 3d 999, 1005 -006 (8th Cir. 2007). The
contempt effectuate an extrinsic and intrinsic dilemma, in which moves against
administrative manners of the Respondents. The contempt should nullify and cease the
evasiveness manifested by the Respondents. The Respondents cause a constitutional
dilemma that distress the Petitioner. The contempt reject the legal position of the
executive order under rendered; Copper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) the court rejects the
executive order directives that is unconstitutional directive and cause an unconstitutional
effectuation directly affecting the Petitioner. The executive order renders by the cause an
egregious legal situation that destroys the rights of the Petitioner. This court must sustain
the contempt the executive order action is make dangerous thing or manifest dangerous
potentials; its result is an extrinsic tort from the action of an intrinsic article. The
administrative orders action ignores; overlooks and incites "intrinsic principle law" that
makes dangerous things. The executive order is causing change in the status quo of the
public where the Petitioner must interact and survive. In re; Coffer v Aaron 358 U.S. 1
(1958) In the sustaining the contempt in the honorable court; the court can control the
controversy and control the conflict. Article III section 2. The court is intervening on its
conscience and knowledge of Aquinas and Austin insists that human laws are genuine
laws only if they do not contradict either natural or divine law. The executive order is not
law it is wrongful use implied power. The Respondent violate the ninth amendment and
must give respect to fifth and fourteenth amendments. The executive order creates
popular hostility within congressional body and creates popular hostility in the courts.
The action is capable to cause extrinsic offence and extrinsic action that usually would
55
not have occurred. The court must uphold the contempt to move toward constitutional
compliance to avert damaging effectuations and deprivations. The Respondents incite
vigilance and incite conjectured controversy in lieu of an executive order
implementation; while simultaneously directing or asserting undue political and agency
tactics toward the Petitioner. The court must sustain the contempt to "move an
administrative obstacle" Cooper v Aaron. 358 U.S. 1 (1958). It is the Petitioner's request
to dispense order and reject the lower court ruling; the court must attack the purposeful
discriminations and deliberate indifferences. The Respondent order should present to the
courts viewpoint is clear maladministration in government affairs that will show is proof
of a corrupting flaw in a financial dispute. Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). has the
power to break up the appearance of corruption and break up the appearance of
constructive fraud. In re Huddle the Respondents are using agency to obscure and
execute actions that are wrongful or have legal questionability in the open court. The
Respondents are using in agency in a conspiring manner that commits malversation,
unreasonable freeze, concealment of facts and documentations. The Respondents have
"bad passions" to negate the fiduciary duty and breech government trust. United States v
Nation, 10 -382 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Cobell v Norton, CA 996 -1285 F. Supp. 2d 24, 27
(RCL)(D.C.C. 2001). 46 Appendix 322 the Respondents need to purge from the
contempt. United States v Tweel, 550, F. 2d 297, 299, 300 (1977) the Respondents should
cease to use the invisibilities of concealment for calculated advantage it has formed an
unlawful constraint and is an unconstitutional action; that make extrinsic and intrinsic
problems. In re Aaron the Petitioner contends to the court for a liberal allowance to
sustain the contempt. The are objecting and did not comply in the en banc court. The
56
Respondents executive order was interference in the en banc and in the initial complaint.
The executive order is an obstruction that objects to the judicial mechanics. It is
administrative objection to a future discovery order in a federal claims case. The
Respondents executive orders will refute to compliance with a discovery order and
summons, so therefore Respondent must be ordered first into contempt and then appeal
the contempt order. United States v Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 531 -32 (1971); see also FTC v.
Alaska Land Leasing, Inc., 778 F.2d 577, 578 (10th Cir. 1985); Coleman v. American
Red Cross, 979 F.2d 1135, 1138 (6th Cir. 1992). Intent to defraud is an element of the
underlying crime here. Thus, the Respondents need be aware; " in the eyes of the court"
there is enough materiality and pertinent facts in the use of agency as well as inciting
political vigilance that spoil a transaction with pecuniary harm or reckless indifference is
an overact known. Guarneri v. Kessler, 98 F.2d 580 (5th Cir.), Jordan v. DeGeoWe, 341
U.S. 223, 227 -32, 71 S.Ct. 703, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951). This motion in the contempt and is
appropriate to sustain; the Respondents need to comply United States v Nation, 10 -382
(Fed. Cir. 2011).The contempt and Writ of Certiroari is sustaining the Petitioner must
remove the invisibilities, discuss the facts before the court to remove the appearances of
corruption. Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286 (1942).
Footnotes:
Otero v. Vito, et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86638 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 22, 2009) Stoehr v
Prince AL SAUD, 244 F. 3D 206 No. 00 -2266 Mohamed Bin Bander Mohamed Bin
Abdul Rahman AL SAUD (1st Cir. 200 1) United States v Hill, No.07 -14602 (11th Cir.
2011) Viles v. United States, 193 F. 2d 776 (10th Cir. 1952).) Dombroski v Pfister 380
U.S. 479(1965)Schierson v United States, 116 F.2d 881, 884 (1941) Mississippi v Louisiana,
57
346 U.S. 862 (1955) Mercer v Lence, 96 F.2d 122 (1938)Arthur v Fry, 300 F. Supp.
Korematsu v United States, U.S. 214 (1944). Nicaragua v United States, (ICJ
1984)Lefowitz v Cunnin ,-ham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977) United States v Lee, 106 U.S. 196
(1882);Monroe v Pape, 365 US 167 (7' Cir. 1968) United States v Classic, 313 US 299
(1941 )Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8,97 S.E.2d 33, 42 -3 (W. Va. 1956).Steidl
v Walls, No. 01 -cv -2249 (Cen. Dist. Illinois 2003). United States Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigation v Cammisano. 655 F. 2d 1232 (D.C. 1981). Ng Funs
Ho v White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922). Sinclair v United States, 279 US 749 (1929). Durland
v United States, 161 US 304 (1896).
STANDARDS OF REVIEW AND LEGAL SUFFICENCY
Petitioner amends the iudicial oversights of an eQreQious suit
(1)
28 USC 1253 this review is requested in the Honorable court's review as direct appeal.
Dandri ,-e v William, 397 U.S. 471 - 591 -92 (1970). The En Banc Court and the North
Carolina Western District should be withdrawn. The Petitioner is addressing the
standards of review and interlocutory issue that may destroy the integrity of the suit. In re
McClinn, 739 F. 2d 1395, 1397 (9t' Cir. 1983) the entire suit is well - presented and well-
pled. There is prima facie and the necessary ingredients have fruit or have imputable
merit in this review. Jennings v 01y of Kansas CitX, 812 S.W. 2d 724, (Mo. App. W.D.)
The Petitioner is acknowledging the standards of review must be for this suit survive and
sustain the motions in contempt. Gilman v Commonwealth, No. 071364 (Sup. Ct. Va.
2008). Gaskill v. Commonwealth, 206 Va. 486, 490, 144 S.E.2d 293, 296 (1965). The Petitioner
is compelling the contempt with egregious problems. United States v. Burkhalter, 1991 U.S.
App. LEXIS 29282 (10th Cir. 1991).The Petitioner contends to the court the suit's
materiality presented meets the necessary points in the review and is petitioning the court
to exercise independent judgment. Swift v Tyson, 16 Pet. 41 U.S. 18, (1842). The matter in
review "in plain sight" present constitutional oversights and statutory issue that need the
affordance to process the suit in reasonable exhaustion to arrive at proper dispositions.
The review must override the reluctances, popular hostility, and administrative obstacle;
that make prejudice order a dangerous thing that offend the integrities of general
jurisprudence. This review is should make a way for constitutional satisfaction to the
court and satisfy the needful remedies for Petitioner. Graham v. Bolden, 483 F 3d. 475
(7th Cir. 2007) (no. 04 -4103) (slip op. at 7). The Petitioner is defending the suit before
this court in the observances of the standards. Britton v Co -op Banking Group, 916 F. 2d
1405 (9'Cir.1990).Bradford- -Scott Data Corp., Inc v Physician Computer Network, 128
F. 3d 504 (7' Cir. 1997).The review must move the issue in Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1
(1958); the Petitioner is giving the court a point of reference for a judicial footing that
can attack the Respondents in all matter of the issue and give the solid case point to reject
the previous rulings.
(2)
59
Article III section 2 the lower are inconsistent in the standards to review this suit against
the Respondent. This is financial suit the clearly point out the Respondents manifest
specific activity to evade bank law requirement. Hilton v Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895) the
review should not honor the previous ruling. The Petitioner points out in the presentations
there is financial controversy where the Respondents are subject of the controversy. The
Respondent initiated executive order and executive actions against the Petitioner knowing
there would be unusual circumstance and controversial circumstances concerning money
in accounts set aside for the Petitioner as a beneficiary. This court can move the
invisibilities and controversy by contempt in the appeals standards properly. Beach
Community Bank v St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., No. 10 -1104, Docket No. 5:09 -cv-
00106- RS- MD(11' Cir. 2011). United States v Besmaiian, 910 F. 2d 1153 (3rd Cir.
1990). Article III section 2 the Petitioner should be allowed "credibility" in the
allegations in this suit and in this stage of the litigation. Clinton v Jones, 520 U.S. 681
(1997) this court in the standard of review afford the pro se fair opportunity of process.
There is pertinent and materiality of evasion and invisibility. The suit as it rest can prove
the issue in the sustainment of the contempt; Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
the Respondents have creative and special means to evade the suit. Otero v. Vito, et al.,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86638 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 22, 2009)
(3)
Guinn v United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915) The pro se must be afforded a fair
opportunity to overcome the political influence in the litigation; the review should
prevail over the reluctance and serve the interest of justice. The circumstances weigh on
•1
the moral duty of the court. Wilson v Russo, 212 F. 3d 781, 783 (3rd Cir. 2000). The
Respondents present reckless disregard for the in the matter government secrecy and
executive will lie. This court in the standard of review will find the suit certworthiness
and is sustainable on the facts. The lower court had no sufficient basis to close the suit in
prejudice. There is a conflict of interest and oversight in en banc stage the ruling and
order are inconsistent with the fact presented. Franks v Delware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
The contempt is appropriate to quash the appearance of corruption and this review
cannot uphold the comity between the district and en banc review. The continuum of the
suppression would commit malfeasance and the appearance of corruption or fraud can
be addressed in further proceedings. Hilton v Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895). The standards
of review guard against constrictive fraud that may be present in the suit. This review
rejects the lower court's ruling and order. The review must purge the administrative
invisibilities and purse on the pertinence. There is grounds of a clear error and erroneous
determination in lower court. The order ruling present an unconscionceable advantage
that benefit Respondents, the prejudice may way for a financial loss. Drudge v Brandt,
698 N.E. 2d 1245, 1250 (Ind. Ct. 1998) Rice v Strunk, 670 N. E. 2d 1280, 1284 (Ind.
1996). The ruling are irrespective to the possibilities of extrinsic fraud and is irrespective
to the possibilities in the actual intent to defraud. The Respondent should answer to this
court and purge from the invisibilities and scheme. Scheve v McPherson, 44 Md.
398 (1979). The issue was not afforded reasonable exhaustion in due process in the
lower court the contempt and motion should stand. The orders and rulings are failing the
standards of general jurisprudence. Owen v Freeman, (Md. Ct. App. 1977). The
Respondents are not communicating with Petitioner, but the Respondents prefer
61
initiation of executive action that war and attack the Petitioner increasing the
possibilities to loss property the court must see in the review the strong inference of
fraud. The Respondents present irregularities and inconsistency in matter of correct a
administrative procedures to the Petitioner has fair and just opportunity to maintain
ownership and rights to the estate of Washington, George; Mt, Vernon, Virginia. The
US Treasury established intent and set accounts aside. The contempt and Writ Certiorari
is the correct legal acceleration against constructive fraud inferences. Brooks v
McMillian, 42 Md. App. 270 (1979) the executive order is a financial threat, is capable
of pecuniary harm and is directly capable to cause a loss of property. The executive
order cause irregularities that is deceptive procurement. The litigation of this suit or case
should survive, the contempt should withstand the Respondents attempt to frustrate this
suit's claims and materiality. Hilton v Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895). The Petitioner
contends presented to the court complete information that would proving through the
entire complaint legal sufficiency. The Respondent must explain the executive action;
the manners of the overacts that effectuate the Petitioner. The money in the set aside
accounts the value of estate deteriorate the Respondents credibility. Frank v Delware,
U.S. 154 (1978) Halberstam v Welch,705 F. 2d 472 (D.C. 1972). The review should
question the vigilance that seeks attentive oppression; United States v Prudden, 424 F.
2d 1021 (5' 1970) in the standards of review the court must eliminate. In re Prudden,is
the direction against the executive official evasiveness and vagueness in the issue can be
removed and deduced. The controversies, effectuations and conspiracy in the fraudulent
retention is not fictitious or is not fabricated prima facie. The Respondents
administrative powers, labor against the lower court ability of a constitution review of
62
the issue. Judicial Canon 3 (1 -2) is administrative responsibility and pressure to deduce
the controversy with a reasonable exhaustion; deduce Respondent actions and tactics
that is causing conflicting argumentation. In re. Schiavo (IIth Cir.)
(4)
The Petitioner must overcome the popular hostility and vigilance created by political
entity as Respondents. The pro se as the Petitioner must satisfy the standards of review
and legal sufficiency. The Petitioner submitted two Judicial Notices and two motion for
compliance in the En Banc Court. The Petitioner submitted a memorandum of law to this
court January 5th, 2012. The Respondents executive powers is compounding the problem,
it presents a difficulty for the pro se. The Petitioner is improving the presentation to this
honorable court; more balance in administration of justice balance by proving the issue
by the standards of review and showing legal sufficiency. Article III section 2 moves this
motion to compel through the administrative obstacles and popular hostility, there is an
obvious degrees of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that affect the suit. Goldberg v Kelp
397 U.S. 257 (1970). There are deprivations present, the matter is fact intensive
throughout the entire complaint, the matter is presented in a concise and particular
manner. Bell v Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684 (1946). The motion for contempt make efforts
for the Respondents to conform to law, rectify the constitutional torts and comply with
financial restitutions. Hilton v Gu�ot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895). The Respondents attempt to
heighten and manipulate the difficulties to succeed in federal litigation United States v
Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 20 (1970). The court should view the petitions, motions and
Certiorari viable. The contempt is appropriate to dissolve the conflict and controversy.
The Petitioner is compelling against the Respondents popular hostility and undue
63
political influence that impede or obstruct in a financial proceeding Cooper v Aaron, 385
U.S. 1 (1958) Veterans for Common Sense v Dept. of Veterans Affairs, No. 08 -16728
D.C. No. 3:07cv 03758 -SC (9t' Cir. 2009). The Petitioner through the sufficiency and
standard in conjunction with wrongful political assertions must have balance or solid
regard in this review Guinn v United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915). The Petitioner is at a
disadvantage compared to the powers of the Respondents as political individual
participants. Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) Horn v Huddle, CA 94 -1756 (D.C.
Dist. 2009). The executive order is an unconstitutional instruction that infect the judicial
mechanics with prejudice, the executive order allowance is an error that ignore proper
jurisprudence. The prejudice and executive order combined is a unconstitutional labor
and danger, that is inconsistent with court's system manners of judicial review that
dissolve issue. The standards of review is rejecting the lower court's orders and
judgments. Howard v United States, 128 U.S. App. D.C. 336,389 F. 287 (1967). United
States v Wharton, 139 U.S. App. D.C. 293, 433 F. 2d 451 (1970). United States v Frady,
456 U.S. 152 (4' Cir. 1982). This court review and supporting quashes or rescind the
executive and previous decisions that continue adversity for the Petitioner. The executive
order is communications in the action cause a unconstitutional predicament and create a
falsehood in its conveyance. Luce v United States, 469 U.S. 38 105 (1983). Tots v United
States, 319 U.S. 463 (1963). The issue is money and estate property, the Respondents
convolute the matter with executive in whole raise issue beyond a speculative level. The
Respondents need purge from the contempt. The Respondents credibility is questionable
there is large amount of money involved and land involved coinciding with executive
order action that conspire against Petitioner in this suit. Article III section 2 ex dolo malo
.�
non oritur actio clean hands doctrine pierce the allegations of the Respondent. Ex dolo
malo pierce and purge the Petitioner; In re Luce, In re Tots. The Respondent create
dilemma and created the constitutional predicament with illicit or erroneous assertions
that effectuate the suits process and civil liberties Cooper v Aaron, 385 U.S. 1 (1958).
The Respondents allegations and reasoning is fruitless. The court should reject and the
object the previous order for the legal future in the need to show cause; also in the
standard and sufficiency sustain the contempt. Sawyer v United States, 85 3d 713, (1st
1996) United States v Brumley, 116 F. 3d 728 (5th Cir. 1997). In re Brumley, the suit
will survive; the contempt is legal acceleration attempting to purge the bias government
employee involvement deducing the appearances of fraud and the appearances
corruption. The Respondents have statutory concerns in torts in real estate and banking
standard. The Respondents make ready the ingredients in the continuum the yield
extrinsic offences from conspiring the right of estate or innocent land owner Halberstam
v Welch, 705 F. 2d 472(D. C. 1972). United States v Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966) United
States v Jefferson, No. 1:07cr 209(E.D. Va. 2008). This motion to meet the standard of
review must is attention to improve the court interest and insist the sustainment of
contempt due to the ingredients of presentation or materiality significantly permeates;
Evans v United States, 504 U.S. 255 (11th 1992).
Petitioner shows and raise the suits quality
(5)
The Petitioner conveys to this court in this review to sustain the contempt and sustain the
Writ of Certiorari to meet the requirement of Federal Civil Rules of Procedures Rule 9.
65
The Petitioner is remitting to this court to meet the requirements of Federal Civil Rule of
Procedure Rule 11. Hart v Bayer Corp., F. 3d 239, 248 n.6 (5t' Cir. 2008) The Petitioner
contends the issue and matter is well -pled. Denney v CareX, 72 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. Pa
1976). The entire complaint is particularly detailed. Guidry v United States Tobacco Co.
The circumstance are clearly outlined. Roberts v Francis, 128 F. 3d 647, 651 (8t' Cir.
1997).
(6)
28 USC 1253 the Respondents are in violations of 18 USC 645 and 46 Appendix 322
connectively, the Petitioner is sustaining the action. The Respondent rescinded the
Petitioner diplomatic immunity with fruitless allegation. The executive is order is the
wrongful enablement to facilitate unreasonable freeze and illicitly afford the ease of
concealment of documentations, title deed and monetary. The Respondents are for
additional torts that is action or activities that impede and intercede the transaction. The
tortuous inference has brought undue controversy and created a conflict of interest.
Ex dolo malo non oritur actio the court should nullify the executive order and should
move the court to order court in Title 12 to order the Respondent to cease and desist
action that is unusual duress and financial threatening. The executive order obscure the
matter and allow the suit to escape the truth. The sufficiency is firm in this suit; the
Respondent attempt to frustrate the justice in federal claim. The matter before the lower
court was not properly litigated, the executive order substantiate the fact the wrongful
administrative action in contaminating as a corrupting flaw. Nudd v Burns, 91 U.S. 426
(1875). The executive order is a deceptive declaration and is conclusive fact that preclude
an evil desire . It is a cause and its evil invisibilities have affect on the entire complaints
..
previous judgments and orders. The contempt is sustaining to demand justice on all the
facts; contempt sanctions is pains it takes to remedy American Fur Co. v United States, 2
Pet. 358 (1829). The Respondents executive order that is shielding overacts raise the
issue in the conflict of interest; the interest of justice purse the intent of the Respondents
Bransom v Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W. 2d 919 (1994). The presentation before
the court has malice and specific intent. The executive order from its author and actor has
a desired consequence. The petition and writ frequently speaks in the narrative of
pecuniary harm. The Respondents should not effectuate the Petitioner property or person
in an intentional act. The review can prove prior to the open court investigation direct
circumstances that cause a torts. Reed Tool Co. v CoRelin, 689 S.W. 2d 404, 406 (Texas
1985). The executive order is point of a conscious indifference. 46 Appendix 322. The
Petitioner moves in the sufficiency to sustain the argument, the Respondents knew the
magnitude and consequence of the of their action or orders. The Respondents have actual
awareness that the executive order would effectuate the ownership of the land.
Mobil Oil Corn. v Ellander, 968 S.W. 2d 917, 921 (Tex. 1998) Mission Resources, Inc. v
Garza Enemy Trust, 166 S.W. 3d 301, 314 (Tex. App. Corpus - Chriti, 2005 Pet. Filed),
The review should nullify the executive and move process on other outstanding matter;
the fact pled should be allowed to reach the jury. Second Restatement of Torts section
774B is legal applicability that should only support or enhance the argumentation and
discussion; to meet the sufficiency and standards. The Petitioner has and is establishing a
course of action. The Respondents executive order act and the known effectuating
overacts is an ultimate pleading fact on the fact's own discovers the Respondents intent.
67
Ray v Lehman, 55 F. 3d 606, 610 34 U.S. P.Q.2d 1786, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The
contempt and previous motions in the en banc court is attack to avert or abort the
obstructions. The petition and motion for contempt is protecting the adjudication process
((citing 47 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments 929 at 396 (1995), The original complaint is not
frivolous, ((citing Am Jur. 2d Judgments 696 & 723 (1995) the Petitioner contends
United States v Tweet 550 F. 2d 297 (1977) Morrison v Coddington, 662 P. 153, 155
Ariz. 480 (1983) the lower court record does not show reason to excuse of no exhaustion
on the submitted pleading fact and compelling contentions that effectuate the Petitioner
as pecuniary harm. Petitioner contends the suit he not committing perjury the matter
contains serious issues. Boat v Mac Dougall, 464 U.S. 364 (9t' Cir. 1982) the court need
to allow liberal credibility to suits allegations. Clinton v Jones. 520 U.S 681 (1997). The
Respondent do not have to be successful in attempts to reach the intended goal
.Halberstam v Welch, 705 F. 2d 472 (D.C.1972) Jones v Jones, 234 U.S. 615 (194 1) the
Petitioner can prove the allegations as fact. The invisibilities circumstances are obviously
suspicious there obvious controversy in the public at large, in the congressional body,
controversy within the government agencies involved and controversy in the media
communications. Cooper v Aaron, 385 U.S. 1 (1958). Article III section 2 the original
complaint was in plain common law English the fact where stated. The lower should have
acknowledged the seriousness of the situation that makes dangerous things and
aggravating facts. The lower court would have fraud or conceptual design of eventual and
intentions of future conversion would have been discovered. The conclusion of future
conversion would been enabled from the original submitted facts of the pleadings in the
district complaint. The Respondents constructed the deprivations and has had time to
.:
comply with law in financial along with the laws of real estate practice Rubenstein v
Collins, 20 F. 3d 160 (5t' Cir. 1990) the contempt should stand to for order of
compliance. Sassower v Mangano, (Southern District, 1996) United States v Burr, 309
U.S. 24 (1940). In re Rubenstein the suit will survive and the Petitioner should be
afforded the opportunity to deduce the argumentation and deduce the controversy, In re
Schiavo, (11th Cir.) This court should proceed on the torts and fraud the contempt in not
an improper action in claims process. The Petitioner has present material information has
more pertinent fact that affect the case. The Petitioner as pro se is meeting standards of
review and sufficiency and does satisfy the good cause requirements. Trussel v CIGNA
Life Ins. Co. 552 F. Supp. 2d 387 (S.D. N.Y. 2008). The information articulate in the
presentations to sufficiency is strong enough to compel in 18 USC 912 USAM 948. The
Petitioner contend ability of corroboration or has credibility of the overacts. LL dy le v
United States, 635 F. 2d 763, 765 n.l (6t' Cir. 1981). The original complaint show pattern
of actual malice of political origin, the Respondents as authors of unusual duress that is
present throughout suit the entire effectuations of executive order is offending with
political vigilance and create dangerous things. The conduct of the Respondents is incited
political conjecture, is hostile possession, maladministration and wrongful
discriminations present in the entire suit. New York Times v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254
(1964) is the observance of the Petitioner to continue the abilities to sustain the contempt
and writ. Reeves v State oflndiana. No. 77A- 10 12-CR-646 (Ind. Ct. App. Sullivan Cir.
2011) The Respondents continue display aggravated delinquency of the transaction
within overacts of the original complaint, petitions and motions present in the
circumstances. Niihawan v Holder,(3rd Cir. 2009). The underlying facts of the executive
.•
order make way for the vigilant action that is conspiring against the estate and accounts
owner. The fact of the circumstances make way for dangerous things and action make
way as financial threat. The executive will cause pecuniary harm, procuring money and
property in a fraudulent modalities. The Petitioner contends to this court the issue is
unlike American Airlines, Inc. v Lockwood, 107 F. 3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and unlike
Smith v McCann (East Dist. Wisc. 1974). The Petitioner has establish prima facie and
material facts, the Respondents are breaking the numerous bank law, committing torts
and completely ignore the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. In re Schneider, Inc.
175 B.R. 769, 779 (S.D. Fla. 1994) The past reviews are egregious the prejudice is
contaminating the pursuit interlocutory appeal. There is an unconstitutional and
fraudulent practice by Respondents and the matter before this court is subject to mixed
law and fact. The Petitioner did meet the standards required in the lower courts. The
complaint, petitions and previous motions concisely "breaks downs down" and set
matters in legal acceleration respectfully in contempt. Bank v Allen, 958 F. 2d 1226 ,
1229(3 rd Cir. 1992) The lower courts ruling are clearly erroneous; in which concealment
is obvious fact in financial a dispute concerning estate. The Petitioner sustains this
financial matter on 11 USC 106 that is not restricted to bankruptcies; there other statue
involved 11 USC 106 allows the issue to pursue through any immunities to purge any
concealment or fraudulent action that breech fiduciary duty that may cause a loss. This
motion is achieving the proper standards and remove the fictions in the matter. NRLD v
Frazier, 966 F. 2d 812, 815 (3rd Cir. 1992) Greene v. United States, 13 F.3d 577, 586 (2d
Cir. 1994); Matter of M4 Enterprises, Inc., 183 B.R. 981, 984 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1995)
(collecting cases). The approach of this review is request to be a total retro review the
70
previous ruling order are egregious. The Respondent are using executive order and
power that is unconstitutional by the Bill of Attainder Clause. Matter of M4 Enterprises,
Inc., 183 B.R. 981, 984 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1995) (collecting cases),In re Hammer, 112
B.R. 341, 345 (Bankr. 9'i' Cir. 1990) affr'd 940 F. 2d 524 (9'i' Cir. 1991) In re Smith
180, B.R. 648, 651 n. 12 (D. Utah 1995). The Petitioner contends the lower courts orders
cannot support the conscience of the constitution nor support the support the conscience
of this court. The Petitioner is compelling the suit in Compare Boone v United States, 944
F. 2d 1489, 1492 (9th Cir. 199 1) In re Ruti- Sweetwater, Inc, 836 F. 2d 1263, 1266 (10th
Cir. 1988) Wheeler v. Sims, 951 F.2d 796, 802 (7th Cir.), cent. denied, 113 S. Ct. 320
(1994) Zolfo, Cooper & Co. v. Sunbeam -Oster Co., Inc. ,-50 F.3d 253, 257 (3d Cir. 1995).
The Petitioner is sustaining on the facts and materiality to the court, the Petitioner is
moving in this motions presentation to oblige the standards of review required by
Federal Civil Rule of Procedure Rule 11. The Petitioner contend that Federal Civil Rules
of Procedures Rules (8) & (9) are met respectfully, Boag v MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364
(9' Cir. 1982). United States v Cox, 342 F. 2d 1675 (5' Cir. 1965). Armstrong v Obucino,
300 Ill. 140, 143 (1921). The Petitioner is attempting to sustain reasonable credibility and
insure the integrities of the contempt are not deteriorating nor eroding at this stage of the
litigation. The petitions and complaint has beginning place and prima facie. Thomas v
Keohane, 116 S. Ct 457, 467 (1995) In re Cohen, 191 B.R. 599, 603- 04(D.N.J.
1996)(quoting Universal Minerals, Inc. v C.A. Hughes & Co. 669 F. 2d 98, 102 (3rd Cir.
198 1) The ultimate facts in this suit is capable to arrive at a result and disposition; this
motion to compel is the support of reasonable inquiry and reasonable exhaustion. The
contempt is pains the pains it takes to remedy. The court record does not exhibit adequate
71
exhaustion or show clear constitutional inadequacy Levowitz v Cunningham, 431 U.S.
801 (1977) Armstrong v Treasury No. 2009- 3155.The court needs to shed light on agency
involvement that is assisting in the maladministration that also causative of undue
investigation or wrongful tactics that assist the unreasonable freeze. The examinations of
a financial require more judicial intervention where questionable administrative issue,
oppressive manners and invisibilities are prevalent in this suit.
(6)
The Respondents attempt to confuse the court. The court must consider the attempt to
confuse by the initiations of executive order action against the Petitioner. 18 USC 1001.
The executive order use compounded by the overacts that are known and observed is
enough to compel this issue with affirmed knowledge or the narrative presentations is
provable scienter. The lower courts should have into considerations in the previous
review the value of the estate, the amount of ready cash in accounts in the Petitioner
name set aside and the ease of concealment. In re Levowitz In re Nixon.The
Respondents have a calculated advantage in the powers and capacities of the office.
5 USC 702 the court must solve the financial dispute and force the compensation for
torts. Tellab, Inc v Makor Issue and Rights 551 U.S. 308 (2007). The executive actions
that effectuate the Petitioner and effectuate the circumstances of money and assets
involved is serve recklessness. The original complaints and petitions show the court
activities inconsistent to normal expectation of governance of financial institution that
involved the US Government directly. The Respondents in presentations do not show
standards of ordinary care. The Respondents knew the sum of the inflicted duress would
72
eventually cause a loss and the Respondents know at a minimum their action would
unduly complicate a financial and estate transaction into possessions of the Petitioner.
Mc Donald v Alan Bush Brokerage Co., 863 F. 2d 809, 814 (11th Cir. 1989)(quoting
Broad v Rockwelllnt'l Corp., 642 F. 2d 929, 961 -62 (5' Cir. 1981). The Petitioner has
attempt, involved and served the process on the Respondents. The Petitioner has been
diligent in the proofs of burden and has given sufficient presentation or statements in
burdens of persuasion the fraud is the correct conclusion in the predicament. The
information given to the court should allowed to sustain go forward and reach the jury.
Huddleston v United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988)T he Respondents clearly violate 18
USC 645 with "hostile possession" very prevalent and easy to arrive or conclude; the
whole circumstance and sum of the action manifest fruit and ingredients that is
constructive that will commit an extrinsic offence. This court can conclude at this point,
the way issue rest and describes in front of the is malversation and malfeasance. (quoting
GCA Strategic Inv. Fund 537 S.E. at 464)(Petzelt v Tewes, 581 S.E. 2d 345, 347 (Ga. Ct.
App. 2003) Thomas v Food Lion, LLC, 570 S.E. 2d 181, 21 (Ga.Ct. 2002). This contempt
is legal acceleration on the fact and materiality. The Respondents overacts and
noncompliance is a just circumstance for this motion. The lower courts are inadequate in
the review no judge answer on the poll. The district court is erroneous in ruling. Clinton v
Jones 520 U.S. 681 (1997) the petitions and contempt should be afforded a reasonable
amount of credibility and should be afforded a reasonable amount of believability.
31 USC 3733 is the civil directive to move through an egregious matter and move
through the invisibilities. This issue in the entire petition should be served on strong and
sound legal principles; that would warrant the Respondents to purge from the contempt.
73
This motion to compel is proper support to the necessary litigations. Article III section 2
is compelling this motion action; makes this court able in the standard of review and
sufficiency able to address the conflict of interest. Canon 3(1 -2) forces the administrative
obstacle to move into compliance with Ethics of Government Act of 1978 section 6.
Anchorbank v Hofer (7t' Cir 2011) against this court against the Respondent and reject
the lower court ruling. The Petitioner in the entire presentation has scienter this contempt
should survive and sustain the against the Respondents. Teal v Georgia., 435 U.S. 989
(1978) the matter as it sets has ingredients and is sufficient in readdress in legal
acceleration against Respondents. In re Merck Co., Litigation, 543 F. 3d 150, 161 (3rd
2008). The overacts is convincing, the counts weigh against the privilege. Ernst and
Ernst v Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 The level of scienter is present and is reliable to prove
to a jury Metga v Bachler, 762 F. 621(1985) The contempt is appropriate remedial action
and reasonable under the circumstances. The petitioner is has submitted to the court
"good support" in factual elements. The suit is egregious and has ripeness to by the
standard of review Browninz Debenture Holder Committee v DASA Corp., 560 F. 2d
1078(2 nd Cir. 1977) Chambers v NASCO Inc., (90 -256), 50 U.S. 32 (199 1) The
executive order that labor against the court and attempt to frustrate the justice. The
Respondents vigilance of that is order use is ill- mannered modalities that constitute as a
financial threat. The executive order has the intent to cause a loss or unusual duress in the
administrative aspects of this matter. The Respondents as author intend to effectuate the
Petitioner physically and this suit holistically. The efforts by ways that are warring as
well as conspiring effectuate a political change in public status quo the Respondents
incite controversy in wrongful political tactics. The Respondents show willfulness of
74
duress in direct malice that would affect the Petitioner. Younzer v Harris the motion in
contempt can sustain on bad faith political harassment in financial affirms the scienter.
Hilton v Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895). Heart Diease Research Foundation v General
Motors. Corp. 15 Fed.R Serv.1517, 1519 (S.D.N.Y) Kinee v Abraham Lincoln Fed. Say.
& Loan Ass'n, 365 F. Supp. 975 (E.D. Pa 1973) This action reiteration to that clarify
issue to commence action in the motion of contempt and Writ of Certiorari to survive in
the standards of review. The presentations in the court have malice, intent, tortuous
ingredient; "in its entirety" raise the allegation or matter above speculative level Piscotta,
499 F. 3d at 633 (7' Cir. 2007) This suit as it presented is grounds to satisfy Federal Civil
Rules of Procedure Rule 9. The Petition and Writ of Certiorari given the circumstances,
legal efficacious is employing the contempt technique to purge the honesty in the
situation. ((citing) Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Civil 133 (1969);
2A Moore, Federal Practice 11.02 at 2104 n. 8)) The Petitioner is clarifying the issue
and prevents erroneous pleadings by the Respondents. The merits, pertinent facts,
materiality and the present ongoing matters in a financial matter weigh enough on
elements issue to sustain and proceed. Risinger, Honesty in Pleading and its
Enforcement: "Striking" Problems with Civil Federal Rules Civil Procdure 11,61 Minn.L.
Rev. 1 (1976). The Petitioner prefers and request to grant the this motion to compel in
legal address in standards of review against the Respondents respectful to sustain
through this Honorable Court allowed by Federal Civil Rules of Procedure Rule 37. The
Respondent are committing torts controlled by 46 Appendix 322. 18 USC 645 is the
statue to sustain through the process until a full disposition can be reached. 18 USC 402
75
is the best approach that would best serve the needs of compliance or purge the suit in the
open court.
Footnote:
Mississippi v Louisiana, 346 U.S. 862 (1955)United States v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
United v Burr, 309 U.S. 24 (1940) United v Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966 )Evans v
United States, 504 U.S. 255 (11' 1992). United States v Jefferson, No. 1:07cr209(E.D.
Va. 2008) Levowitz v Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977) Horn v Huddle, CA 94 -1756
(D.C. Dist. 2009).
COURT TO SUSTAIN CONTEMPT — COURT OBJECTION AGAINST
RESPONDENTS
(Legal Summary)
(1)
Article III section 2 Cheney v Superior Court, State of California, County ofButte,
Case 9 CM 01607 Case 9 C03734 (Jan. 2001) The contempt is removing the fraud in the
issue and address the manners of the administrative Respondents. The executive order is
violating the Maxim of Law ex dolo non ortir actio; it is the cause of irregularities that
obstruct the claim process and malicious prosecutions. The actions "bad passions"
76
instigate legal complications that would not ordinarily occur. The executive order is
overact necessary for the continuum of the concealment and sustain the unreasonable
freeze of monetary accounts. Forman v United States, 361 U.S. 416 (1980). United
States v Resio- Treio, 45 F. 3d 907, 910- 11(5'i' Cir. 1995). The Respondents needs to
purge from the contempt. The existence of the executive order action is enough proof to
the suit before the court. In re Resio, the Respondents know that the orders action would
make away for undue retention and be proximate cause of spoliation. The executive
orders action aid the concealment United States v Bellew, 35 F3d 518 (11' Cir. 1994).
The Respondents are the authors of the activation of an administrative act that is a
financial threat and proximate cause of potential pecuniary harm to the Petitioner The
Respondents since January 2009 the start point of the suit is causative of administrative
duress that facilitate a loss or illicit impressments. Anchorbank v Hofer, (7' Cir. 2011)
the suit has described the situations vigilance and wrongful zeal that has incorporated in
political incitement to empower a unreasonable seizure of accounts as well as the attempt
illicit procurement or attempt illicit impressments of the estate of Washington, George;
Mt. Vernon, Virginia. Allied Equipment Corp. v Litton Saudi Arbia, Supra, 7 Cal. 4t' at
510 -11, Doctor's Co v Superior Court. (1989) 49 Cal. M44, 677 -78 citing
Max Incorporated v Woods (1927) 202 Cal. 675, 677 -78 is compelling in this matter of
estate and finance that adversely effectuate the Petitioner directly. The Respondent
complicated and convolute a legitimate transaction to the lineal descendant of estate of
Washington, George; Mt. Vernon Virginia since 2009. Jones v Jones, 234 U.S. 615
(194 1) the US Treasury has set aside monetary accounts prior to the Respondents
involvement. 5 USC 551 (10)(11) the motion to compel is the direction improving the
77
interest and improving the language that assist the court administrative responsibilities to
protect the Petitioner from a financial loss and protect the Petitioner's safety . The
Respondents are causing a political vigilance, evil zeal, causing administrative duress or
political change in the public. The motive of the controversy and purposeful
discriminations is due to values of the estate and the amounts of money set aside for the
Petitioner. Younger v Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). This motions of contempt is the
assistance to cure the infection and prejudice of the lower is issue due to political
respondents as well as the appreciating value of the estate. The motion for contempt is
the proper legal acceleration considering the circumstances that complicate estates
transaction. Forman v Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The power of the court is force
to move this issue through the political strategies of the Respondents executive order
action. The Petitioner in this motion to compel is the attempt to overcome the
invisibilities and administrative stagnation that facilitate the concealment and facilitate an
unreasonable freeze. The administrations action taken by the Respondents against is
effectuating the Petitioner unconstitutionally. Coffer v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). The
executive order is creationism or ideations of "dangerous things" in bad passions that
conspire against the estate and account holder. Halberstam v Welch, 705 F. 2d 472
(D.C.1972) is governance and guidepost to purse. The Respondents do not have to be
successful in goal of absolute retention. The modalities of the Respondents cause unusual
adjustment to protect the rights and abilities to attain the possession of the estate in
contest or controversy. In re Halberstam there is plan to result in specific intentional loss
and plan of specific injury. The Respondent severe reckless in political strategies to retain
this estate and accounts is direct and indirect effect is violating 18 USC 645.
Mississippi v Louisiana, 346 U.S. 862 (1955). The contempt is override for the Attorney
General and the Department of Justice to answer to the controversies of the matter
concerning public land. In re Mississppi, rejects the lower court ruling due to the factual
presentation is the illegal observance of constructive, extrinsic and intrinsic issue caused
by unconstitutionality. Rook v Rook, 353 S.E. 2d 756 (Va. 1987) the Petitioner has
credibility in the suit and has given enough reason in the tort violations. The Petitioner
has credibility in the controversy. Clinton v Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) the motions filed
by the Petitioner is initiating proper process to attain an adequate discovery in the
disposition. The Respondents are evasive and allusive political strategies by the executive
order action. The executive privilege "is capable to lie ". United States v Nixon, 418 U.S.
683 (1974) The Respondents have "hostile possession" and is frustrating the judicial
ability for the Petitioner to recover in a legitimate financial transaction. Otero v Vito et.
Al 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8663 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 2009 ).The contempt and previous
motion in the en banc court is legal labor to remove the fiction and override the
frivolous error in the lower courts. The contempt is motion to assist the overcome the
prejudice and popular hostility and is accelerating properly in the issue that is a complex
or complicated government affair dispute Horne v Huddle, CA 94 -1756 (D.C. 1756
2009) is the motions power to clarify the suit in open court and attain compliance.
Klapprott v United States, 335 U.S. 601 (1949) the motion is enough raise credibility.
The motion is enough legal effort to improve and narrow argumentation and materiality
before the court the is capable of unlawful construction due to the overacts that are
disguised in the use of executive order action in a financial and estate matter. The
79
disguised overacts are will and is gaining an calculated advantage in the egregious suit
status.
(2)
In re Hall, 96 U.S. at 41; Burke v Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363 (1987). This motion to
compel is sustaining the previous motion in Federal Civil Rule of Procedure Rule 42(b)
by 18 USC 402. United States v Lavon. 557 F. 3d 927, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4935. The
Petitioner is pursuant in the estate and financial accounts in malfeasance. The
presentation before this court is intensively fact driven since the initiating infraction date
occurring in January 2009. The suit is formulized by the profound overacts. 18 USC
1001. The Respondents attempt a illicit procurements or absolute impressments of estate
property and monetary accounts. The activation of executive orders is obstruction to the
assistance to inhibit and intercede a very accurate suit federal claims process. The
executive order desires to circumvent and unconstitutionally excuse the compensations,
deposits and benefits by convoluting or confusing the suits processes in the courts. The
political Respondents "evil tactics" know the executive orders action with a malicious
suggestive inference would directly effectuate or would directly result as pecuniary harm
to the estate and financial accounts rightful owner. Halberstam v Welch, 705 F. 2d 472
(D.C. 1972) United States v Pedroza, 78 F. 179, 183 (51 Cir. 1996)United States v Resio-
Teio, 45 F. 3d 907, 910 -11 (5' Cir. 1995). The facts to the acts of the Respondents as
they set before this court has cuplablitity. The Respondents should comply and purge
from the contempt on the facts, issues and allegations. Yates v United States, 354 U.S.
298 (1957). The executive order and actions is fact of idea, is fact for motive and is fact
of specific intent. The suit facts in conjunction or combination results as financial loss
a
and excite dangers things to occur. The interference of the executive order is an evil
desire to for unusual things to occur. The interference points the court review as a
constructive or extrinsic matter to legally pursue. United States v Parsons, 141 F. 3d 386
(1st Cir. 1998) the facts are compelling and is proving credible enough to sustain post the
review of Writ of Certiorari and the lower court submissions. The presentations to courts
is a strong illegal contention in fact that clearly shows the Respondent intend for loss of
the ability to claim estate of estate of Washington, George; Mt. Vernon. The Petitioner
conveys to this court illegal contentions. The Respondents intend future conversion
from the money accounts set aside planned by the US Treasury prior to January 2009
The anticipation prior 2009 was for the Petitioner to take full and uncontested possession
of the estate, the accounts and those accompanying documentations or files. Anchorbank
v Hofer, (7th Cir. 2011) the contempt is addressing the specific conduct of by the
Respondents that is convoluting and impeding the Petitioner ability to gain control and
access of the assets. The Respondents are clearly manipulating the matters in the process
to attain ownership and access. 18 USC 645 the Respondents are in hostile possession by
modalities that maybe viewed as aggravated conspiracy that would defraud the Petitioner.
United States v DeRosie, 501 F. 3d 886, 889, 896 (8th Cir. 2007) United States v Ross,
210 F. 3d 916 (8th Cir. 2000) United States v Liner, 435 F.3d 920, 926 (8th Cir. 2006).
The lower court judgment is invalid There is series of acts that conceal special
information that "tell all" facts of the connection between the Petitioner and the US
Government agency. The Respondent convoluted the facts concerning the actual reason
the Petitioner is "protected" by US Government. The Respondent convoluted the facts
because of the money and value of the estate. The Respondents intercede because the
Petitioner is likely gain or control as a beneficiary. Hilton v Guvot, 159 U.S. 113
(1895).United States v Vasquez- Martinez No. 01 -5220 97 -cv -02436 (D.D.C. 2002)
Horn v Huddle. CA 94 -1756 (D.C. Dist. 2009). The is fact of broad scheme the
Respondents are the author of the complication by involving government agency and
incited the conjectured vigilance or incited undue controversy in the political society.
United States v Bearden, 274 F. 3d 1031, 1041 (6t' Cir. 2011)United States v Schumaker
(West. Dist. Penn. 2011). The Respondents in contempt should turnover the requested
documentations, title deed and monetary instruments. The Respondents are concealing
the estates asset from the Petitioner by the powers of their office. The conduct is
inconsistent or unlawful in estates and accounts management. The motion compels
against the Respondent to adhere to the "clean hands doctrine ". In re Estate of Brate,
Warren App. CA 2007 -08 -103, 2008 —Ohio 3517[citing Rusnak v FleminZ 144 Ohio
Misc. 2d 99, 2007 - Ohio- 6752]the Respondents actions is suggesting to this court to
sustain due to the fact the Respondents ill -will reckless indifference that hopes to succeed
in indirect foul -play, bad -faith and is "steering" the maladministration. The Respondents
wrongfully ensue encumbrance and wrongfully ensue an unreasonable freeze by
executive order that conspires against an estate owner as beneficiary. The Petitioner is
sustaining the motion in contempt on the fact. The Petitioner has corroboration of the
Respondents scheme. The Petitioner has provided the court with enough general
knowledge of the predicament that recipes as a viable federal suit and claim. The
Petitioner request the efforts of this court to arrive at a different disposition. The pro se
is initiating the right pursuit in view of the all circumstances. 5 USC 702 This matter
warrants further litigation by all the presented explanations and motions true in the
respects of perjury. United States v LaRoche, 83 F. 958, 959 (8rh Cir. 1996) United
States v Montanve, 996 F. 2d 190, 192 -93 (8' Cir. 1993). The Petitioner efforts is legal
acceleration to purge the matter with judicial intervention with "probable cause ". The
matter should be accepted into on the court as credible as rest in this honorable superior
court. Clinton v Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) United States v Jones. 195 F. 3d 379, 383
(8t' Cir. 1999) Corbell v Norton, CA 9 96 -1285 F. Supp. 24, 27(RCL D.C.C. 2001). The
Respondent must answer on the merits, Nicaragua v United States (ICJ 1984) The
Respondents issue executive directive and order that is selective assertion that has
culpability in civil torts that action has incurred. In re Nicaragua is the legal grounds to
order remove the restraint from the Petitioner bank account. The executive order is unjust
and unconstitutional the matter is good as "hostile possession" of the estate to sustain
contempt. Hilton v Gu�ot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895) Huddleston v United States, 485 U.S.
681 (1988) Anchorbank v Hofer, (7' Cir. 2011).
Footnote:
Steidl v Walls. No. 01 -cv -2249 (Central Dist. Illinois 2003)
Knock v United States, 1452 -ORL- KRS- (North Dist. FL. Gainesville Division 2005)
U. S. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation v Cammisano, 655 F. 2d 132 (D.C.
1981)
Otero v. Vito, et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86638 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 22, 2009)
Medicare /Medicaid of the United States v Brown, 988 F. 658 (1978)
83
WHEREFORE, I, TONY CURTIS BARRINO, on behalf of myself as pro se is pursuant
in this Motion to Compel; by Federal Civil Rules of Procedures Rule 37 against the
named Respondents. The Petitioner request this motion be granted in this Honorable
Court; Supreme Court of the United States in the statutory allowance for the above
reasons and grounds by
18 USC 402.
Date: February 15th , 2012
Respectfully Submitted,
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
Tony Curtis Barrino
Petitioner/ Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
(704)637 -9355
I, Tony Curtis Barrino, having been first duly sworn and state that; I have served a copy
the attached Notice of Motion and this Motion to Compel on the Respondents; named on
the cover page. The Solicitor General was served by mail at 950 Pennsylvania Ave.
N.W., Washington, DC 20503 on February 15th, 2012.
.,
Tony Barrino
Petitioner /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
Signed and sworn before me on this day of February 2012.
My Commission expires on
Notary Public
[Seal]
NOTICE OF MOTION
To:
Solicitor General of United States
Attn: for Barack Obama
Timothy Geithner
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
ERk'
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, on that February 15th, 2012; as soon as counsel can be heard
beforethe Honorable Supreme Court of the United States. The Petitioner is requesting
action in Federal Court by FRCP Rule 37. The following motion is attached, the
Respondents need to comply immediately.
Date: February 15th, 2012
Tony Curtis Barrino
Petitioner/ Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
(704)637 -9355
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
TONY BARRINO
Petitioner /Pro Se,
NO. (PENDING)
V Petition for
Writ of Certiorari
DEPARTMENT of the US TREASURY in Forma Pauperis
TIMOTHY GIETHNER on Direct Appeal
:.
BARACK OBAMA
Respondents, No. 11 -1713
4t" Circuit Court of Appeals
MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT
COMES NOW, the Petitioner is acting on his own behalf moves the Honorable
Supreme Court of the United States; by Article III section 2 accelerates though the Writ
of Certiorari for further actions pursing in this requested Motion of Contempt against
Respondents.
I
The Respondents are offending the Constitution of the United States; this motion is to
quash and abort executive orders that attempt to defeat the Ninth Amendment. The
Eleventh Amendment of United States establishes the powers and judicial ability of the
citizen pursue unconstitutional encroachment adversely affecting that individual citizen's
liberties and civil rights.
II
28 USC 2072; this motion is judicial efforts with reasonable need for adequate
exhaustion. The actions of the Respondents labor against the principles of law and
judicial processes structure. This court should "frown" upon oppressive and subversive
political activities that cause any citizen hardship or intervene on causes that jeopardize
loss of life or jeopardize the loss of assets. United States v Ames. 581 F. Supp. 462 (E.D.
Pa), aff d, 753 F. 2d 293, 297 -300 (3rd Cir. 1985) It is established the Respondents cannot
withdraw from a business or negate its fiduciary duties to a citizen with any species of
duress. The Petitioner contends this court needs no proof to pursue by the merits and
elements entailed in motion for contempt, the Respondents attempt to "frustrate the
justice" to conceal and obtain property with the executive orders implementation or acts.
The entire complaint, writs and petitions is compelling this motion against the
Respondents.
III
This motion in contempt pursuing action is upholding the "Clean Hands Doctrine ". The
maladministration of the executive order action contaminate and obstruct the court's
judicial process; the executive order action' intent is to prejudice the court. The executive
order and actions' scheme is obscuring the judicial prospective, the resulting scheme
exceeds the lawful limitations of the constitution. The order and action is proximate cause
wrongful sanction and deprivations. Bulloch v United States, 763 F. 2d 1115, 1121 (10th
Or. 1985). The executive order and action impede the judicial process mechanics. The
powers of Supreme Court through this motion's action move against the Respondents;
in which there any intrinsic and extrinsic acts that adversely affect the Petitioner or
whereby as a result in loss and pecuniary harm. United States v Taylor, 210 F. 3d 311,
318 (5th Or. 2000). The Respondents are warring the constitution of the United States,
there connections and communications conspire against the right of claims of estate and
other financial matters. The Respondents are interfering with expectancy of inheritance;
manifesting as aggravated tortuous interference. There are no provisions that allow the
Respondents to break the law with constitutional immunity; the court have held the
official is responsible for the natural consequences of their action. The orders excite and
execute with deliberate indifference, bad passions and wrongful discrimination; the
executive orders actions intent is gaining an unconstitutional advantage. United States v
Beehum, 582 F. 2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978). The Respondents overacts and developing duress
offends the Petitioner and constitution. These mentioned grounds can accelerate on all the
facts and is proving this case has ripeness for an instant action; whereby this court has
enough to intervene with this motion of contempt.
IV
The Supreme Court cannot avoid or fail to take into consideration at this critical stage
review for this motion and need for further proceedings: due to intrinsic and extrinsic
factors that may be invisible or overlooked. The motion improves the quality of due
process. The Petitioner requests the judicial notice and judicial bearings of extrinsic
reason, intrinsic reason:
United States v Green, 617 F.3d 233, 248 (3rd Cir. 2010) cent. denied, 131 S. Ct. 363 (2010). United States v
Broadway, 477 F. 2d 991 (5th Cir. 1973). United States v McCarty, 36 F. 3d 1349, 1353 (5th Cir. 1994)
United States v Roberts, 619 F. 2d 379, 383 9 (5d' Cir. 1980) United States v Carillo, 981 F. 2d 772 (1993).
The Petitioner is improving the language, the Respondents are the lawbreaker. Fraud is
invisible action of executive order has the specific goal and specific intent to continue
concealment; the order's action intent is for the Petitioner incur harm and loss. Acts Rea
and Menes Rea the specific end result of the predicament inflicted against estate
beneficiary; intentional pecuniary harm.
..
CI
The Petitioner has the burden of persuasion in this motion; In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358
(1970). The fact and merits "is committing the crime" that present an immediate danger
to the Petitioner from politically vigilant authors. The case "situations present" active
dynamics in their continuum would commit an extrinsic offence. The Respondents
political office is the means for the wrongful assertions that adversely affect the
Petitioner; the Respondents agencies under their executive order and executive direction
have become the "instrument of the crime ". The government secrecy and executive
privilege "will lie" to evade, conceal and abscond in this financial matter and estate
matter.
VI
The executive order action misleads the court and is proactive frustrating the justice for
legal pursuit or inhibits the "even handed" administration for a just review. This court's
powers and jurisdictions must detach and diffuse a bona fide contest or wrongful conflict.
The adverse affection is due to mal- administrative assertion the impact matters of estate
finance matter and affect the Petitioner's personal ability to approach or close the
transaction for a gain and benefit. The court must "cure the infection "; a malicious
pathology can be established. The wrongful pathology is corrupting the process of this
financial matter and is facilitating a tortuous suit. The court must address the Respondent
with this contempt in standards of "clean hands doctrine" and the legal principle; ubi ius,
ibi remedium. The matter has a recipe for contempt:
Footnote: see certiorari
Halberstam v Welch, 705 F. 2d 472, 481 (D.C. 1983) United States v Kennedy, No. 10- 15891(11' Cir
2011). United States v Lambri ,-ht, 320 F. 3d 517, 519 (5th Cir. 2003) Schierson v United States, 116 F.2d
881, 884 (1941) Malley v Bigss, 475 US 335, 341 (1986) Anderson v Creip_hto , 483 US 635, 640 (1987)
Mitchell v Forsyth, 472 US 511 (1985) Monroe v Pape, 365 US 167 (7th Cir. 1968)
United States v Classic, 313 US 299 (1941) Hudson v Palmer, 468 US 517, 533 (4th Cir. 1984)
Brown v Mississippi, 297 US 278 (1936) Glenn v Washington County, No. 10 -35636 (9t' Cir.2011)
a
Korematsu v United States, U.S. 214 (1944).Nicaragua v United States, (ICJ 1984)
Mena v Simi Valley, 226 F. 3d 1031, 136 (9h Cir. 2000) Grahman v Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989)
Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct 1401 (1958)A ur v Fri, 300 F. Supp. 622
United States v Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) Marburg v Madison, 5 U.S. 37(1803)
United States v Cox 342 F.2d 167(5` 1965) Lefowitz v Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977)
States v Jimenez Marmolejo, 95 -10262 (9th Cir. 1996) United States v Montilla Ambrosiani, 445 US 930
(1st Cir. 1980) Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
Armstrong v Treasury No. 2009- 3155Dombroski v Pfister 380 U.S. 479 (1965); Le owitz v
Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801(1977 uddleston v United States, 485 US 681 (1988)
This court must control the species of duress that posses a financial threat, address the
matters that cause an immediate to the Petitioner's personal safety or that encroaching on
the Petitioner's civil liberties. The ingredients of the (27) precedent cases that tell the
story: it is committing crime that can and would conspire against the Petitioner civil
rights, is conspiring against the estate and financial assets. The situations action has
ingredient, recipe and strong inferences produces intentional as well as errant
invisibilities that will defraud; in the cases action continuum or in the continuance is
manifesting intrinsic and extrinsic offence that force or is pursuant in this motion. This
motion is set forth before this court by the visible ingredients that is "functionally
criminal" that define the motion for "criminal indirect and direct contempt ". The function
matter cross too many financial statues and encompasses too many aggravated torts; the
tortuous interference of inheritance is very obvious by the modalities and wrongful
strategies that will frustrate the justice in the claim or transaction completion.
46 Appendix 322 is the appropriate statue to surround and control the extraordinary
efforts or overacts that will destroy the process of claim; the statue is pursing against the
dolus malus and bad passion's of mal- administration that is offending the clean hands
doctrine. The Respondents have reckless disregard for the Uniformed Transfer Act and
ignore the cautions of the Bill of Attainder Clause that prohibit depravation; the action
ignore the abolishment of Eminent Domain.
91
VII
The Petitioner is request this court consideration to accelerate this motion's on the entire
grounds, explanation and merits; the main pursing action is praying and is pending a just
review Writ of Certiorari before this court submitted on December 22nd , 2012. This
motion further clarifies the dangerous a predicament. 18 USC 402 is the court's federal
accelerating action for this motion to pursue as a separate action against the Respondents.
The Respondents are causing irregularities in the court. The above discussion is pertinent
matter of egregious conduct that should this motion forth as instant action against
Respondents; the respondent s have specific intent, cause specific, the issue presents a
sophisticated scheme of undue vigilance that spoil the transaction and obscure the matter
before in the critical stages of the claim's process. The suits dynamics shows the
Respondents labor against the court structure and war against the constitutional
requirements or the matters in controversy negate the constitutional expectations in
government financial affairs that should "fairly and justly" service the public. The
Respondents executive order and directive are irrational and is causative of deprivations,
cause financial hardship and is financial threat. The executive order assert unreasonable
freeze and direct undue vigilance. The implementations of those procedures; affect the
judgments of the court and has made ways for unconstitutional inadequacies. The
Respondents acts by that order contaminate the court the pre -claim stage. Article III
section 2 this should accelerate against the Respondents; the failed to adhere or fail to
formally address the Motion for Discovery and Answer in the En Banc court. They are
inconsistent with law and there are obvious constitutional inadequacies; the matter
defective and this court should reject the lower court's judgments or order's. The
92
prejudice of the court is danger to the Petitioner and allows the continuance of the
financial threat for a loss; the prejudice is unconstitutional or unlawful in the District
Court. Financial matters cannot be closed with prejudices that have outstanding
aggravating or physically threatening inferences in the presentations. 5 USC 702 moves
this motion for contempt due to the factors money in the combination physical duress
directed at the Petitioner. The District Court and En Banc panel in 4th Circuit of Appeals
should have recognized the conduct that is obnoxious to the constitution; this court
should consolidate the entire as egregious acts that shock the judicial conscience. The
continuum of the situation or predicament; "commits malfeasance" and "commits
malversation" as the result of the Respondents actions. 18 USC 241 Respondents
conspire against the Petitioner in efforts to gain estate and sole control monetary accounts
due to wrongful executive order estoppels and freeze. This motion for civil contempt is
the action assisting the court in the decision to reject and amend the previous; this motion
is to protect the integrity of due process and show adequate exhaustion for just remedy in
the reviews.
Commence action:
United States v. Burkhalter, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 29282 (10th Cir. 1991)
United States v. Martinez, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6033 (D. Cal. 1995) United States v Cox, 342
F.2d 167(5x'' 1965) ;United States v Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882); Lefowitz v Cunningham, 431 U.S.
801 (1977)
93
is stare decisis compelling to address the readdress the violations of the Ninth
Amendment; this court has the power to nullify actions that war and conspire against the
innocent landowner, as Petitioner. 18 USC 402. The Respondents acts, orders and the
factual merits present an intentional effect is egregious. This motion for contempt move
against the Respondents and Attorney General Office; the Department of Justice to
comply and cease — desist all activity that is affecting the Petitioner financial asset, estate
and abort action that the Petitioner's personal "right to space to survive ".
On this day the Petitioner requests this Motion for Civil Contempt; with explanation
and legal grounds:
I, Tony Barrino, is pursuant through Federal Civil Rules of Procedure Rule 42(b) against
the Respondents in the provisions of 18 USC 402. The Respondents conspire against the
Petitioner right and federal claim of Mt. Vernon Virginia estate of Washington, George.
The Respondents are wrongful unreasonably conceal and seize the estate income account
and encompassed assets. 46 Appendix 322 the Respondents exceed the constitution by
attack and conspire with undue administrative sanctions or cause administrative duress.
Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357 -8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42 -3 (W. Va. 1956). The acts of
the Respondents is tortuous interference with inheritance expectancy; the Respondents
actions against the Petitioner present as intrinsic and extrinsic inference that is
improving that is improve the interest of the US Supreme Court; Washington, DC.
..
Footnote: see certiorari
Sassower v Ma amino, No. 94 Civ. 4514 (JES) 927 F. Supp. 113(Southern District of New York 1996).
Jones v Jones, 234 US 615 (1941) Halberstam v Welch, 705 F. 2d 472, 481 (D.C. 1983)
United States v Kennedy, No. 10- 15891(11th Cir 2011) Huddleston v United States, 485 US 681 (1988).
United States v Lambright, 320 F. 3d 517, 519 (5th Cir. 2003) United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
United States v Montilla Ambrosiani, 445 US 930 (1st Cir. 1980)
Schierson v United States, 116 F.2d 881, 884 3d (194 1)
CIVIL CONTEMPT: Grounds and Discussion moving against
Respondents
(1)
Article III section 2; The Petitioner is pursuant and sustaining the argument against the
Respondents though the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. The
Respondents exceed the Ninth and Eleventh Amendments. Illinois v Allen, 397 US 337
(1970); the Petitioner request this court to implement the contempt and move for the
compliance to settle the conflict there is a need for further proceedings to render proper
distribution of property and asset that are benefit of the Petitioner. The merit of the torts
involved need also remedy and just relief. The Respondents have culpability for the
specific damage and cognizable injuries that have been incurred due to the Respondents
malicious executive order and executive directives. The Respondents cause conjecture
and attack the Petitioner with non - beneficial vigilance. The matter has enough probable
cause to specific facts in the element to pursue the issue with a jury investigation. Goiack
v United States 384 US 702 (1966). The invisibilities of fraud and concealment can
facilitate the abilities to hide a financial crime may be address before this court or before
a congress and before a senate judicial committee. Sassower v Mangano, 96 -106 (US
Supreme Court 1998). This motion is pursing in resolution for a serious civil estate asset
95
issue that needs the court intervention; the Respondents negate fair play. Cooke v United
States, 267 US 517 (1925); the court must enter the political and treasury establishment
to rectify and resolve the matters that will favor the Petitioner. The Petitioner is likely to
succeed in further proceedings. The Respondents have caused irregularities or there is
unusual circumstances that must be brought to light; Sacher v United States 343 US 1
(1952) the Respondents goal is to frustrate the justice with political vigilance and external
government agencies. The Respondents motives is due to the desire of amounts of money
involved to be usurped by the US Treasury; increased political consideration weigh as
factor as motive. The Respondents are in the occurring attempt to take possession of
Petitioner's assets by a deceptive means. Spallone v. United States, 493 US 265
(1990).The court's power through this motion is legal attack on the matters and
controversy as a forward judicial process to remedy the matter. The Respondents need to
comply with this contempt motion and turnover the requested documentation, financial
files, title deeds and monetary instrument; that was and is clearly outlined request in the
motion for discovery and petition for Writ of Certiorari. Ex parte Robinson, 86 US 505
(1873). The Respondents need not continue to abscond and evade the transaction; their
acts are considered coercive; they are inflicting undue duress or imposing undue
government restraints to retain the estate's property and gain control of the monetary
accounts set aside for the Petitioner. Green v United States, 356 US 165 (1958) the
Respondents should answer to this court and this motion; the Respondents should follow
the Writ of Certiorari and comply with the motion for Discovery immediate in the
transfer of property. The Supreme Court is exercising its power against political vigilance
and wrongful use agencies that destroy the judicial mechanics and judicial process. The
motion is revoking the immunities of the Respondents. Offutt v United States, 348 US 11
(1954). The Respondents labor against the court and attempt to frustrate the justice in
federal claim while causing the danger to Petitioner direct and indirect. The Respondents
need to cease and desist, they Respondents cause dangerous things. This motion is to
warn the Respondents about their conduct and malicious executive order because the
agencies as well the political vigilance; the wrongful discriminations is committing a
financial crime. Williams v United States, 341 US 97(1951).
(2)
This is motion for contempt is magnifying the concealment, deceptive matters and fraud
issue that are obvious to the Petitioner and the court. Screws v United States, 325 US 91
(1945). The motion and writ that is served on the Respondent clearly points out statutory
or torts issue that are imputable and should motivate the settlement with the Petitioner.
There are number of statues in the court's view that warrants the Respondents attention;
18 USC 402 will regulate the matter before this court's issue of order to move in
contempt and issuance of summons. The Respondents should move to close the
transaction immediately without any further attempts of foul play or unfair play, cease all
duress administrative and non - administrative action directed at the Petitioner; it's the
judicial request should stop immediately. The property and accounts is disqualified from
the possession of the US Treasury, US Government and any other involved unnamed
parties; The US Treasury and US Government has shown prior intent to settle and the
asset in controversy should as irrevocable. The possession, custody and management
needs to be turned over to the Petitioner's without any complication or interference. The
97
Respondents need to detach and diffuse any contact or confrontations due to Omnibus,
the Respondents there is sufficient reason for instant action in the provisions of the 2403
Hobbs Act. This court is aware there is coercion and reckless disregard to endanger the
Petitioner so there is to be no claim by Petitioner; the absolute purpose of the executive
order; in which very unconstitutional. The Respondent should release the property, all
assets and rescind orders; refrain from all tactics or directives that affect the Petitioner.
This matter has strong criminal and aggravated fraud overtones or inference; a political
scheme is visible and there is a foreseeable result. The Respondents need to be aware that
aggravated fraud conspiracy that deprives a citizen is revoking all immunities and
executive privilege. The Respondents needs to be advised that the money does not require
any activity or movement and the Respondents do not have to be successful in plan or
scheme for this motion through to pursue with instant indictment of fraud Mercer v
Lence, 96 F.2d 122 (1938). There is enough issue in the element at this present to
proceed in the attempts in a political conspiracy to defraud; the action and result of a
wrongful or unconstitutional executive order is enough aggravating factor to pursue in 18
USC 912 United States US Attorney Manual 948. Article III section 2 the intent in this
matter is obvious; this motion is accelerating on the materiality of those stated facts on
the courts records. The accused need not have succeeded in his scheme to be guilty of the
crime. The Respondents since January 2009 have been moving with calculated activity
against the Petitioner; the acts are manifesting the ability to take possession of estate or
inhibit ability to make a claim in the matter. United States v. Bailey, 859 F.2d 1265, 1273
(7th Cir. 1988.) The court must have a fair administration of justice; it clear this matter
has numerous participants that are causative duress or is participating in an illicit scheme
.•
that interfering with expectancy, intercede payment closure and is anticipative of an
unlawful impressments. The expectancy is derived from the result of a detrimental event
or dramatic event; in which the Petitioner cannot make claim for whatever unusual reason
that would not have usually occurred or would not usually be expected by other to occur
with by a proactive knowledge. United States v Hill, No.07 -14602 (11' Cir. 2011). Nks
v. United States, 193 F. 2d 776 (10'i' Cir. 1952). Burchinal v United States, 382 US 843
(10' Cir. 1960). The actions being brought in this will not stop fraud is serious matter,
the Pro Se as Petitioner has entrust this court to dissolve the matter by judicial process.
There is abuse of office; the maladministration is convoluting the matter. The situational
dynamics present or action facts make it impossible to take possession without
complication or the intent of the Respondents was to make almost impossible to claim,
impossible finish or settle this matter without this court's intervention.
(3)
The judicial cannon make it no difference in issue for contempt of court actions regarding
the estate value nor the political entity involved, the court must stand and honor the
observances of the US Constitution. The matter is egregious suit, the Respondent Title
12 in which there are lawful requirements that a customer or beneficiary not be subject to
aggravated duress and wrongful procedures. The Respondents trespass the Title 15; the
securities in this issue make easy apply fraud the standard of conduct. The Respondent
must respect the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act that would cover the activities and
conduct in Title 31 that control or is the governance of the US Treasury.
Footnote: see certiorari
Atherson v FDIC, 95 -928 (3rd Cir. 1997). Armstrong v Treasury No. 2009 -3155. Irving Trust Co. v Leff
United States v Eddick, 432, F. 2d 350 9 (4d' Cir. 1970). United States v Burr, 309 U.S. 24 (1940).
••
United States v Tuohey, 867 F. 534, 539 (1989). United States v Conover, 772 F. 2d 765 (1 Ph Cir. 1985).
United States v Tweel, 550, F. 2d 297, 299, 300 (1977). United States v Dial, 757 F. 2d 163, 168 (7I` Cir.
1985). United States v Winkle, 587 F.2d 705,708 (5h Cir. 1979). United States v Sriyuth, 98 F.3d 739, 747
n.12 (3d Cir. 1996) Austin v Ellis, 119 N.H. 741,743 (1979) Logan v Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S
(1982 rizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 (1984). United States v Watson, 480 F. 3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir.
2007)United States v Kane, 552 F. 3d 748,755 (8h Cir. 2009) Morrison v Coddington, 662 P. 153, 155
Ariz. 480 (1983)United States v Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021 (5h Cir. 1970).
(4)
Ex pane Terry, 128 US 289 (1888). The executive order has caused wrongful prejudice
in the lower courts and contaminated due process. The court is aware that the executive
order is intentional to cause harm and loss to Petitioner. This court does not have to have
proof an order in hand, but is common knowledge to Petitioner and presented factually
throughout the complaint or has been stated in the claim the Respondents are using
executive directive vigilance that are dangerous and threatening. The Respondents cannot
offend the constitutional rights of the Petitioner or circumvent the constitution mandatory
action for acts that injure the public or citizen; the executive order in is not law when it
offends the constitution rights and the Respondents cannot manipulate the courts to
abandon the process of law in financial and land matter. 5 USC 702
(5)
The Respondents are attempting to frustrate the justice in the claims process by
exercising the powers of their office; that conspire against the desired effects of
pecuniary harm violating 46 Appendix 322. The complaint, petition for petition en banc,
motion for answer and discovery and the Writ of Certiorari is pertinent to move with
force this Motion for Civil Contempt against the Respondents. The Respondents
collectively at the service of process violate 18 USC 645. The Respondents ignore the
demands of the previous motion and have created irregularities or estoppels in the lower
100
courts since 20 10. The Respondents are exercising an executive order that is a financial
threat against the Petitioner; it unlawful in the eyes of the court and has a direct bearing
on the court that is unconstitutional. The Respondents attempt to disrupt and frustrate the
administration of justice. Lund v Yost, et al Document 28. Lund v Yost, 07 -4180 (JBS)
(New Jersey District 2008).28 USC 1651 moves this motion in civil contempt aid the
Writ of Certiorari and the entire underlying complaint. The executive order at the time of
written issuance is the Respondents attempt to evade any culpability for the negative
action directed at the Respondents. The Respondents are also knowing that executive
order would have an effect on the judicial administration and judicial officers that is
reviewing or would manipulate the complaints "in the hands of court" or would confuse
any issues in the courts presence pertaining to the Petitioner right to the estate and
accounts. The Respondents are impeding the process of the law and impeding the court
directly. 18 USC 1521 the executive order is written for the wrong reason; bad passions
and wrongful administration for an illicit gain or the order is issued to gain a calculated
advantage in financial and estate matter. 18 USC 1001 is violated in that action against
the Petitioner. The Respondents and Attorney General are not allowed under the colors of
the office cannot distort the legitimate functions of the US Treasury or impede the
functions of the US Courts to avoid address nor can executive order assume nolle
prosequi. Executive order cannot promote the court to abandon a complaint nor cannot it
abandon the judicial process by an animus derelinquendi agreement between the
Respondents. The Respondents attempt to evade the court inherit power to remedy; the
Respondents know they are laboring against the court through the efforts of
administrative act that will directly affect the judge. This motion rescinds the material
101
evils that is enabling the retention of money and estate land, the action is an intrinsic
offence. United States v Irvin, 656 F. 3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2011). The Respondents must
purge themselves from the contempt; there is egregious situation before this court. The
executive order is relevant condition in which a creative pathology that expected to
achieve a goal; the methodology is a specific element flowing from the Respondents
hands as the author that is ignoring the collective conflict of interest statues. United
States v Johnson, 383 US 169 (1966). Evans v United States, US 255 (11' Cir. 1992).
The motion is protecting the Petitioner against the corrupting contaminate that may
present in a government office. The executive order inhibits or convolutes a real estate or
financial matter. The court may enter or give attention to concepts in consideration; of
fraud in the inducement and fraud in the factum is the legal application where the facts
where false, unlearned and is deceiving to the court, wrongful premeditated conduct or
wrongful premeditated action of executive order can abort an obligation and obscure the
claims matter. The order action is fraudulent concealment to hide fact and deceive the
court; "government secrecy will lie" and "executive privilege will lie ".
(6)
Article III section 2 the power's of contempt is pursuant in the pertinences and
materiality to accelerate against the Respondents and block all action initiated by the
Respondents thorough the Department of Justice. The action against the Petitioner is with
"bad passion" of maladministration. The matter has political influence that allow the
unethical pursuit and wrongful sanctions that is facilitating an unreasonable freeze;
economic coercion is oppressive in the eyes of law and in the application of the
constitution. The Respondent would have no ability to implement or create a predicament
102
without the support of Department Justice and Attorney General. The Respondents would
have no ability to utilize executive order without the knowledge and some of support
from members of the congressional or political unit; the Respondent created political
opposition. The court must guard against political and bureaucratic tyranny. McGrain v
Daugherty, 273 US 135 (1927). The court must remove the doubt and address the matter
or address the evils that are conspiring and warring against the estate and an innocent
landowner. The actions or reason of this motion is due to the violations 18 USC 1001 and
18 USC 645; this motion in civil contempt is reasonable request for adequate exhaustion
to uphold the constitutional guarantee that should nullify the orders action that infringe or
exceed the Ninth Amendment. Illinois v Allen, 397 US 337 (1970). GoJack v United
States, 384 US 702 (1966). The Respondent are requested to turnover all assets,
documents, files and monetary instruments immediately. The situation is egregious, the
Respondents and their agencies under the Respondents are committing extrinsic offences
that abridge specific financial statues, offend the constitutional prerogative rights of
estate and infringe upon the Petitioner civil liberties. The Petitioner compels the contempt
and issue process against the Respondents. United States v Gaudin, 515 US 506 (9t' Cir,
1995). This court should view motion for as matter as first impression and this matter
clearly meets the required burdens of persuasion; the materiality in this situation is the
Respondents will not succeed on fraud counts that are involved that have not been
determined or addressed in a jury or discovery investigation. This action in contempt is
accelerating to coerce the Respondents to conform and settle the suit; the matter is
sustained by real estate standards of "cleans hands doctrine ". The Respondents are
erroneous in their investigations against the Petitioner. The executive order is blatant
103
interference and maladministration; the Respondents have implementations of executive
the matter needs to presented in the open court. 5 USC 702 is the right of the Petitioner to
legally refute the assertions of the Respondents. The materiality that is being brought in
the eyes of this court is the strongest and requires a concise process against the
Respondents; the wrongful measures the of Respondents is viewable as unlawful
materiality. The culpability due remedy is stronger than the hearsay or erroneous
allegations and reasoning to apply a unlawful freeze. The Respondents are the catalysts of
a sophisticated scheme of concealment; judicially explanatory as fact of aggravated
tortuous interference of inheritance expectancy that often has illegal inventions or is a
mere "smokescreen" of creative illegal administrative innovation to evade and abscond
payment to the Petitioner; a degree of invisibility and a degree deception that must be
presented in the open court. Otero v. Vito, et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86638 (M.D. Ga.
Sept. 22, 2009). This motion is accelerating against the Respondents the scheme of the
actual intent is to hinder and delay; contempt is the appropriate legal application.
(7)
Article III section 2. Cooke v United States, 267 US 517 (1925); the motion is pursuant
against the Respondents, the court is overcoming the prejudice of the previous rulings,
there is an obvious fact of scheme that may deliberately deceive the court. Executive
order is not the legal ability for the court to dispose a matter. In the eyes of the court in
104
the continuum executive order is the entering into a corrupting conspiracy that deprives
the Petitioner. The court must address the issue and materiality that is violating 46
Appendix 322. The court cannot constitutionally condone a scheme nor condone a
political artifice that "in the sum" of its acts is malfeasance and is malversation. The
Respondents acts or implementation attempt to circumvent the just administration
processes of a federal claim; there must a uniform practice in the examination of financial
institution. Article I section 8 (US ConstitutionlThe color of the Respondents office is
not to break the law that would be causative of a monetary loss or be in used in a manner
that is a intentional coloring efforts for vigilant prosecution or used for implied political
persecutions causative of pecuniary harm. 18 USC 402 this motion for contempt is for the
removal and lift of an administrative freeze or sanctions that is causing the predicament
to the Petitioner. The assessment situation and events; the Respondents have the
appearance that labor against the court structure and normal practice. The materiality in
this matter is imputable, Neder v United States, 136 F. 3d 1459 527 US (199). The fact
present is enough to block all actions directed at the Petitioner. Ku= v United States,
485 US 759 (3rd Cir. 1998). The Respondents are wrongful to exercise executive order
against the Petitioner with falsehood. The Petitioner has the power and rights to avoid
consequences for a loss due to an unconstitutional executive action. Through a jury
investigation the Petitioner is likely to succeed in a decision that is favorable. United
States v Wells, 519 US 482 (8t' Cir. 1997). Durland v United States, 161 US 304 (1896).
Sinclair v United States, 279 US 749 (1929). The executive order or executive action is
stand as fact offending the ninth amendment and the court must intervene on the
foreseeable scheme. The motion and complaints has enough merit to the aggravating
105
facts to substantiate the need to meet the problem raised in this suit. The court must move
with honest and fair administration justice. This motion is impeaching the en banc court
orders and moves through the powers of Writ of Certiorari and contempt. Hazel -Atlas
Glass Co. v Hartford Empire Co., 322 US 238 (1944). Steidl v Walls, No. 01 -cv -2249
(Cen. Dist. Illinois 2003). The motion is action will attain adequate exhaustion and
correct the errors by vacating the judgments on the relevant indicators, inferences and
facts. There is obvious activity of fraud, duress and the situation presents unusual
opportunities for pecuniary harm. The Respondents is conduct is financial threat and
presents dangerous things.
(8)
United States v Montilla Ambrosiani, 445 US 930 (1St Cir. 1980) the Respondents are to
purge from this action of contempt, there is the appearances of fraud. Durland v United
States, 161 US 304 (1896). This action is addressing the series acts that conceal files,
financial statements, monetary instruments and title deed; Schierson v United States,_116
F.2d 881, 884 3d (1941) the Respondents are evasive to in the suit by initiations of torts
that facilitate concealment of estate and monetary accounts. United States v Nixon, 418
U.S. 683 (1974) the Respondent are wrongful to conceal any documentation and file with
any criminal or civil tort to maintain that possession is violating 18 USC 1001. The
relevant reason has been raised that the Respondents are in the commissions of extrinsic
offence or there will be the result of an extrinsic crime in which the Respondents are able
to maintain those documentation without abilities to claim by an interest person or party
that may seek any remedy in judicial processes. Panico v United States, 375 US 29
(1963). The executive order's is a flowing act or flowing process "obstruct the
106
administrations" of due process in a federal claim. The process is interrupting an official
financial and estate transaction. Anderson v Dunn, 19 US (6 Wheat.) 204 1821(1824), the
Respondents are not with the luxuries of immunities in matters that may be piracy the
court has the duty to insure public safety and may certain that corruption is diminished in
government affairs. The Respondents must answer and purge on the issue; this court is to
prescribe in egregious matter that cause loss and deprivations due to wrongful modalities
or occurring loss from maladministration "within the confinements of the government ".
(9)
Article III section 2 nullifies action of the Respondents; contempt is accelerating by 31
USC 3733 against the Attorney General and Department of Justice. 31 USC3733 is also
this court's jurisdiction to answer and produce the documentation; this court has the
power to move in contempt as instant and separate action to solve controversy. This
action is extending the court power's of inherent contempt to remedy the matter; the
Respondents and the Attorney are non - complaint. The Respondents and Attorney General
nor the Department of Justice would not have any powers in recourse; nor would there
government acceptance of malicious dictations against the Petitioner by executive order
implementation without support or influence within the congressional body; to facilitate a
outward expressed political vigilance and conjecture to the original intent of the US
Treasury prior to January 2009. 2 USC 194 this court has is able to remedy in contempt
and can the Respondents as well the Attorney General to answer on the matter; this action
is blocking to rescind all political interference, overruling the political oppositions and
reprimand the bad passions or wrongful discriminations to continue that are
constitutionally viewed a oppression and is questionable holistically in conceptual law as
107
economic coercion. The Respondents should refrain from mixing a financial with
political pressures or conjectured controversy in combination with government
enforcement agencies; especially matters that contain large amounts of money, worthful
securities assets and large estate acreages can be flawed and erroneous or easily injected
with corruption and prid pro quo. This motion's action in contempt is the powers of
resolution by [ 2 USC 288 (d) (b) (2) ]; the Respondents are susceptible to judicial
pursuit and this court's inherent powers to solve issues or suit that are egregious. 2 USC
288 is the power of this court inherent powers capable revoking Senatorial,
Congressional and all wrongful political influence or improper influence that impede or
conspire against the Petitioner's constitutional rights in a estate and securities that maybe
intertwined in the political body. The motion for contempt is to quash all political
controversy and improper influence that affect this civil matter. The Respondents are to
detach the Department of Justice from executive orders and diffuse the undue wrongful
political injections that empower the assertion that affect the Petitioner abilities of claim
and civil liberties. Watkins v United States, 354 US 178(1957) the Petitioner has been
subject to unnecessary inquiry and orders and has the constitutional power in rights to
pursue this contempt; the Respondent exceed the Ninth Amendment in which their action
is financial threat and cause dangerous things; due to wrongful zealous political vigilance
and purposeful discrimination is objecting Respondents administrative action and
sanction. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168 (1880) Quinn v. United States. 349 U. S.
155(1955); Emspak v. United States. 349 U. S. 190(1955); Bart v. United States, 349 U.
S. 219 (1955). This motion is fundamentally the appropriate action to address the matter
to cease the bad passion and maladministration; the Respondents are exceeding and
1'
abusive in powers of the office. This court is moving against the Respondents due
legislative history of civil controversies that warranted further proceeding; the
commissions of malfeasance and malversation can be obscured, distorted and politically
convoluted with easily undue investigations. Article III section 2. Morrison v Olson,
487 US 654, 694(1988). The is need for this court to accelerate against the Respondents
and the Attorney General; the executive order is "bad passion" and maladministration
that is mere undue investigative artifice and sophisticate scheme; in which the intent is to
jeopardize the Petitioner and raise opportunities for loss of the estate. In Re Winship, 397
U.S. 358 (1970). The fact and merits "is committing the crime" that present an immediate
danger to the Petitioner from politically vigilant authors. The case "situations present"
active dynamics in their continuum would commit an extrinsic offence. The Respondents
political office is the means for the wrongful assertions that adversely affect the
Petitioner; the Respondents agency under their executive order and executive direction
has become the "instrument of the crime ". The government secrecy and executive
privilege "will lie" to evade, conceal and abscond in this financial matter and estate
matter.
Malley v Biggs, 475 US 335, 341 (1986) Anderson v Creip_hton, 483 US 635, 640 (1987)
Mitchell v Forsyth, 472 US 511 (1985) Monroe v Pape, 365 US 167 (7t' Cir. 1968)
United States v Classic, 313 US 299 (1941) Hudson v Palmer, 468 US 517, 533 (4th Cir. 1984)
Brown v Mississippi, 297 US 278 (1936) Glenn v Washington County, No. 10 -35636 (9t` Cir.2011)
Korematsu v United States, U.S. 214 (1944).Nicaragua v United States, (ICJ 1984)
Mena v Simi Valley, 226 F. 3d 1031, 136 (9t' Cir. 2000)Grahman v Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989)
Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct 1401 (1958)Arthur v Fry, 300 F. Supp. 62
(10)
109
11 USC 106 The is the federal force to move the contempt and make visible the monetary
accounts, make accessibility for Petitioner to the estate and make visible the estate
information. 18 USC 152 is compelling for the Respondents to purge from the contempt
and transfer the estate or move the matter into the court. The sanctions should be lifted
and all orders rescinded; that action has manifested intrinsic and extrinsic materiality to
make this contempt viable and valid. There are enough aggravating facts that show
intentional attempts to make opportunity illicit impressments of property and accounts
rightfully belonging to the Petitioner. Eminent Domain is abolished.
(11)
Article III section 2 In Matters of Application: United States Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigation v Cammisano, 655 F. 2d 1232 (D.C. 198 1) supports the Petitioner to
pursue in contempt or bring the matter before court. The Respondent knows that by
initiating executive order it would spawn investigative scrutiny and would make a means
to prompt an undue investigation through government enforcement agents. The
Respondents knew the Petitioner was due presentation of diplomatic immunity before
they were, involved, the executive order is efficacious in the ability to cause political
controversy; and made a means for reason to cause public and political controversy in
conjecture. There was and is no reason for investigation by the initiated by the executive
branch. The executive order would and do interfere with asset and property in the
possession or in limbo to be taken under control of the Petitioner. The Petitioner moves
this court for contempt to cease all investigative address in the safeguards of constitution,
there is confusion and issue within the Department of Justice that is raise the questions of
Ethics in Government Act of 1978. The matter is concerning torts of the Ninth
110
Amendment. The Department of Justice and Attorney have no reason to accept executive
order from the Respondents; the Petitioner has the rights of due process of any
allegations. The Petitioner is subject of maladministration and malicious prosecution; that
net an unreasonable seize and wrongful freeze. 46 Appendix 322 the Respondents have
wrongful discriminations and purposeful malus to inhibit the rights of access to estate and
access to monetary accounts. Nilva v United States, 325 US385 (1957) is moving for
contempt due the fact and the events that affect the issue; government secrecy, executive
privilege and fiduciary duty "will lie ". The Respondents intentionally implemented the
process and order to frustrate the justice. The Seventh Amendment is compelling the
contempt to clarify the matter in the open court and preserve the integrity of court that
provides justice in law. Bloom v Illinios, 391 US 194 (1968). The action is encroaching
on the right to space to survive and the Respondents have no rationale to activate
executive order and powers. This motion contempt strikes a just balance; the
Respondents are erroneous and unlawful. The Petitioner is sustaining the suit to prevent a
maljustice that be a loss to the Petitioner.
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT — Criminal Deception
(12)
111
The motion for contempt; the Respondents are deceiving the court and cannot use
ignorance of the law. Article I section 9 this motion is a "surprise" the Petitioner has
made contact with the Respondents in plain language the predicament and why there is
judicial process. The executive order is written to pursue unjust revocation of funds and
property that is clearly the right to claim by Petitioner. Article I section 9 is accelerating
on the fact; the Respondents are not following the US Treasury law. The Respondents
executive order action is an intrinsic and extrinsic issue or usurpation; the constitutional
parameters are long standing. The Respondents must give an account for their and give in
accounting explanation before this court; "acts of attainder" the Respondents clearly
resort to an unlawful prescription for gain, proximate for undue predicament and cause
danger to Petitioner. This executive order is attempts usurpation and wrongful duty that is
a financial threat against the Petitioner. The Respondent is intentionally targeting or
making subject of controversy and vigilance due to values of estate and amount of money
in accounts placed for the Petitioner as beneficiary. The court should prescribe guidance
and may push the process against Respondents in the observant fundamentals of the
Sixteenth Amendment. In Re Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co. 157 US 429 (1894).
The Respondents wrong to apply direct duties and political involvement is unnecessary
convolution of the matter. The regulation by is established; the motion for contempt is
viable and worthy of further proceedings. The Respondents have "no new power" to
impose sanction, freeze and can have no expectation from a direct action of a specifically
identified person without due process addressing that said person in violation of that said
law or by delinquencies that is owed. The Petitioner must be given opportunity by law or
112
given a reasonable constitutional means to confront the issue in need to resolve. The
motion in contempt before court sharpening is judicial viewpoints in this matter.
(13)
Ambach v. French, 141 Wn.App. 782, 173 P.3d 941 (2007), The Respondent cannot
show the need for sanctions the Respondents must present facts and evidence before the
court. The Respondents need to impose sanctions is erroneous. The suit as it stands is
egregious; there is materiality, relevant merit and relevant facts that should move the
judicial conscience. The court should afford opportunity to address to purge this matter
from any deceptive practice or nullify all the deceptive acts and erroneous activities that
affect. The Respondents executive orders wrongfully contaminate the issue. The
Petitioner contends the "entrepreneurial motivations" that is very possible in a political
office; by the Respondents may be entered in the arguments to contempt. The estate in
controversy has not been served warrant that address any levy or seizure, that must done
by law to be brought before a court law before any forfeiture can take place or the
Respondents must there is legal need for implementations against the property's estate or
person. The estate lawful owner must be given a formal legal notice of sanction levied
against by the US Treasury. The Respondents is depriving the owner and is retaining the
property with wrongful discrimination, bad passions and false pretense. The executive
order's implementation retards the Petitioner's ability to litigate the matter and obscure
the court "fair view" of the litigation. This motion for contempt blocks any shame
pleadings by the Respondents.
(14)
113
Stoehr v Prince AL SAUD, 244 F. 3D 206 No. 00 -2266 Mohamed Bin Bander Mohamed
Bin Abdul Rahman AL SAUD (1st Cir. 2001). The Respondents executive order is
deceptive and unfair practice; knowing the order action is erroneous. The action flowing
from the author's hand is facilitating action that is financial motivating, knowing the
pursing the Petitioner through the Department of Justice is one "bad passion" and
maladministration to inhibit the transaction of monetary accounts and property. The
Respondents are retaining or obtain the asset by a "wrongful business act" that is causing
loss of property without compensations due. The executive order is "spoiling the
transaction" or is "attempting a transaction ". The conduct is viewed as fraudulent
conduct, the Respondents issue order is to intent is to deprive the owner of title. The
Respondents action in reasoning for order is deceiving the court. This complaint was not
litigated in proper standards of financial or assets matter in the lower courts. The court
should take into the "clean hands doctrine" in a real estate, assets and monetary; the
Respondents are consistent with normal practices of financial institution. In Re Stoer the
Respondents must purge form this action of contempt due to the: administrative
documentations issuances, executive assertions or orders "given under their hand." The
Respondent must answer on the validity of issuances and liable for its truths;
constitutional or lawful.
(15)
18 USC 402 the Petitioner is aware of improper influence in the lower courts and this
matter was not heard; the executive order affected the initial review. Fiduciary Duty "will
lie" the motion is attacking the coinciding allegations of the Respondents. The executive
is order is caused prejudiced the lower court; knowing the questionable constitutionality
114
of executive order from the executive branch. The order is committing intrinsic and
extrinsic issue that is depriving the Petitioner from being heard in full presentation of the
court. The fact of the matter is the Respondents are intentional misleading to the court;
the Petitioner understands the rationale and dynamic of Respondents. The Respondents
can be cited with perjury, the government secrecy and executive privilege is causing a
dangerous thing and is financially threatening. The Respondents are causative for a
medium of hardships and cause potential loss for assets. The deliberate action is a
deceitful and invisible pretense that is material of bad passion and wrongful
discriminations; the action should be sustained due to the amount of and value of the
estate. The Respondents created an advantage and breach the trust due unlawful
executive order. The executive order circumvents the integrities of system. United States
v Lepowitch, 318 US 702 (1943) the motion is compelling for further exhaustion "on the
appearances." The matter is egregious and clearly speaks an unlawful language that
forces contempt on strong concrete grounds in "probable cause" in the intent. United
States v Randolph, 460 F. 2d 367, 370 (5t' 1972). Honea v United States, 344 F. 2d 798,
802 -03 (5' Cir. 1965) is the federal force to break the executive orders that break the
undue freeze of the assets. Hazel -Atlas Glass Co v Hartford Empire Co. 322 US 238
(1944). This motion in contempt, memorandum of law and Writ of Certiorari has
sufficient materiality powers for this court judicially rescind the executive order and
vacate the previous orders. The lower could not arrive at a disposition that has assistance
and labors against the constitution or obscure the court; the executive orders are unlawful
revocation of judicial process. The court can arrive a decision or have a just disposition if
the decision at the review has questionability or any usurpation nor "has the appearance
115
of intentional illicit impressments. Article I sections (8) and (9). The respondents are
using wrongful implied powers office and congress.
(16)
The Respondents continue to aggravate the controversy; the delay is increasing the counts
in fraud evaluation; there are firm intrinsic and extrinsic grounds to accelerate contempt.
The entire is "aggravated concealment" the court must give into account in the
consideration to clarify before the Respondents the dynamic "common law "; in which
this matter actually does have the ability judicially tagged as such. No fraud or executive
order can subvert the administration of process and justice. The court must right the
wrong of the wrongdoer. The executive order is a fraud in which the action directs the
agency and directs a vigilance "to become an instrument or conduit of a resulting
scheme ". That implementation is an unconscionable and silent plan or subdue scheme in
the secrecies and constitutional immunities. This motion is for contempt is instant and
immediate action. The Petitioner is pursuing to attack and fix the predicament; the
motions narrative explanations of intrinsic and extrinsic fact void all previous orders and
judgments. This court through this motion is addressing egregious conduct and egregious
case materiality. Browning v Navarro, 826 F. 2d 335 (5t' Cir. 1987). United States v
Throckmorton, 981 US 61 (11th Cir. 1878). The executive order is mischief before the
court as a constitutional ignorance; the court must control the species of duress that
contaminate the process and that is coercive or is inflicting political distress. There is
outstanding and apparent materiality that is causing other outside torts that affect the
Petitioner rights or civil liberties; the Respondents have constructive knowledge they are
causative and the matter must speak the truth in a federal claim. Creel v Johnson, 162 F.
116
3d 385, 391 (5th Cir. 1998). United States v Montilla Ambrosiani, No. 79 -1058 610F. 2d
65 (1st Cir. 1979). United States v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) Lefowitz v Cunningham, 431
U.S. 801 (1977). The Respondents need to purge from this action of contempt, the matter
has criminal ripeness and ingredients sufficient to move in a jury investigation. The court
must protect the public and protect the citizen from loss or deprivations unconstitutional
incurred; this court can open this suit and pursue on the grounds. In Re Id. (quoting 11)
Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 2870 @ 409 (1995); (quoting Kenner v
Commissioner oflnternal Revenue, 387 F. 2d 689, 691 (7th Cir. 1968). The Supreme
Court per request of the Petitioner to reopen; accelerate through the Writ of Certiorari and
Motion for Civil Contempt. There is not valid reasoning to conspire and war against the
constitution to exactly affect the Petitioner. The principal in the Petitioner accounts
should suffer no loss or deduction and the Petitioner request of all documentation
honored; turned over into the Petitioner possession, access and management. The Motion
in the contempt is prescribing; the judicial coerce for compliance, cease and desist of
adverse orders or adverse actions that are financially threaten and unreasonably freeze.
The Respondents acts cause a hardship for the Petitioner is oppressive; Dale v denniVs,
90 Fla. 234, 107 So. 175, 180 (1925). The Respondents cannot benefit from there action
without accepting the natural consequence and responsibilities. Halberstam v Welch, 705
F. 2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983) The Respondents must purge from the contempt, the
Respondents do not be successful in matter of that are conspiring against an estate owner
or with any species of duress. The ingredients and the matter present recipe is sufficient
in the visibility of a foreseeable scheme that would result from "bad passion" and
"maladministration "; in which the Respondents are the author of the overacts is the
117
acquiescence of the intent is accelerating in the contempt. United States v Taylor, 210 F.
3d 311, 318 (5' Cir. 2000). The Respondents are conspiring and laboring creates a
condition that a loss and harm will occur. The Respondents create a recipe to gain by
calculated advantage. The overact in its pathology fit fraud dynamics and suspicious
circumstances that can be in pursuit by jury investigation. United States v Broadway, 477
F. 2d 991 (5' Cir. 1973). United States v Roberts, 619 F. 2d 379, 383 (5' Cir. 1980).
United States v Beechum, 582 F. 2d 898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978).
(17)
The Respondents are the lawbreaker by ignoring the Uniformed Transfer Act and ignore
the Bill of Attainder Clause. Article I section 9. The Respondents don't adhere to or will
not comply with 18 USC 1001; in which they are retaining files, title deeds, accounts
information and monetary instruments. Article III section 2 moves against the egregious
conduct, bad passions and unreasonable freeze; Eminent Domain is abolished. The
Respondents in connection violate 18 USC 645; they are retaining and delay the request
documentation to complete transaction. Huddleston v United States, 485 US 681,689
(1988). United States v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) is compelling grounds for compliance
and purge from contempt or move in further proceedings. The Petitioner is the rightful
heir by lineal descendancy. This motion for contempt is warning, the matter is
functionally criminal and presenting dangers that cause a loss. The Respondents is
exceeding the constitutional parameters of the Ninth Amendment. Williamson v
Department of Agriculture, 815 F. 2d 369 (5t' Cir. 1987). ACLUFoundation v Barr, 952
F. 2d 457, 293 US App. DC 101(CADC 199 1) is the grounds that move through the
immunities. The Respondents are the author's deprivation of constitutional rights is
118
prerequisite to award of damages, but defendant may be personally involved in
constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning
about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or
gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violation. (Gallegos v. Haggerty,
N.D. of New York, 688 F. Supp. 93 (1988). The Petitioner is accelerating the contempt;
the Respondents need to purge from the contempt due to fact the Petitioner has sufficient
facts and can prove every aspect of matter. Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972) is the
grounds for this court to readdress in jury investigation; the previous orders are void the
Petitioner has not had adequate opportunity of a full presentation in court. The motion for
contempt is credible and viable to support Federal Civil Rules of Procedure Rule 42(b);
this motion is the request of the court to extend its powers to protect against a financial
loss and deduce for the degree of judicial intervention or deduce that further exhaustion
to insure that constitution adequacy is met and the torts remedied. The Petitioner submits
and serves contempt is "good faith" or probable cause; where all willful deprivations and
deceptive acts that "attempt to defeat the law" or "frustrate the justice" will cure.
Hafer v Melo, 502 US 21(3 rd Cir. 1991). The Respondents in connection with the
Attorney General and Department of Justice is liable and is misusing the official
capacities of the office in "bad passions" that facilitate an unreasonable freeze and
manipulate the matter with maladministration in unwarranted persecutions or is ensuing
in malus the Petitioner with undue investigations. Therefore; the Respondents are
convoluting the matter in the court with unlawful executive orders processes.
Fnntnnte-
119
In Re United States Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation v Cammisano, 655 F. 2d 1232 (D.C. 1981).
Daugherty n Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340,357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42 -3 (W. Va. 1956). ); Lefowitz v Cunningham,
431 U.S. 801 (1977) Dombroski vPfister 380 U.S. 479 (1965); States v Jimenez Marmok , 95 -10262
(9'h Cir. 1996) Malley v Biggs, 475 US 335, 341 (1986) Anderson v Creighton, 483 US 635, 640 (1987)
Mitchell v Forsyth, 472 US 511 (1985) Monroe v Pape, 365 US 167 (7h Cir. 1968)
United States v Classic, 313 US 299 (1941) Hudson v Palmer, 468 US 517, 533 (e Cir. 1984)
Brown v Mississippi, 297 US 278 (1936) Glenn v Washington County, No. 10 -35636 (9h Cir.2011)
(18)
18 USC 402 The Respondents labor and war against the constitution; and become the
proximate cause of a predicament and financial threat. The bad passions; deliberate
indifference and "wrongful purposed" discriminations are injurious from the abuses of
official authority. The Respondents actions create an irregularity process; therefore they
created constitutional torts that is disfavored by the court. The Respondents use executive
order with the wrong purpose or which it not designed to have ulterior motives to gain a
financial advantage in an estate claim or estate asset transfer nor for the creations of an
undue legal predicament that impede that particular claims transfer process. That order
implementation is egregious; upon the service process of this motion for contempt the
Respondents should remove the sanctions and stop all action against the Petitioner in the
Department of Justice. The Respondents need to detach and diffuse the conflict; the
"freeze" is to be lifted and comply with all requests in the previous motions.
Hillside Associate v Stravato, 642 A2d 664, 667 (R.I. 1994). Cl
ynz v Dom, 740 A. 2d
781, 782 (R.I. 1999). Butera v Boucher, 798 A. 2d 340, 353 (R.I. 2002). The Petitioner
has a genuine claim or issue before this court and is not abusing the civil litigation
process. The court will or should deny all attempts of the Respondents for dismissal or
will object to sham pleading, the Respondents in challenging this performance could be
cited in contempt there is outstanding violations of law and serious issue raised. The
Respondents need should produce all the documentations requested or move into a
120
discovery jury investigation; this matter has not been litigated and show materiality the
court must meet constitutional adequacy requirement for clarification of issues
concerning the estate property and paperwork. The Respondents attempt to sabotage the
ability to take possession or sabotage the pursuit for just compensation. The Respondents
have no reason to investigate the Petitioner in manners that cause an intentional loss of
account or be the caused by illicit impressments of entire estate asset; due to
maladministration and mismanagement government affairs that breech the trust. This
motion for contempt is a "just" action accelerating for a remedy against the Respondents.
The Respondents have served no formal revocation of rights to take possession of the
estate property and has served no revocation rights to monetary accounts. 18 USC 645
the Petitioner property and accounts is unlawfully withheld; the Petitioner is revoking the
trust and management of estate and accounts from the US Treasury/ Respondents,
Morissette v United States, 342 US 246 (1952). The Petitioner's accounts and estate
should not have been the subject of investigation; the accounts are unrelated to any
investigations that ensued by Respondents and Department of Justice executive orders.
Those accounts and the estate should be removed and lifted out of a freeze or seizure
status; the Respondents should pay direct and transfer account into the possession
immediately. Kolb v Empire Trust Co. 280 A.D. 370 (App. Div. Supreme Court of New
York, 1St Dept. 1952) the Petitioner in this motion is revoking form the custody of the
Respondent. United States v Brown, No. 92 -3674 F. 2d 658 (6th Cir. 1993) the
Respondent need to purge from this contempt and show payment before the court or give
explanation before the open court for continued restraints, freeze and seizure. Article III
section 2 accelerate against for contempt; Sykes v Anderson, 625 F. 3d 294, 308 (6th Cir.
121
2010) (citing Barnes v Wright, 449 F. 3d 709, 715- 16(6th Cir. 2006) the Petitioner
contends that the Respondents are using unconstitutional executive order to withhold the
property, the Petitioner contends that the torts that surrounding that order action and
process it vigilance and bad passion of investigation conjugate as "aggravated
concealment ". The results of those order actions and process would be malversation and
impressments; in functional modalities at the present or in the continuum is malfeasance.
Wallace v Kato, 127 S. Ct. 1091, 1096 (2007). The Respondents should cease and desist
action that adversely affect the Petitioner, transfer estate documentation and
unfreeze /transfer the accounts to the Petitioner. Title 12 is the jurisdiction for this aspect
of contempt to accelerate against Respondents.
Footnote:
Mercer v Lence, 96 F.2d 122 (1938). United States v Hill, No.07 -14602 (11th Cir. 2011)
United States v Tweel, 550, F. 2d 297, 299, 300 (1977) United States v Burr, 309 U.S. 24 (1940)
United States v Sriyuth, 98 F.3d 739, 747 n.12 (3d Cir. 1996) United States v Winkle, 587 F.2d 705,708
(5th Cir. 1979). United States v Dial, 757 F. 2d 163, 168 (7th Cir. 1985); Lefowitz v Cunningham , 431 U.S.
801 (1977) United States v Montilla Ambrosiani, 445 US 930 (1st Cir. 1980) Durland v United States, 161
US 304 (1896). United States v Cox 342 F.2d 167(5 1965) Schierson v United States,-116 F.2d 881, 884
3d (1941)United States v Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) Korematsu v United States, U.S. 214 (1944).
COURT'S OBJECTION: Jurisdiction and grounds to amend; force the contempt
(1)
The Petitioner contends to this court; there are sufficient grounds to overrule the order
and judgments; the court should object to the Respondent executive orders and executive
purse in contempt. Article III section 2 the matter is egregious and has extraordinary
circumstance; the Petitioner is requesting this motion for contempt due to the materiality
in US Supreme Court in the statues and precedent decision. 28 USC 636(e) is exercising
and extending its authority of contempt; the executive action obstructs the administration
of justice and oversteps the Ninth Amendment. The executive order defy bank law and
122
US Treasury regulations; the Respondents should conduct matters of US Treasury and
US Government without any species of duress that breech trust, negate fiduciary and
should not conduct government affair while simultaneously jeopardizing that involved or
inclusive citizen's safety unlawful by 18 USC 402. The Petitioner's motion for contempt
has power to prescribe and pursue in this contempt 28 USC 2072. The Respondents are
liable in contempt and is accessible by summons to answer this court on the contempt 28
USC 1442. The Respondents are in direct violation and must purge form this contempt
where 46 Appendix 322 is the control of the court. The Respondents executive action
conspires against the rights of the citizen is criminal in the observation and knowledge of
intrinsic and extrinsic offence that will occur to adversely affect the Petitioner. The
Respondents action of order and vigilance present a danger; as well as create an
intentional deprivation and create an undue financial hardship by a proximate cause by
the Respondents. The Respondents have no validity in law to impose executive order
sanctions or restraints. The issue or controversy is manifesting intentional financial
sabotage "malfeasance ". This motion for contempt is consolidation on a direct appeal a
Writ of Certiorari and Memorandum is attached and served to process 28 USC 1253. It is
this motion effort as a separate action to clarify, to prevent and aid in preventing the
Respondents from accomplishing an illicit goal or prevent the accomplishment of
political scheme or design; in which the Respondents are the author. This motion is the
pursuit to settle the estate's property, accounts and torts. 28 USC 157 is the law that
prescribes matter of estate that involved torts or addition; this court has jurisdiction to
prescribe from 28 USC157. The Respondents should turnover the estate and it income to
the Petitioner. The Respondents should void all plans for sale and other conveyances that
123
concern this estate and asset that is attached. 11 USC 106 overrule the matter and compel
against the immunities of the Respondents, US Treasury, Department of Justice and US
Government as a whole. The Respondent on the acts is susceptible in the application law
18 USC 152 in the overacts is considered in a court as attempt; the mentioned statues is
accelerated and consolidate by 18 USC 152 and 18 USC 645. Article III section 2 this is
"discouraging" common -law fraud and aggravated concealment. Matthews v Eldridge,
424 US 319 (1976) the Petitioner has the right to a hearing where there is issue of
maladministration and wrongful termination of payment to the beneficiary. This
contempt is the Petitioner's exercise of constitutional rights and expectation according to
the law; this suit has tortuous value and merits that weigh in favor of Petitioner. Crowell
v Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1932) there must be compliance where there is injury; the
Respondents must purge from the contempt the court is enforcing the Petitioner's
constitutional rights to uphold the 4th and 15th amendments. The Petitioner is conveying
to the court it necessary to maintain the consistency and the integrities of a financial
institution in which fraudulent or intrinsic or extrinsic must be address in the open court
by just investigation and adequate exhaustion. Ng Fung Ho v White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922).
The Petitioner is due afforded the opportunities of this court process to avert losses and
deprivation under the issuances of executive order. This motion for contempt is
accelerating in the settlement of this suit, this court is overruling the lower courts order
and has is extending its power to override the Respondents and the Attorney
General(USDOJ) there is adverse possession; Nebraska v Iowa, 406 US 117 (1972).
There is error and the court must settle the dispute, the court is improving its interest to
decide who is due benefit and compensation. The act of the Respondents by activation of
124
executive order is the attempt to suppress a land or estate matter, this court must maintain
the public confidence and trust to settle in matters of land and estate. The Respondents
must purge from the appearance of corruption and tortuous interference with inheritance
expectancy. This court objects to the actions of Respondents and the Attorney General,
the acts offend and deprive the Petitioner United States v Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980)
this court rejects the lower court rulings order and may on the contempt, the executive
order in secrecy of the government and executive privilege will lie, the court must purge
the suppression of the Attorney as well as the lower this sufficient fact and merit; the
court must question the rationale of the executive office usage of executive power in land
and estate matter. The Respondents ignore the Ninth Amendment. In Re Sassower v
Mangano the Respondents should adhere to a sound legal practice and the "clean hands
doctrine" the in the standard of the real estate and banking. Mississippi v Louisiana, 346
U.S. 862 (1955) the court is exercising its power in pursing matter in contempt and is
overruling the Respondents and the Attorney General. The matter according to the record
and facts before the court there is a need for remedy. The Respondents have been evasive
and have the appearance of absconding, the money estate and document where due
settlement or transfer since January 2009; the court will address the matter in a just
settlement and solve with a fair right disposition by this contempt motion. Cobell v
Norton, CA 996 -1285 F. Supp. 2d 24, 27 (RCL) (D.C.C. 2001). The Petitioner is request
and is pursuant in Federal Civil Rules of Procedure Rule 42(b)
(2)
125
Article III section 2 United States v Hubell, 530 U.S. 27 (2007), The Respondents action
is provable without any document before entering into a jury review. The Respondents
should avoidance "shame pleadings" and purge from the contempt. This contempt is
protecting the constitution rights of the Petitioner; this court is accelerating the matter to
arrive at the proper disposition. United States v LUmon, 730 F. Supp. 332, 341-
42(D.Colo. 1990). The contempt action is correcting and forces compliance. United
States v Star, 470 F. 1214 (9t' Cir 1972). The entire complaint or matter is reliable and
credible; this motion is to vacate the lower courts judgments and orders. The court has
general knowledge of executive order activities against the Petitioner concerning matters
of money and land matter. The Respondents ulterior expectations and reasoning of
vigilance is the elements or materiality enough for this court to proceed in non-
compliance of this contempt action. United States v Martell, F. 2d 670, 672 (3rd Cir.
1952) is accelerating against the Respondents. The Respondents actions is "outside the
norms a banking institution. United States v Boedker, 389 F. Supp. (1974) the entire
complaint on record is enough facts for this court move through contempt for a jury
investigation.In Re. Boedker, fiduciary duty and the executive privilege will lie; there is
need to remove the cloud around the issue on why the Respondents will not adhere 18
USC 645 and 18 USC 1001. This contempt is pursuing to prevent the frustration of
administrating the justice, the power of the civil demand and power of court 18 USC 4 is
force to nullify executive order. United States v Miller, 425 US 435 (1976). The
Respondents need to purge from the contempt, this court move process to attain the
records documents or material that pertain this situation for a proper disposition. The
concealment is facilitated by "torts ", the court is moving on a factual intent of unlawful
126
impressments will result. The executive obstruct the transaction and court process. United
States v Wong 431 U.S. 174,179 n. (1977) this court reserve right to call any agent to give
a sworn statement before this court in the physical establishment or areas where this
matter is concerning on the activation of financial crimes network. The Respondents need
to voluntary cooperate with this contempt. The Respondents wrongful action and
extraordinary efforts or negligence concerning the asset demand compliance; the
Respondents cause a danger to the Petitioner. There is enough criminality "in the eyes of
the court" to pursue in further proceedings if the Respondents do not purge from this
contempt voluntarily. Shillitani v United States, 384 U.S. 364, 371 n. 8 (1963). The court
must arrive at different conclusion and disposition and the Respondent can be imputable
in contempt while the due course of the proceedings is ongoing. The matter that is
presented will stand on its own merit and own its own materiality. United States v
Caladera, 414 U.S. 338 (1974).The potential for fraud is invisible; the clean hands
doctrine and the fraud exception is relevant for the Attorney General to comply with the
contempt; the federal conflict of interest statues. The Attorney General and the
Respondents fail adhere to those statues. United States v Williams, 112 S. Ct. 1735 (1992)
The Attorney General and the Department of Justice have culpability of torts that
involved and must the court guard against fraudulent inducement; the Respondents and
Attorney General must comply with this contempt. United States v Sells Engineering
Inc., 463 US 418, 427 (1983).
(3)
127
The Petitioner contends to this court to object to the Respondents; pursue this thorough
this motion for contempt. The Respondents attempt to frustrate the justice to sustain the
concealment by committing torts in bad passion. The suit will sustain; the Petitioner
should succeed just on the factual basis of the matter in the present review of this court.
United States v Hilton, 534 F.2d 556, 564, 565 (3d Cir. 1976) Brazburg v Haves' 408
U.S. 665. 686 (1973). The Respondents must comply with 18 USC 1001 and turnover all
requested information, monetary instruments and property. The Petitioner is pursuing
thorough this court and has at present specific element in the issue in this suit; from a
court reasonable conclusion and determination the matter meet the requirement for
contempt. This court can commence the action for further proceedings. United States v
Bednarski, 445 F. 364, 366 (1St Cir. 1971). United States v Gaskins, 485 F.2d 1046, 1048
(D.C. 1972).
(4)
The Petitioner contends to this court; to continue the objection against the Respondents.
The Respondents must purge from this action in the contempt. United States v. Attanasio
870 F.2d 809, 815 (2d Cir.1989). This court can move of the specific facts of a scheme
and they are the participants. The question of law is that; the Respondents signed into
action of executive order; and has excited a political vigilance directed at the Petitioner.
The Respondents knew the result would manifest dangerous thing and the actions would
be depriving; usurping by executive order sanctions, restriction and "wrongful freeze ".
The manner the Respondents use executive order is unusual in the civilian sector. The
Respondents initiated various modalities to create duress and heightened the controversy
in the public at large with disdain. The motion for contempt is accelerating, overturns the
128
previous order in the lower court as error and moves this contempt into discovery
investigation as matter of law. United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449 n. 12, 106 S.Ct.
725, 732 n. 12, 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986); United States v. Turoff, 853 F.2d 1037, 1042 (2d
Cir. 1988). The Petitioner has present a memorandum of law that supports the Writ
Certiorari clarifies and summarizes the entire situation; this contempt aid the court in a
cease and desist proceeding United States Perri, 513 F. 2d 572, 575 (9' Cir. 1975).
United States v Robin, 545 F.2d 775 (2d Cir. 1976). This court is compelled as a running
objection and sustains the contempt; to avert a loss and diminished the duress involved.
The Respondents need to purge form the contempt. The Petitioner and this court rely on
the legislative history of United States v Nixon 418 U.S. 683 (1974) Armstrong v
Treasury No. 2009 -3155. The Respondents do not adhere to 18 USC 1001 and the need
have give into culpability of torts committed described in 46 Appendix 322.
(5)
Article III section 2 the Petitioner contends to the fact this suit in not moot. The
Respondents have wrongs that affect the Petitioner by 46 Appendix 322 The court in this
contempt is "removing the cloud" in this suit; there elements in this suit that egregious.
The issue is not frivolous or moot where this court should not reopen or dismiss it at this
critical stage. Willing ct v Chicago Auditorium Ass'n, 277 U.S. 274 (1928); the matter is
trespassing several statues that must be addressed with force of the federal court
5 USC 702. The suit has cause for action and the Responsible have the opportunity that
is reinjure. The Respondents are in the continuum of injury or pecuniary harm. The
Respondents made the subject and made the predicament; the Respondents are causing
financial loss and hardship. 3.3 MOOTNESS is not an option in this motion for contempt.
129
There is sufficient harms, sufficient dangers and a great amount of time has passed while
the Respondents have inflicting duress. The executive order is the instrument to aid
concealment. The facts are reliable and credible, [ State v Burnett, No WD 54610 (Mo.
West. Dist. 1998) ( "within the meaning of the statue ")]. The Respondents violate 18 USC
645; there is enough to pursue in an instant action in 18 USC 912 USAM 948. The court
can reach a different disposition or reach a different determination. There is problem at
this present time and the court should dissolve the controversy in further proceedings. In
Re. Hall, 96 US at 41. Burke v Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363 (1987). The action or situation
was not litigated in lower courts, there are a number of constitutional torts that must be
address for compensation United States v Munsingwear, Inc 340 US 36 (1950) will not
rescue the Respondents in moot; the matter presents to court as a predicament that shock
judicial conscience and the Respondents are breaking the law. The suit at this time is
egregious and presents as obnoxious to the constitution. The Respondents must purge
from this contempt motion. Cobell v Norton, CA 996 -1285 F. Supp. 2d 24, 27 (RCL)
(D.C.C. 2001).
130
WHEREFORE, I, TONY CURTIS BARRINO, on behalf of myself as pursuant by
Federal Civil Rule of Procedure 42(b) in this Motion for Contempt against the named
Respondents. The Petitioner request that United States Supreme Court grant this motion
for contempt on the above mentioned grounds and statue 18 USC 402.
Respectfully Submitted,
Date: January 26th, 2012
131
Tony Barrino
Petitioner /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
(704)637 -9355
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Tony Curtis Barrino, having been first duly sworn and state that; I have served a copy
the attached Notice of Motion and this Motion for Contempt on the Respondents; named
on the cover page. The Solicitor General was served by mail at 950 Pennsylvania Ave.
N.W., Washington, DC 20503 on January 26th, 2012.
Tony Barrino
Petitioner /Pro Se
226 N. Long St.
Salisbury, NC 28144
Signed and sworn before me on this day of January 2012.
My Commission expires on
132
Notary Public
[Seal]
I
A GUIDEBOOK OF
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
FOR
RESEARCH INVOLVING
HUMAN SUBJECTS
y� -
'A
The College of New Jersey
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
Last Updated June 2009
6/2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... ..............................1
H. DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................ ..............................5
III. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES ............................................................ .............................13
IV. IRB REVIEW OF PROPOSED RESEARCH STUDIES ....................... .............................14
A. EXPEDITED REVIEW ........................................................................ .............................15
B. FULL BOARD REVIEW
C. RESEARCH EXEMPTIONS FROM IRB REVIEW
15
16
V. IRB MEMBERSHP: COMPOSITION, PROCESS, AND FUNCTION .. .............................17
VL IRB PROCEDURES, INSTTI'UTIONAL RESPONSBILITIES AND
INVESTIGATORS' RESPONSIBIIdTIES ....................................... .............................18
VII. IRB CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING AND APPROVING PROPOSALS .................... 21
VIII. INFORMED CONSENT ........................................................................ .............................22
IX. GUIDANCE FOR ENROLLING COLLEGE STUDENTS AS RESEARCH
SUBJECTS & USING STUDENT SUBJECT POOLS .................... .............................29
X. STUDENTS INVOLVED IN OR LEADING RESEARCH ................... .............................33
XI. RESEARCH ON PREGNANT WOMEN, FETUSES, PARTS OF FETUSES, AND
PLACENTAS, BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH ON
PRISONERS, AND STUDIES OF CHILDREN AND WARDS OF THE
STATE................................................................................................... ............................... 36
/'41 A II IIILII_V Y [I]► /_ \►1 BIN 0IRA 10111►[!1
.............38
.111 ' I : 1► I .I 1: 1 '
APPENDIX........................................................................................................ ............................... 40
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING A HUMAN SUBJECTS PROPOSAL ......... 40
6/2009
I. INTRODUCTION
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the College of New Jersey is an appropriately
constituted administrative body established to protect the rights and welfare of human
subjects recruited to participate in research activities. In accordance with The College of
New Jersey policy governing the use of human subjects in research and the Federalwide Assurance
(FWA) (FWA00004576) maintained with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS), Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), all human subjects research conducted by
or under the auspices of The College of New Jersey will be performed in accordance with Title 45
Code of Federal Regulations, Part §46 (45 CFR §46). In addition, the actions of the College's IRB
will conform to all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations.
The IRB performs critical oversight functions for research conducted on human subjects that
are scientific, ethical, and regulatory. The committee is formally designated to review and
monitor biomedical and behavioral research that takes place on campus. It is charged with
the responsibility and authority of approving, requiring modification in, halting unapproved
or non - compliant research, periodically monitoring the progress of long -term records, or
disapproving all research activities involving human subjects that fall within its jurisdiction.
The IRB is responsible for establishing and administering institutional policies and
procedures through which the College conforms to federal, state and local regulations that
govern the protection of human subjects participating in research (human research subjects).
All research involving the collection of information, data or specimens /samples from or
about human subjects or information, data, specimens /samples gathered from humans at
some prior time either by the researchers themselves or someone else, must be reviewed and
approved prior to such studies being undertaken. This policy applies to:
• any research whether new, ongoing, or proposed, regardless of funding status and
source, whether conducted at the College of New Jersey or elsewhere, by anyone
affiliated with The College (i.e., faculty, staff, student).
• any investigator from outside The College of New Jersey that wishes to perform
research on members of the TCNJ community or on its campus must have a College of New
Jersey faculty or staff member serve as sponsor or co- investigator.
The policy does not apply to a faculty or staff member of The College of New Jersey who is
hired as a consultant to do research outside of the college, and who performs the research
outside of their capacity as an employee of The College of New Jersey.
The terms of the TCNJ FWA (but not necessarily all of the policies and procedures in this
Guide) apply to all subcontractors and collaborators of research conducted by TCNJ
personnel. The TCNJ principal investigator is responsible for assuring that appropriate
human subjects protections are in place at the collaborating institution and, when they are
not, bringing those protocols to the TCNJ IRB for approval.
The college's IRB Committee is directed by a chairperson, and is comprised of members with
multidisciplinary expertise and backgrounds as required by federal policy. The Committee
6/2009
determines the role and responsibilities of committee members and researchers in human
subject protection. If appropriate, the Committee reports all violations of guidelines and regulations
to the IRB chair. The Committee provides the Provost with an annual report of its activities and
recommendations for Committee membership the following year. A current list of the IRB
committee members is posted on the IRB website.
The purpose of the IRB review is to assure, both in advance and by periodic monitoring, that
appropriate steps are taken to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects. To
accomplish this process, the IRB uses a group deliberation process to review and approve research
protocols and related material (e.g., informed consent documents, investigator brochures,
questionnaires). The focus of the process is to ensure that:
1. The risks to human subjects are minimized by using procedures that are consistent with sound
research design and that do not unnecessarily expose the research participants to risk
2. The risks to human research subjects are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits (if
any) to the individual, and the importance of the knowledge that may be expected to result.
• For the purpose of IRB consideration, "risk" is defined as the probability of harm or
injury (physical, psychological, social, or economic) occurring as a result of
participation in a research study. In evaluating risk, the IRB is to consider the
conditions that make the situation dangerous, per se (i.e., as opposed to those chances
that specific individuals are willing to undertake for some desired goals).
• For the purpose of IRB consideration, "benefit' is defined as a valued or desired
outcome, an advantage.
• In evaluating risks and benefits, the IRB considers only those risks and benefits that
may result from the research.
3. The selection of human subjects for research projects is equitable.
4. Human research subjects are adequately informed of the risks and benefits of research
participation and the procedures that will be involved in the research; and that informed
consent is obtained from each prospective human research subject, or his/her legally
authorized representative, in accordance with, and to the extent required by federal
regulations and HM policies.
5. Informed consent of human research subjects is obtained in advance of research
participation and appropriately documented in accordance with, and to the extent required by
federal regulation and IRB policies.
6. The research plan, when appropriate, makes adequate provision for monitoring the data
collected to ensure the safety of the human research subject.
7. 'There are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of human research subjects and to
maintain the confidentiality of research data.
8. Appropriate additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and
welfare of human research subjects who are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue
influence (e.g. children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally or physically challenged
persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons).
6/2009
II. DEFINITIONS
Adverse event:
An unwanted and unintended occurrence affecting a human participant during research.
Adverse events may be unexpected or expected.
Adverse event reports:
Researcher reports of all serious adverse events, injuries, and/or deaths given to the sponsor,
the IRB, the FDA, and the NIH.
Assent:
Agreement by an individual not competent to give legally valid informed consent (e.g., a
child or cognitively impaired person) to participate in research.
Assurance:
A written, binding commitment filed with a Federal agency by an institution that wishes to
conduct human research. The institution promises to comply with applicable regulations
governing human subject research and stipulates the procedures through which compliance
will be achieved.
Autonomy:
Personal capacity to consider alternatives, make choices, and act without undue influence or
interference of others.
Belmont Report:
The report entitled Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human
Participants of Research generated by the National Commission for the Protection of Human
Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1979. The ethical principles identified in
this document: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice became the cornerstone of
Federal regulation of protection for research participants.
Beneficence:
An ethical principle discussed in the Belmont Report that entails an obligation to protect
persons from harm. The principle of beneficence can be expressed in two general rules: (1)
do no harm; and (2) protect from harm by maximizing anticipated benefits and minimizing
possible risks of harm.
6/2009
Benefit:
A benefit in research is a valued or desired outcome enjoyed by the participant (therapeutic
benefit), or accruing to a group under study, or to their family members, or to scientific
knowledge (nontherapeutic benefit).
Certification:
The official notification by the institution to the supporting Department or Agency, in
accordance with the requirements of 45CFR46, that a research project or activity involving
human participants has been reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board in
accordance with an approved assurance.
Child or children:
Persons who have not attained the legal age for consent to treatments or procedures involved
in research under the applicable law of the jurisdiction in which the research will be
conducted. Special rules and protections govern the participation of children in research.
Common Rule:
The "Common Rule" refers to Federal statutes governing the protection of human subjects in
research, enacted in 1991 and adopted by 17 Federal agencies. The Common Rule is set forth
in the Code of Federal Regulations, 45 CFR 46, and covers all federally funded research
supported by the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Commerce, HUD, Justice, Defense,
Education, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and LUIS, as well as NSF, NASA, EPA, AID,
Social Security Administration, CIA, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The
provisions are identical to the DHHS Regulations (45 CFR 46, Subpart A).
Data:
Multiple facts (usually, but not necessarily, empirical) used as a basis for inference, testing,
analysis, etc. or used as the basis for decision - making.
Data and Safety Monitoring Plan:
A plan with a general description of data and safety monitoring of a clinical research study.
The plan is developed by the researcher, included in the protocol, and submitted to the IRB
for review and approval before the study begins. An appropriate plan reflects the risks of the
study, including its size and complexity.
Declaration of Helsinki:
Statement of ethical principles for human participation in biomedical research. The
Declaration was first adopted in 1964 by the World Medical Association. It has been revised
five times, most recently in 2000. Like the Nuremberg Code that preceded it, the Declaration
6/2009
of Helsinki makes consent a central requirement of ethical research. The Declaration initially
established a distinction between the standards for therapeutic and non - therapeutic research;
however, this has been eliminated in recent revisions.
Double Masked Design or "Double Blind" Design:
A study design in which neither the investigators nor the subjects know the treatment group
assignments of individual subjects.
Embryo:
The developing organism from conception or implantation until approximately the eighth
week of pregnancy.
Epidemiology:
A scientific discipline that studies the factors determining the causes, frequency, and
distribution of diseases in a community or specified population.
Expedited Review:
Review of proposed research by the IRB Chair or a designated voting member or group of
voting members rather than the entire IRB.
Exclusion Criteria:
The list of elements in a person's medical history that would prevent an individual from
participating in a specific study.
Fetus:
The product of conception from the end of the eighth week of pregnancy until birth or
expulsion.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA):
An agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that monitors the
manufacture, import, transport, storage, and sale of goods regulated under the Food, Drug
and Cosmetics Act and related Federal public health laws.
Guardian:
An individual entitled or authorized to make decisions affecting the health or medical care of
another, including the ability to consent.
6/2009
Human participant (subject):
A living individual about whom an investigator conducting research obtains (1) data through
intervention or interaction, or (2) identifiable private information.
Inclusion criteria:
The list of elements in a person's medical history necessary to allow an individual to
participate in a specific study.
Informed consent:
A person's voluntary agreement, based upon adequate knowledge and understanding of
relevant information, to participate in research. Informed consent also refers to the process of
information exchange between researcher and participant prior to participation in research.
The information to be conveyed to the participant is factual information, including an
assessment of the risks of participation, eight specific elements required by Federal
regulations, a description of the procedures that will be performed, and the persons
responsible. The information conveyed by the participant to the researcher is an indication of
his or her comprehension of the process, the voluntary nature of participation, and
understanding of his or her rights, including the right to withdraw.
The informed consent form is a written document, signed by participants in research studies
prior to commencement of the study. The form is presented to and signed by the participant,
who should have a chance to ask questions regarding the research prior to the
commencement of the study.
Institutional Review Board (MB):
A specially constituted review body established to protect the welfare of human participants
in research. Federal law states that all institutions supported by a federal Department or
Agency to which the Common Rule applies must establish an IRB to review and approve
research involving human subjects.
Institutional Review Board approval:
The determination of the HM that the research has been reviewed and may be conducted at
an institution within the constraints set forth by the IRB and by other institutional and
Federal requirements.
Intervention:
An action that produces an effect or that is intended to alter the course of a pathologic
process. Includes both physical procedures by which data are gathered (e.g., venipuncture)
and manipulations of the participant or the participant's environment performed for research
purposes.
6/2009
Institution:
Any public or private entity or Agency (including Federal, state, and other agencies);
location of research.
Investigator:
In research studies, an individual who actually conducts an investigation [21 CFR 312.3].
Any interventions (e.g., drugs) involved in the study are administered to subjects under the
immediate direction of the Investigator.
Justice:
An ethical principle discussed in the Belmont Report requiring fairness in the distribution of
burdens and benefits; often expressed in terms of treating persons of similar circumstances or
characteristics similarly.
Legally authorized representative:
An individual or judicial or other body authorized under applicable law to consent on behalf
of a prospective participant to his or her participation in the procedure(s) involved in the
research.
Minor:
A person who has not attained the age of majority in a particular jurisdiction.
Minimal risk:
The probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort normally encountered in the daily
lives, or in the routine medical, dental, or psychological examination of healthy persons. This
also includes the normal exercise and training routine of athletes and athletic teams.
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
The federal government's primary agency for advancing knowledge in biomedical and
behavioral sciences intended to understand and treat human diseases. The NIH is part of the
U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) within the Department of Health and Human Services.
National Research Act:
The law that authorized the creation of the National Commission for Protection of Human
Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1974 and mandated review of research
studies by institutional review boards.
6/2009
10
Normal "Control" Volunteers:
Volunteer subjects used to study normal physiology and/or behavior or who do not have the
condition under study in a particular protocol. Normal volunteers may be studied for
comparison with subjects who have the condition under study.
Nuremberg Code:
A code of research ethics developed during the trials of Nazi war criminals following World
War II. This code became the first international standard for the conduct of research and
began the modern era of protection for human research participants.
Office for Human Research Protection (OHRP):
The office within the Department of Health and Human Services responsible for
implementing DHHS regulations (45 CFR Part 46) governing research involving human
subjects. The OHRP has direct oversight and educational responsibilities wherever DHHS
funds are used to conduct or support research involving human participants. Additionally, it
serves as a research, guidance and educational resource for all institutions involved in
conducting research that involves human partnership, regardless of the funding status of the
research.
Parent:
A person's biological or adoptive parent. In the conduct of research, the permission of the
parent is generally necessary if the potential participant is a minor.
Permission:
The agreement of parent(s) or guardian(s) to the participation of their child or ward in
research.
Pregnancy:
The state of a female after conception or implantation until the birth of a baby or expulsion of
the fetus.
Randomization:
Assignment of subjects to different treatments, interventions, or conditions according to
chance rather than systematically (e.g., as dictated by the standard or usual response to their
condition, history, or prognosis, or according to demographic characteristics). Random
assignment of subjects to conditions is an essential element of experimental research because
it makes more likely the probability that differences observed between subject groups are the
result of the experimental intervention.
6/2009
11
Recruitment:
The act of selecting and enrolling research participants for a study using proper inclusion
criteria.
Research:
Federal research regulations and the Health Insurance Portability and accountability
Act of 1996 (HIPAA) define research as "a systematic investigation, including research
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable
knowledge." There are two key elements of this definition: (1) the project involves a
systematic investigation, and (2) the design — meaning goal, purpose, or intent — of the
investigation is to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.)
Qualitative research may be exempt if the only procedures involve the use of...survey
procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless:
(i) Information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can
be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and
(ii) Any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could
reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be
damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation.)
Researcher:
The individual who conducts and directs the study and carries the primary responsibility for
the research. The Researcher is referred to as the Principal Investigator when acting as the
leader of a research team.
Respect for Persons:
An ethical principle discussed in the Belmont Report requiring that individual autonomy be
respected and that persons with diminished autonomy be protected.
Risks:
The probability of harm or injury (physical, psychological, social, or economic) occurring as
a result of participation in a research study. Both the probability and magnitude of possible
harm may vary from minimal to significant.
Risk/Benefit Analysis:
An analysis of the potential risks to participants considered against the potential benefits to
the individual or to the research objectives of the study.
' Bankert, E.A. & Amdur, R.J. (2005). Institutional Review Board: Management and Function, pg. 101
and 397.
6/2009
12
Sponsor:
An individual, company, institution, or organization that initiates and finances a research
study. A sponsor is not necessarily the entity that conducts the research.
Therapy:
Treatment intended and expected to alleviate a disease or disorder.
Toxicity:
Having to do with poison or something harmful to the body. Toxic substances usually cause
unwanted side effects to an organ system and/or to the participant's subjective status
produced by therapy. Toxicities are graded numerically, with the lowest number representing
no toxicity (e.g., 0 = none) and the highest number highest representing lethal toxicity (e.g., 5
= lethal).
Unexpected adverse event:
An adverse event not described in the Package Insert, Investigator's Brochure, published
medical literature, protocol, or informed consent document.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
An international declaration adopted in 1948 by the United Nations as the first
comprehensive agreement among nations as to the specific rights and freedoms of all human
beings.
Voluntary:
Free of coercion, duress, or undue inducement. Used in the research context to refer to
subject's decision to participate (or to continue to participate) in a research activity.
Vulnerable participants /population:
Individuals or groups of subjects who, by reason of disability, illness, age, or other status
exhibit diminished personal autonomy. Neither the Federal regulations nor ethical codes,
including the Belmont Report, proscribe inclusion of vulnerable persons as research subjects.
However, DHHS regulations mandate special justification for research involving fetuses,
pregnant women, and human in vitro fertilization [45 CFR 46 Subpart B]; prisoners [45 CFR
46 Subpart C]; and children [45 CFR 46 Subpart D].
6/2009
13
III. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
The College of New Jersey (hereafter, "the College ") is committed to the pursuit of
excellence in teaching, research, and public service. Concomitantly, the College seeks to
protect the welfare of every person who may be involved in research and training projects.
Members of the College community, although upholding the highest standards of freedom of
inquiry and communication, accept the responsibility this freedom offers: for competence, for
objectivity, for consideration of the best interests of the College and society, and for the welfare
of every participant in a project. The College gives assurance that it will comply with the federal
policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (or "Common Rule," as it is sometimes called)
(45 CFR §46, as amended) in accordance with the guidance set forth by the Office for Human
Research Protections (OHRP) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The
following principles are affirmed and should be interpreted in the broad context provided by
the code of medical and general ethics promulgated by the World Medical Association as the
Declaration of Helsinki, by the report of the National Commission for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research known as the Belmont Report, and for
fimded research, any additional human subjects regulations and policies of the supporting
Department or Agency.
A. The basic ethical principles set forth in the Belmont Report, respect for persons,
beneficence, and justice underlie the requirements for the ethical conduct of research
involving human subjects at The College of New Jersey. Respect for persons involves a
recognition of the personal dignity and autonomy of individuals, and special protection of
those persons with diminished autonomy. Beneficence entails an obligation to protect
persons from harm by maximizing anticipated benefits and minimizing possible risks of
harm. Justice requires that the benefits and burdens of research be distributed fairly.
B. Because the participation of humans in research and training projects may raise
fundamental ethical and civil rights issues, no distinctions in the monitoring of projects
will be drawn between funded and unfunded projects, sponsored and unsponsored
projects, or between projects carried out by students, faculty, or other College employees,
on- campus or off - campus.
C. All activities involving humans as subjects must provide for the safety, health, and
welfare of every individual. Rights, including the right of privacy, must not be
infringed.
D. The direct or potential benefits to the subject or the importance of the knowledge gained
must outweigh the risks to the individual inherent in the proposed research.
E. Participation in projects must be voluntary, and informed consent must be obtained from
all subjects, unless this requirement is specifically waived by the College's Institutional
Review Board (IRB). Methods that are in accordance with the requirements of 45 CFR
§46.116 and 45 CFR §46.117 and adequate and appropriate to the risks of the project
must be used to obtain the subjects' informed consent.
6/2009
14
F. When required, consent must be obtained from the participants themselves whenever
possible. Further, if a subject is not legally or physically capable of giving fully
informed consent, a legally authorized representative should do so. Careful
consideration shall be given to the representative's depth of interest and concern with the
subject's rights and welfare. Parents, for example, may not expose their child to more
than minimal risk except for the child's direct benefit.
G. An individual does not abdicate any rights by consenting to be a research subject. A
subject has the right to withdraw from a research project at any time or to refuse to
participate, without loss of benefits to which the subject would otherwise be entitled.
Further, a subject has the right to receive appropriate professional care, to enjoy privacy
and confidentiality in the use of personal information, and to be free from undue
physical risk, embarrassment, discomfort, anxiety, and harassment. 'These rights need to
be clearly defined for all potential subjects.
H. The IRB acknowledges the potential for a conflict of interest or coercion in an academic
setting where participants in research studies are also students in a course. The primary
investigator is responsible for minimizing these effects in recruiting subjects.
I. Safeguarding information about an individual that has been obtained in the course of an
investigation is a primary obligation of the investigator. Investigators should detail to
the IRB what security measures will be taken to ensure that privacy will be maintained
Records containing personal information shall be destroyed as soon as possible in
keeping with the long -range goals of the project. Specific subject information shall not
be communicated to others unless one of the following conditions is met:
• Explicit permission for the release of identifying data is given by the individual.
• Information about individuals may be discussed only for professional purposes
and only with persons clearly involved in the project. Written and oral reports
should present only data germane to the purposes of the project, and every effort
should be made to avoid a breach of confidentiality.
• The investigator is legally required to provide such information (e.g., child abuse,
sexual abuse, or other illegal activities revealed by a subject).
J. An individual involved in the conduct and/or supervision of a specific project shall not
participate in the IRB review, except to provide information.
6/2009
15
IV. IRB REVIEW OF PROPOSED RESEARCH STUDIES
'The IRB of the College of New Jersey must review and approve all research activities involving
human subjects that fall within its jurisdiction prior to the implementation of such research activities.
There are three categories of IRB review of proposed studies:
1. Expedited review,
2. Full board review, and
3. Research exemptions from IRB review.
Types of IRB Review
Depending on the level of risk of the research protocol and the participant population, IRBs
may conduct either full board review or expedited review.
Expedited Review
For certain kinds of research involving no more than minimal risk, and for minor changes in
approved research, the IRB Chair or a designated voting member or group of voting
members review the proposed research rather than the entire IRB. It cannot be assumed that
research poses minimal risk because it involves only interview or survey data collection.
Sensitive questions may lead to distress that exposes participants to greater than minimal
risk. Loss of confidentiality can cause harm to participants, their relatives, and others.
Full Board Review
When full board review is necessary, the research proposal is presented and discussed at a
meeting at which a quorum of IRB members is present. For the research to be approved, it
must receive the approval of a majority of those voting members present. (Note that, in
effect, an abstention counts as a negative vote.)
Research Exemptions from IRB Review
Under Federal regulations [45 CFR 46.101 (b)l, certain categories of activity are considered
research but may be declared exempt from review by the IRB. Certain low -risk research is
exempt from the requirements in the Federal regulations concerning IRB review and
approval. If a study falls into one of the exempt categories, researchers still have ethical
responsibilities to protect participants' rights. The researcher should not make the final
determination of exemption from the applicable Federal regulations or the provisions of the
institution. This determination should be made by someone other than the Principal
Investigator. The College of New Jersey, in accordance with federal policy, requires that
exempt status must be confirmed by the IRB. These confirmations are conducted by the IRB
chair and/or his/her designee(s).
Following initial determination of exempt status, exempt research activities are not subject to
annual renewal requirements.
6/2009
16
The following are the six exempt categories listed in 45 CFR 46.101
1) Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings,
involving normal educational practices. Research on the effectiveness of, or the
comparison among, instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management
methods.
2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude,
achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public
behavior, unless:
(a) Information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human participants
can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to them and
(b) Any disclosure of the human participant's responses outside the research
could reasonably place the participant at risk of criminal or civil liability
or be damaging to the participant's financial standing, employability, or
reputation.
3) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude,
achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public
behavior that is not exempt under paragraph (2) of this section, if:
a) The participants are elected or appointed public officials or candidates for
public office.
b) Federal statute(s) require(s) without exception that the confidentiality of the
personally identifiable information be maintained throughout the research and
thereafter.
4) Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records,
pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these sources are publicly
available or if the information is recorded by the researcher in such a manner that
participants cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to them. To
qualify for this exemption these sources must be publicly available or the information
or the information must be recorded.
5) Research and demonstration projects conducted by or subject to the approval of
Federal department or agency heads and designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise
examine public health benefit or service programs.
6) Taste and food - quality evaluation and consumer acceptance studies.
These exemptions do not apply to research involving prisoners, fetuses, pregnant women, or
newborns. Further, the exemption in item 2 above does not apply to children, except in
research involving observations of public behavior when the researcher(s) do not participate
in the activities being observed. Interviews, surveys, and interactive observations are not
exempt, while educational tests and noninteractive observations are.
6/2009
17
Note that when research is conducted in countries outside the United States by foreign
Principal Investigators, the rules for IRB review and exemption may differ if the bases for the
institutional assurances are founded upon documents other than the Belmont Report and the
Common Rule. Note that research conducted in countries outside the United States by U.S. -
based Principal Investigators is not affected by this potential modification. Researchers
should review the section covering international research for further information and always
consult with their institution's IRB.
V. IRB MEMBERSHIP; COMPOSITION, PROCESS, AND
FUNCTION
A. The membership of the IRB shall include at least one community representative, the
Provost or his/her designated representative who shall serve ex- officio, and a minimum of
six faculty members. Faculty members will be selected according to the College's
research needs, but shall include at least one member whose primary expertise is in a non-
scientific area (e.g., law, religion, or ethics). Ideally, the Committee should include
members from a variety of disciplines on campus. The Committee shall be sufficiently
qualified through the experience and expertise of its members, and the diversity of the
members, including consideration of race, gender, and cultural backgrounds, and
sensitivity to such issues as community attitudes, to promote respect for its advice and
counsel in safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects. (45 CFR §46.107(a))
The Committee may, at its discretion, invite individuals with competence in special areas
to assist in the review of complex issues that require expertise beyond or in addition to that
available on the Committee. 'These individuals shall have no voting rights.
Appointments to the Committee shall be made by the Provost on recommendation from
the IRB. Faculty representatives shall typically serve three -year terms, with one -third
rotation each year. Non - faculty representatives shall also serve for a three year term. The
Chair, vice -chair and recorder shall be elected from among the committee members by a
majority vote of the committee. Officers of the IRB will maintain their position until the
end of their terra or for a three -year period, whichever comes fast. An officer of the IRB
may be reelected, and there are no limits to the number of terms they may serve.
IRB members are expected to attend all meetings. It is acknowledged that at times
conflicts may arise that prevents attendance. However, it is expected that members will
make every effort to attend each meeting. If an IRB member does not attend more than
half of the meetings in an academic year, they will be removed from the IRB committee.
B. A quorum of the members of the IRB, including at least one member whose primary
concerns are in non - scientific areas, must be present at a meeting in order to conduct
business. Final approval by the IRB shall then require a two-thirds vote by members
present. If the IRB agrees that the proposed research protects human subjects in
accordance with established standards, its conclusion shall constitute certification of
6/2009
M
approval. A letter of approval will be sent to the investigator with copies to the faculty
advisor (if appropriate) and to the school or department internal review committee (if any).
A copy of the letter of approval will be maintained by the IRB.
C. Departments and schools may continue to operate internal review committees. The TCNJ
IRB is working on guidelines for such committees. If your department is interested or
planning an internal review process, please contact the IRB Chair to begin conversation.
These internal review committees shall provide preliminary reviews of their divisions'
proposals prior to review by the College's IRB, but shall not replace the review of the
College's IRB. The College's IRB will not consider a proposal originating from within
those schools or departments that maintain internal review committees unless the proposal
first has been approved by that committee.
D. All e -mail and written correspondence between authors of proposals and reviewers will be
maintained for a period of three years in the IRB file.
VI. IRB PROCEDURES, INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
AND INVESTIGATORS' RESPONSIBILITIES
A. All human subject research proposals affiliated with the College ofNew Jersey will be
electronically submitted for documentation and tracking under one of three categories:
Expedited, Full, Exempt. "The IRB will determine the category of review. Researchers
cannot exempt from review their own study or research for which they are responsible.
Similarly, individuals involved in the conduct and/or supervision of a research project
cannot participate in its review, except to provide information to the IRB.
B. "The College's IRB has the authority to approve or disapprove all research using human
subjects. "Human research" includes undergraduate research (e.g. Honors), graduate
thesis research, faculty and staff research, and research conducted by external
investigators. Unapproved research may not be conducted on campus under any
circumstance. Individuals connected with the College must have their off campus human
research approved or exempted if the researcher indicates to subjects or other participants
an affiliation with the College, if College funds or equipment are used, or if the research
will be used to fa fill a degree requirement at the College.
When the investigator is a student, ultimate responsibility for the conduct of this
research and the supervision of human subjects lies with the faculty sponsor.
Following project approval, the faculty sponsor must provide proper oversight and
review to ensure that subject recruitment, informed consent procedures, and
subsequent contact with subjects are in conformity with approved guidelines.
• Outside investigators (non- College of New Jersey students or employees)
conducting human subject research on The College of New Jersey campus or
conducting research associated with the College are subject to the principles,
6/2009
19
procedures, and responsibilities outlined in this manual. In addition, they must
have a sponsor from the College of New Jersey faculty or staff.
C. 'the IRB recognizes the need for a thorough and prompt assessment of proposals. To
expedite proposal review the Chair may choose the most efficient procedure for
processing a particular proposal. All proposals that require a full board review shall be
presented at a convened meeting of the IRB at which a majority of the members are
present, including at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas.
In order for the research to be approved, it shall receive the approval of a majority of those
members present at the meeting. Any member requesting minor changes may authorize
the Chair to negotiate such changes, with or without requiring that they personally approve
the revisions prior to the issuance of the approval letter. If a committee member has a
major objection to such a proposal, that member may call for a meeting of the full
committee to review the changes.
The principal investigator (and faculty sponsor, if appropriate) may be invited to meetings
held to consider the proposal. Even if the consensus of the IRB is favorable, the IRB may
elect to impose additional restrictions or recommendations under which the project shall
be conducted.
D. If the IRB does not approve an application, reasons for this negative decision will be
provided in writing to the principal investigator or project director. If the researcher
decides to modify the proposed research in such a way as to overcome the objections of
the IRB, the investigator may resubmit the proposal for consideration and/or have the
Chair call an IRB meeting during which the investigator may defend the proposal or the
modifications.
E. Principal investigators must immediately report to the IRB chair any emergence of
problems or development of hazardous conditions for subjects. The IRB must approve an
amended protocol before the research may continue.
F. When granting initial approval of a proposal, the IRB will indicate the minimum intervals
needed for re- evaluation of the project in order to assure continued acceptance of the
proposal. Routine projects will be reviewed at yearly intervals; more complex and/or
potentially dangerous projects will be reviewed at a frequency commensurate with the
related risks. Projects that are determined to be exempt will not require additional review.
Renewal projects should include a progress report as well as a description of any
anticipated design changes. Projects may also be reevaluated if someone involved in the
research lodges a complaint with the IRB or if the principal investigator reports problems
with the research. In the latter case, the IRB may elect to review the data accumulated
by the investigator and may interview both the research staff and persons at risk.
G. Investigators may submit proposals acknowledging that human subjects will be involved
with the project, although plans for the involvement are indefinite. Such proposals will be
reviewed and guidance will be provided. For IRB approval, however, formal review and
approval will be required once complete plans are made, but before utilizing human
6/2009
20
subjects. In the case of an externally funded project, this later review and approval must
precede the beginning of any grant budget period during which human subjects would be
utilized.
Ongoing projects modified to include humans as subjects must be submitted to the IRB
for review and approval prior to the use of human subjects. In the case of an externally
funded project, the granting agency would be notified of IRB action before the
appropriation cycle for a budget period during which human subject involvement is
proposed.
H. In the case of a proposal submitted to an external finding agency, one copy of the
complete proposal must be submitted to the IRB along with the IRB application. The IRE
will make every effort to review and provide IRB approval in time for the proposal
submission deadline. However, it is recommended that all completed materials be
submitted to the IRB at least one month before the proposal deadline (additional lead time
is needed over the summer).
L Primary responsibility for adherence to high ethical standards, to federal and state laws,
and to College regulations must remain in the hands of the individual faculty, staff
members and students who comprise this institution. 'They must make the initial decision
as to whether their activities are or are not "human research" subject to review by the IRB.
At times, this decision is not easily made. If any investigator is nuclear as to whether
proposed research is subject to review, it is recommended that the investigator seek the
advice of the IRB Chair or the appropriate internal review committee, if any exists.
I As set forth in 45 CIR $46.113 Suspension or Termination of IRB Approval of Research,
"an IRB shall have authority to suspend or terminate approval of research that is not being
conducted in accordance with the IRB's requirements, or that has been associated with
unexpected serious harm to subjects. Any suspension or termination of approval shall
include a statement of the reasons for the IRB's action, and shall be reported promptly to
the investigator and appropriate institutional officials and the department or agency head
K. The electronic submission procedures, along with these policies and procedures, sample
consent forms, and links to information concerning the use of human subjects in research
may be found on the IRB web site. This site is maintained by the IRB under the direction
of the Provost.
L. Proposals must be submitted at least two weeks before the next IRB meeting for proper
review. The IRB calendar is posted on its website.
6/2009
21
VII. CRITERIA FOR IRB APPROVAL OF RESEARCH
In order to approve research, the IRB must ensure that the following requirements are
satisfied:
• Risks to participants are minimized by using procedures consistent with sound
research design that do not unnecessarily expose participants to risk.
• Risks to participants are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any,
to participants, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be
expected to result. In evaluating risks and benefits, the IRB should consider
only those that may result from the research, as distinguished from those
participants would receive even if not participating.
• Selection of participants is equitable. The IRB should consider the purposes
of the research and the setting in which the research will be conducted and be
particularly mindful of the special problems of research involving vulnerable
populations. Participants should share equally in foreseeable benefits and
risks.
• Informed consent is sought, and will be obtained, from each prospective
participant or the participant's legally authorized representative in accordance
with, and to the extent required by 45 CFR 46.116.
• Informed consent is appropriately documented in accordance with, and to the
extent required by 45 CFR 46.117.
• When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring
the data collected to ensure the safety of participants.
• When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of
participants and to maintain the confidentiality of data.
• Additionally, when some or all of the participants are likely to be vulnerable
to coercion or undue influence (e.g., children, prisoners, pregnant women, or
mentally disabled, economically disadvantaged, or educationally
disadvantaged persons) additional safeguards are included in the study to
protect the rights and welfare of these participants.
The IRB is concerned with the maintenance of proper records and the protection of
anonymity and confidentiality of all data collected. Furthermore, the IRB will
attempt to minimize personal embarrassment, mental anguish, and questions of
conscience resulting from participation.
Assessment of Risks and Benefits
When approving research, the IRB must assess whether the anticipated benefit of the
research —either new knowledge or improved health for the research participants justifies
inviting anyone to undertake the risks. The IRB should not approve research in which the
risks are judged unreasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits.
6/2009
22
Risks to individuals are classified as physical, psychological, social, legal, and economic. In
the process of determining what constitutes a risk, only those risks that may result from the
research, as distinguished from those associated with therapies participants would undergo
even if not engaged in research, should be considered.
Once risks have been identified, the IRB must assess whether the research poses minimal or
greater than minimal risk. Minimal risk (defined in 45 CFR 46.102) is defined such that the
probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in
and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance
of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests.
The concept of minimal risk is used in the Federal policy for three purposes. First, the
concept guides the IRB to determine if the proposed research should be reviewed by the
entire Board or if it may qualify for expedited review. Second, it is used to determine what
research can proceed without consent, and third, the concept is used to decide when
documentation of subject consent may be waived.
IRBs must ensure that risks to participants are minimized. Researchers should include
strategies for reducing risks in the protocol. For example:
• Precautions, safeguards, and alternatives should be incorporated into the
protocol to reduce the probability of harm or to limit its severity or duration.
• IRBs should determine whether the researchers are competent in the planned
area and whether they serve dual roles (e.g., as clinician and researcher) that
may result in conflicts of interest and lead to a "therapeutic misconception"
being held by the research participant. For student research, primary
responsibility for research design lies with the faculty sponsor.
• IRBs should assess whether the research design will yield useful data, so that
research participants are not exposed to risks without sufficient justification.
The IRB must be notified of any unanticipated problem involving risks to participants or
others, including physical or psychological injury to participants, improper disclosure of
private information, economic loss, or other potentially harmful occurrences.
VIII. INFORMED CONSENT
Once the researcher has a carefully defined research question, a valid design and protocol for
a research project, it is time to plan for the informed consent for those invited to participate.
Planning involves deciding:
What information to provide to potential participants, both in writing and in
discussions;
Deciding who is going to present the information and at what point in your
interactions with participants;
6/2009
23
• How the participants understanding will be assessed; and
• Who will obtain the participant's signature or agreement.
This plan must be reviewed and approved by an IRB before approaching potential
participants.
Informed consent, as a legal, regulatory, and ethical concept, has become widely accepted as
an integral part of research. Current requirements for informed consent owe much to the
legal system, but the underlying values are deeply embedded in American culture and the
American character. Fundamentally, informed consent is based on respect for the individual,
and, in particular, the individual's autonomy or capacity and right to define his or her own
goals and make choices designed to achieve those goals in life. This right is well established
in American jurisprudence and medical practice and applies to all types of medical
interventions and clinical research.
Informed consent in research means more than simply obtaining the signature of the potential
research participant. It is a process that involves conveying accurate and relevant
information about the study and its purpose; disclosing known risks, benefits, alternatives,
and procedures; answering questions; and enabling the potential participant to make an
informed decision about whether to participate.
General requirements for informed consent in federally funded research are spelled out in the
Code of Federal Regulations, 45CFR.46.116. Certain states have additional statutes
regulating research.
Elements of Consent
In order for consent to be valid, it should be based on the following critical elements:
• The participant must be COMPETENT to begin the informed consent process.
If the participant is not competent because of age, illness, incapacity, or any
other reason, special provisions apply, or the participant may not be included
in the research.
The research team must DISCLOSE all relevant information to the potential
participant. The information must be sufficient to allow the potential
participant to decide whether to participate. IT is generally accepted that the
potential participant must be given the following information: the purpose of
the study; nature of the procedure; reasonable alternatives to the proposed
intervention; and risks, benefits, and uncertainties of each possible
intervention.
The participant must COMPREHEND the information. The research teams
must evaluate the potential participant's ability to understand the proposed
intervention in the study.
6/2009
24
• The participant must AGREE to the proposed intervention in the research
study.
• The participant's agreement must be VOLUNTARY and free from coercion.
Finally, participants must be informed that even after they have made a voluntary
agreement to participate in the study, they may WITHDRAW such agreement at any time
without penalty.
Preparing the Consent Document for MB Review
The first step in the process of informed consent is preparing the written consent document
for presentation to the IRB. This document should include all the elements listed in Table 1
in Appendix D (and required by 45CFR.46.116), as well as any other information prospective
participants might need to make an informed decision about participation. Consent
documents-should be written in nontechnical language that can be understood by the
proposed participant population —consistent with their educational level, familiarity with
research, and cultural views.
The consent document must make clear that participation in research is voluntary, and it
should not include any language waiving or appearing to waive participants' rights. In some
cases, the researcher may want to request that the IRB approve a modification or waiver of
the elements of informed consent as spelled out in the regulations.
Advertisements, fliers, or brochures prepared to recruit and inform potential participants
about a study are considered part of the informed consent process and, as such, also require
review and approval by the IRB.
Approaching Research Participants
Researchers and members of the research team are responsible for making sure that the
process of informed consent conforms to the value of respecting individuals' right to make
informed and voluntary decisions about research participation, as well as to the regulations
guiding research with human participants. In this regard, after receipt of IRB approval of the
consent plan, there are several essential steps to take in the process of informed consent. The
researcher and responsible research team members should:
• Feel confident that the potential participant has the capacity to understand
information, make decisions, and provide informed consent for the particular
study.
• Provide both written (as described above) and oral information about the
details of the study in a way that is understandable to the participant.
• Be satisfied that the participant understands the information provided and has
had an opportunity to ask questions and deliberate about participation.
• Be satisfied that the participant is in a position to make a voluntary decision
and has not been coerced or unduly influenced by circumstances or other
people.
6/2009
25
• Be satisfied that the participant agrees to participate, as indicated in most
cases by signing an informed consent document.
How does the researcher determine if a participant has the capacity to consent?
Adults have the capacity to consent when they possess sufficient mental capability to
understand the information provided, appreciate how it is relevant to their circumstances,
and make a reasoned decision about whether to participate in a particular study. Children (in
most jurisdictions those under 18 years of age) do not have the legal capacity to consent
independently.
Capacity can be affected by several things, including age, cognitive impairment, illness, and
treatments. Capacity to consent for a study is study- specific. For example, a person may
have sufficient capacity to carry out daily activities and make decisions, but not sufficient
capacity to appreciate how the particulars of a given protocol might be relevant.
For some participants or groups of participants, the researcher or the IRB may decide that an
independent capacity assessment is a good idea. This may involve consulting with a
psychiatrist or neurologist to make a determination about an individual's cognitive ability
and should include an independent assessment of the person's ability to understand the
details and implications of the protocol being presented.
If a person is unable to provide his or her own consent, a legally authorized representative
can in some cases give permission for participation in research. A legally authorized
representative is a legal guardian; a parent (for children only); and in some cases, a validly
designated durable power of attorney for health care (the latter is an evolving area). The
researcher should check with institutional policies or assurance and the IRB.
What should the researcher consider when providing information to potential
participants about the study?
The provision of information about a study usually involves more than just furnishing the
written consent document to the potential participant to read. Oral presentation of
information and the opportunity to discuss and answer questions and concerns are important
parts of the process, usually in addition to giving the person time to read the written consent
form. Educational materials about the study or clinical research in general are helpful. If the
researcher delegates the function of oral presentation and discussion of a study to members of
the team, he or she must be sure they have sufficient knowledge of the protocol to answer
questions appropriately. Delegation may have to be approved by the institution's IRB.
How does the researcher assess the participant's understanding?
The researcher should feel satisfied that after the detailed information has been presented and
discussed, the potential participant understands it well enough to make a decision. Of course,
some studies are more complicated and involved than others. Researchers use many different
strategies in determining whether or not a research participant understands. Sometimes it is
6/2009
26
clear at the end of a discussion; other times, having a participant answer questions about the
study, either informally or even in writing, may be appropriate. The best method may
depend on the complexity and risk level of the study as well as on the potential participants.
How does the researcher know whether the participant's decision is voluntary?
Individuals who feel "coerced" into making a decision about research participation or are in a
position in which it is impossible or extremely difficult for them to say "no" should not be
enrolled into research. Coercion occurs if there is some threat of harm or punishment for
refusal to participate. Individuals in relationships of unequal power or dependence have
historically been particularly vulnerable to coercion. Examples might include telling students
they would fail a course, employees they would not be promoted, or soldiers they would be
reprimanded if they refused to participate in research. Coercion in research is rare due to the
vigilance of research teams and HZBs.
All decisions, including decisions about research participation, are subject to the influences
of one's previous experiences and circumstances. Sometimes, understanding an individual's
reasons for considering participation is helpful in assessing how voluntary a decision is. The
goal is to be sure that individuals understand research participation as a choice or an option
among other albeit in some cases, limited —options. Being sure that individuals understand
that they can freely refuse to participate and/or withdraw at any time without penalty is
critical to ensuring voluntary consent.
Must the researcher always obtain an individual's written signature?
In most cases, consent to research participation is documented by obtaining the signature of
the participant or a legally authorized representative on the written informed consent
document. A copy of this document should be given to the person signing the form. By
Federal regulation, a signature is required on the written document containing all the required
elements of information or on a short form and written summary of the information when
the information has been presented orally, as spelled out in 45 CFR.46.117(b)(2).
In some cases, a signed consent document is inappropriate. According to the Federal
regulations at 45 CFR.46.117(c), the HM may waive this requirement if it determines:
• There is a confidentiality risk, and the only link between the participant and
the research would be the consent document.
• The research presents no more than minimal risk of harm and involves no
procedures that normally require informed consent outside of research.
Consent by Proxy and Implied Consent
Proxy consent, or consent to participate in research by one competent adult on behalf of
another, may be appropriate under certain circumstances. All uses of proxy consent must be
approved by an institution's IRB.
6/2009
27
If the prospective participant is identified as incompetent to provide informed consent, and if
the condition of being incompetent is temporary, (if for example, potential participants have
received sedating or pain - relieving medications and consent must be obtained before the
effects wear off), the duration of the incompetence is unknown (for example, when a
potential subject is in a coma resulting from traumatic injury), or the potential participant is
cognitively impaired, the subject's legally authorized representative is responsible for
deciding whether the subject should participate in the research. This person will sign the
consent form on behalf of the participant and will indicate his or her relationship to the
subject.
Consent from the subject's legally authorized representative should be obtained by the
researcher in person and documented on the approved consent form.
Consent provided by a proxy should never be accepted if the potential participant has
indicated refusal to take part in the research.
Research with Children and Assent to Research
Legally, children have not attained an age at which they can consent to research or treatment.
Therefore, special provisions for agreement to participate in research are established in
Section 46.408 of the Federal regulations. This section establishes the requirements for
obtaining permission from parents or guardians and assent from children. The parent or
guardian may provide "permission" for the child to participate in a study. Permission means
the agreement of parent(s) or guardians(s) to the participation of their children or wards in
research. Valid permission can be given only following an explanation incorporating the
information currently required for informed consent.
In most cases, the child must indicate willingness to participate by assenting to the study.
Assent means a child's affirmative agreement to participate in research. By law, failure to
object may not be construed as assent. IRBs make the final determination if sufficient
protections exist for children and how assent should be documented.
The inclusion of children in research studies poses many ethical and legal questions. For
further information, link to: http: / /grants.nib.gov /grants /guide /notice - files /not98- 024.html.
Waiver of Consent
Federal law (see Title 45 CFR 46.116(d)) permits an IRB to waive the requirement of
obtaining written prospective informed consent under the following essential conditions:
• The research poses no more than minimal risk to subjects.
• There are no adverse effects as a result of the waiver or alteration.
• Without the waiver or alteration, the research in question could not be carried
out.
• Information will be provided after participation is completed, if appropriate.
6/2009
M
Special Issues In Informed Consent
Language Barriers
Information relevant to participation in research must be communicated to participants "in
language understandable to the subject," and in most situations, such informed consent must
be documented in writing (45 CFR §46.116 and §46.117).
According to the statute [ §46.117(b)(1)], the written consent document must include all
elements necessary for legally effective informed consent in language comprehensible to the
intended participants. Thus, participants who are not native English speakers should be
provided with a consent document in their native language, written at a level that makes the
information comprehensible.
The statute also provides for an alternative method of obtaining informed consent via oral
presentation, accompanied by a short-form written consent document (stating the necessary
elements and a written summary of what is presented orally). In that event, a witness to the
oral presentation is required, and the participant must receive copies of the short-form
document and the summary. The witness must be fluent in both languages.
Community Consent and Cross - Cultural Issues
Researchers conducting studies in multicultural settings have found that it sometimes is not
enough to obtain individual consent using traditional concepts and rules. For example,
among some ethnic groups, the role of the individual is secondary to the individual's role as
part of a community, and there is no distinct concept of individual will or identity. In other
groups, women will defer to the decisions of their husbands, fathers, or other male relatives
and will not express their own wishes. In still other groups and depending on the nature of
the research the implications of participating in research extend beyond the individual and
affect the entire group or community.
Community may be defined as a group living in proximity, a group related by blood or
marriage, or a group with a common religious, ethnic, or racial heritage or identity.
The concept of community consent has developed, largely in response to research involving
identifiable groups. Research with these groups, which are sometimes related by blood as
well as living in proximity, requires a reconsideration of traditional concepts of consent.
Traditionally, consent was a private matter between an individual patient and a treating
physician. Today, the implications of participation in research may involve information that
affects family and community members as well. For example, members of one group may
feel stigmatized if a number of members of that group participate in research that reveals
unpopular or dangerous traits. This may be true for behavioral research that indicates certain
behaviors (such as alcoholism or violence) that portray others in the community unfavorably.
Moreover, the conduct of clinical research may reveal general information that renders a
group less desirable genetically, potential marriage prospects or employment opportunities.
As a result, some believe that community consent should be an additional or at least an issue
6/2009
29
addressed as part of education provided to participants individual consent as a requirement
for the ethical conduct of research.
IX. GUIDANCE FOR ENROLLING COLLEGE STUDENTS AS
RESEARCH SUBJECTS & USING STUDENT SUBJECT POOLS
In some research situations, use of students is integral to a research protocol. This is
particularly true of research into teaching methods, curricula and other areas related to the
scholarship of teaching and learning. In the social and behavioral sciences course credit is
commonly offered for research participation.
An underlying principle of the regulations governing use of human subjects in research is
that the subject's participation is voluntary and based upon full and accurate information.
The student - faculty relationship raises the issue of voluntary participation. Students may
volunteer to participate in the belief that doing so will place them in a favorable situation
with faculty (e.g., better grade, good recommendation, employment possibilities), or that
failure to participate will negatively affect their relationship with the investigator or faculty
(e.g. lower grade, less favorable recommendation, being "uncooperative" and not part of the
scientific community).
Care should be taken to eliminate or reduce the risk that undue influence of faculty or
coercion affects student participation in research. The following guidelines are offered to
assist departments and faculty who engage in research projects in which students will be
asked to be research subjects:
Students should be of the age of majority in the state of New Jersey (18 years old). Research
involving minors (under 18 years of age) as subjects, (16 or 17 year old college students) in
most instances requires a signed parental (or legal guardian) consent, as well as the signed
assent of the student. Some types of research may qualify for a Waiver of consent (parental
permission).
Generally researchers may not access classroom performance evaluations, grades, and
information in a (current) student's records without prior written permission from the student,
regardless of the access an investigator may have in his/her academic role.
When research activities to be done by the students are not part of the required class activities,
the instructor should arrange to have the data collected by an independent third party, so that
the instructor does not know who participated and does not have access to the identifiable data
or identity participants for any purpose until grades have been assigned and entered. For
instructors using pre- and post- tests to determine efficacy of a particular curriculum, a
colleague or third party should obtain the consent forms and distribute the tests when the
instructor is not present (a graduate assistant in the class in which the student/subject is
enrolled does not qualify as a third party for collecting the data on behalf of the instructor).
6/2009
30
When course credit or extra credit is given to students who participate in research as part of a
course requirement, students are to be given other options for fixlfilliug the research
component, for example; short papers, special projects, book reports, and brief quizzes on
additional readings, research seminars, or completing a similar project. 'these projects must be
comparable in terms of time, effort and educational benefit to participation as a research
subject to insure that students are not being coerced into becoming subjects. Alternatives
offered to student subjects need prior IRB approval. Departments seeking to use student
subject pools and offering projects including pre- and/or post- testing also require IRB
approval.
Solicitation of volunteer student subjects for research must be done in a non - coercive manner.
To avoid undue influence, subjects should be recruited by a general announcement, central
posting or announcement mechanism and should include a clearly written description of the
project and a statement of the proposed student participation. In addition to being provided
with the traditional information and consent forms, the student should also be provided with
the name and contact information of a neutral third party to contact should they feel coerced at
any time during the process.
Whenever possible, researchers should avoid data collection during regular class meetings.
When study participation consumes a significant portion of a class section, loss of instructional
time for both participants and non - participants may be considered a loss of benefits. Also
when research participation is expected during the same session at which participation is
invited students may be unduly influenced to take part due to peer pressure, perceived
stigmatization from non - participation, or a sense of having otherwise wasted time by attending
that day's class.
Since there are special risks of confidentiality in the close environment of the college, special
attention should be given to full disclosure of these risks in the consenting of a student to
participate. The plan for handling consent forms and research data should also be designed to
minimize the risk that confidentiality will be breached (e.g., signed consent forms can be
collected and filed separately from the anonymous test instrument). When instruments call for
the disclosure of information which participants may view as personal or sensitive, data should
be collected in a manner that minimizes the chance of one participant learning the response of
another.
The use of mass testing (classroom scenario) is strongly discouraged. Whenever possible,
students should be allowed to access web -based research related activities via designated or
personal computers. Using an application such as Qualirics is also desirable because it allows
the student to register for participation in specific research activities outside of the view of
others at the time and place of their choosing.
Like other research volunteers, students who become research participants must be allowed to
withdraw from the study at any time. The informed consent statement should make clear the
consequences of withdrawing from a project prior to completion. In general it is favorable to
give credit if the subject withdraws, unless the student withdraws immediately or there is
evidence of bad faith on the part of the student.
6/2009
31
If the research is one where data are collected from a group project or perhaps a videotape of
the group interaction, each student's consent is necessary for the use of that data in the
instructor's research. if one student does not consent, the data may be used only if the non -
consenting student's data can be effectively excluded.
When deception is used students have the right to full disclosure as soon as possible. Two
consenting presentations are required, the fast of which will normally take place during the
pretesting period; the final informed consent will be presenting at the debriefing. Whenever
possible a teaching opportunity in the form of an "educational debriefing" should be
employed. Students should know something about the rationale for the study, the process of
data collection, and intent of the researcher. In exceptional circumstances, the full or true
purpose of the research may not be revealed to the subjects until the completion of data
collection. In such cases, students must not be subjected to undue stress or embarrassment and
must have the right to full disclosure of the purpose of the study as soon as possible after the
data have been collected. During the debriefing students must be given an opportunity to
decide whether the researcher(s) can use the data collected.
Research conducted by graduate students in a class in which the researcher teaches, assists in
the class or does any grading should be subject to the same restraints described above.
INDIVIDUAL (UNAF IIJATED) INVESTIGATORS (non -TCNJ employees) seeking
to enroll TCNJ students into human subject research protocols are subject to the principles,
procedures, and responsibilities outlined in the TCNJ Institutional Review Board Guidebook
of Policies and Procedures for Research Involving Human Subjects. 'They must contact the
IRB Chair and have a sponsor from the TCNJ faculty or staff. Prospective enrollment of
TCNJ students into research without the written approval of the TCNJ Institutional
Review Board is strictly prohibited.
DEPARTMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
When Using Student Subject Pools
1. What is a Subject Pool?
a. Chance for students to cam credit
b. Opportunity for students to learn about the experiences of human subject research
c. Easy recruitment method for investigators
2. What are the Issues Surrounding the Use of Subject Pools?
a. Voluntary participation
b. Research volunteer versus student rights of participation
c. Coercion (mass teaching)
d. Breach of confidentiality
e. IRB oversight
f. Institutional Responsibilities
3. Maintaining Documentation of Participation
6/2009
32
a. Maintaining records to obtain credit
b. Maintaining data records
c. Maintaining records to document payment per IRB reporting requirements
4. What are the IRB Responsibilities for the Use of a Subject Pool?
a. Satisfactory risk/benefit ratio
b. Equitable selection of subjects
c. Satisfactory informed consent process
d. Protection from coercion due to mass testing
e. Comparable alternative activity(s)
f. Adequate privacy and confidentiality guarantee
5. What are the Main Risks in Using Subject Pools?
a. Coercion due to in-class (mass) testing
b. Breach of Confidentiality
c. Lack of comparable alternative activity(s)
d. Position as a research participant overrides position as student, during research
participation
6. How to Minimize Risks?
a. Comparable alternatives
b. Sign -in form kept separate from consent form (agreement with institution/department)
c. Must be able to withdraw at any time without penalty
d. Use of anonymous, minimal risk studies
e. Appropriate role of undergraduates as research staff
f. Excludes students <18 years of age; or (if exclusion is not appropriate), assent student
and consent legal parent or guardian, or
g. Students <18 years of age may participate (e.g., for the education or experience), but
their data cannot be used in the research
7. Parental Consent and Child's Assent for Participation
a. All subjects must consent
b. Parents must give permission for minors
8. Requirements for the Use of Subject Pools
a. Only exempt or minimal risk research will be permitted
b. Parental consent for those under 18, if the data is intended for research use
c. Students (ally informed of their rights as participants
d. Documentation of participation to receive credit remains separate from documentation
for participation in the research
e. Studies must have IRB approval prior to initiation
f. Must provide comparable alternatives
g. Decrease presence of coercion
9. Recruitment vs. Informed Consent
10. Special Issues in Prescreening and Database Management of Subject Pools
6/2009
33
a. Student access to student (identifiable) information
b. Privacy and confidentiality
X. IRB GUIDANCE FOR STUDENTS INVOLVED IN OR
LEADING RESEARCH
Federal regulations and college policies require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval
for research with human subjects. Research is defined as "a systematic investigation,
including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
generalizable knowledge." There are two key elements: (1) the project involves a systematic
investigation, and (2) the design — meaning goal, purpose, or intent — of the investigation is to
develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. This applies whether the research is
conducted by faculty or students, by individuals or a group. Failure to obtain proper
approval in advance may jeopardize your data, prevent you from publishing the results, and
place you and the college in violation offederal regulations. At the same time, many class
projects are conducted for educational purposes and not as research, and will not require IRB
approval. This guidance will help you determine whether you need to get approval from the
IRB before conducting a given activity. Please note that IRBs do not have the option of
granting "retroactive" approval after research is done; you should err on the side of
submitting or consulting with the IRBs if there is any doubt. All forms and additional
guidance are available at www.teni.edu/ —irb.
STUDENT -LED RESEARCH
Student research activities include, but are not limited to class related projects, projects
that result in undergraduate honors theses, masters theses, and Mentored Undergraduate
Summer Experience (MUSE) projects. IRB approval is generally required if human
subiects are involved, either directly or through use of identifiable data about them...
AND... the intent is to develop new or expanded knawledge that is generalizable. Student
researchers have the same submission options as any investigator. They may submit as
Principal Investigator (PI) with a faculty advisor* as co- signator, which may be appropriate
for new projects where the student has a leading role. Alternatively, it may be appropriate
for the student researcher to be included on an existing faculty -led project that already has
IRB approval, if the student activity is (or will be, after modification) subsumed under
that existing study. This latter option precludes the need for a separate IRB application
from the student. Each research scenario has its own set of circumstances that will dictate
handling.
*The Faculty Advisor is responsible for reviewing and insuring compliance with IRB
proposal submission, integrity, and conduct of research process and ultimately responsible
for insuring that TCNJ policies and procedures are followed.
Here are some common scenarios, with likely processing requirements:
6/2009
RESEARCH that involves direct interaction with
individuals (e.g., in person, via mail, email, web
survey, or telephone), or data from human subjects
for which the researchers will have access to
identifiers.
RESEARCH that is limited to secondary analysis
of data, records or specimens that are either publicly
available, de- identified or otherwise impossible to
be linked to personal identifies.
RESEARCH -like activities using departmental
subject pools (e.g., Psychology, Business, Political
Science, Journalism and Communications) even
when the activity is conducted for educational
purposes as a class requirement.
6/2009
� IRB approval required � Submit
eIItB application, either with student as
PI or listed as study personnel on faculty
application; or modify existing study if
student project is directly related.
Student researcher, co- investigators (if a
group) and faculty advisor are required to
have current research ethics certification
�IRB approval may be
required�Submit eIItB application
either with student as PI or listed as
study personnel on faculty application.
If IRB approval is not required, a data use
agreement between the researcher and the
data custodian may still be required to
verify that the researcher will not have
access to identifying codes. It is this "de-
linking" of data from personal identifiers
that allows the IRB to make this
determination.
If the IRB determines that this project is
not human subjects research, research
ethics certification of the student(s) is not
required by IRB, but may be required by
the facultv advisor.
� IRB approval required unless IRB
approved departmental internal review
processes are in place (see guidance for
enrolling TCNJ students as Research
Subjects & Using Student Subject
Pools) submit an eHW application for
each activity by an individual or small
group.
Student researcher, co- investigators (if a
group) and faculty advisor should have
current research ethics certification.
34
CLASS PROJECTS
(EXCLUDING HONORS THESES, INDEPENDENT RESEARCH PROJECTS.
MASTERS THESES)
Class projects are generally conducted for educational purposes and not as research,
excluding honors theses, independent research projects, and masters theses. While some
require submission of an HUB application or a determination that HUB approval is not
required, many class projects require neither. Instructors and departments are encouraged
to contact the IRB for guidance about ways to handle topics such as privacy,
confidentiality, informed consent, and professional ethics when class projects are part of
the course syllabus. IRB members can share expertise related to managing risks of
deductive disclosure, coercion -free recruiting, informed consent, and special consideration
for projects that include potentially vulnerable individuals. These issues may still remain
even when IIW approval is not required, in which case instructors, advisors, departments
and schools play an even greater role in providing the appropriate guidance and oversight.
Common scenarios:
CLASS PROJECTS involving secondary data
analyses that are assigned and conducted as
educational exercises, using data that are either
publicly available, de- identified or otherwise
impossible to be linked to personal identities.
CLASS PROJECTS involving secondary data
analyses that are assigned and conducted as
educational exercises, and that use datasets that
include private information and codes that link to
identifiers, but the students do not have access to the
identifiers.
CLASS PROJECTS or PRACTICA that involve
direct interaction (e.g., in person, via mail, email,
web surveys, or telephone), but where the purpose is
training, an educational exercise or professional
development, and not research. The project or
practicum is not `research" even if students ask
people questions as part of learning how to conduct
interviews or surveys, take histories, administer
assessments, or perform "in- house" evaluations as
requested by the practicum site.
6/2009
� No HUB action required (neither
approval nor determination of human
research status)
No HUB action required (neither
approval nor determination of human
research status)
Class instructor and department are
responsible for providing the necessary
training in respecting the confidentiality of
the data.
� No HUB action required (neither
approval nor determination of human
research status) � but may be requested
if instructor or students are unsure, or if
documentation is required by gatekeepers
(e.g., schools, businesses) for access to
participants.
Class instructor and department are
responsible for providing the necessary
training in respecting the privacy of the
individuals and the confidentiality of any
resulting information, along with training
in the relevant professional ethics.
Instructor provides information about the
assignment for the students to distribute to
people who participate in these class
proiects. List the instructor as the
35
CLASS PROJECTS or PRACTICA that involve
direct interaction or secondary analyses of private
identifiable data and are undertaken as both an
educational experience and as research (e.g.,
results of these activities will be presented publicly or
otherwise disseminated, or the data will be stored and
used by the students or others as research data).
appropriate contact person
questions arise.
� IRB approval required � When there
are several students in a class doing similar
projects, a single IRB application may be
submitted by the course instructor as
PI, listing all students who will be
involved. If projects vary greatly, then it
may be preferable to submit individual
IRB applications with the student(s) as PI.
36
Submission Tip: Such projects may be very similar to
one another. For example, each student may
The PI must have research ethics
interview one or more persons for a group of oral
certification. Taking into account the
histories, or conduct telephone surveys as part of a
sensitivity of the information to be
yearly poll, but all in the class follow the same
collected, the instructor can require that
general script or guidelines. If class projects follow
students complete an ethics certification
different protocols, a table or chart can describe these
course, or the instructor may provide
more individualized activities, under the umbrella of
comparable training, with the approval of
a single IRB application.
the IRB.
XI. RESEARCH ON PREGNANT WOMEN, FETUSES, PARTS
OF FETUSES, AND PLACENTAS, BIOMEDICAL AND
BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH ON PRISONERS, AND STUDIES
OF CHILDREN AND WARDS OF THE STATE
Vulnerable Populations
Vulnerable research participants are persons who are relatively or absolutely incapable of
protecting their own interests. The researcher and research team should be cognizant of the
special problems of research involving vulnerable populations, justify the proposed
involvement of these populations in the research, and include additional safeguards for their
safety and welfare. These populations include:
• Children.
• Individuals with questionable capacity to consent.
• Prisoners.
• Fetuses and pregnant women.
• The terminally ill.
• Students /employees.
• Comatose patients.
Brief information about the regulations on research with children, individuals with
questionable capacity to consent, and prisoners are presented, but the researcher and team
should be familiar with all of the policies.
6/2009
37
Research with Children
Research involving children demands a particularly high level of care and consideration by
investigators. In recent years, ethical and legal standards have changed, and investigators
who conduct research in this area should consult with the IRB.
The issue of children as research subjects is a complex one since they are not considered able
to make informed choices independently. Further, exposure of children, particularly healthy
children, to more than minimal risks must be weighed carefully.
When including children in research, the role of the family should be considered in devising
the protocol as well as in obtaining informed consent from the parents or guardians. If the
research is based in schools, appropriate involvement and permission must be obtained from
the school. Adequate measures must be developed to protect children's privacy and to
ensure that their participation does not stigmatize them in the present or future.
The regulation pertaining to children as research participants is found in 45 CFR 46
Subpart D.
Risk/benefit categories found in this regulation include those:
• Not involving greater than minimal risk.
• Involving greater than minimal risk but presenting the prospect of direct benefit to
the child.
• Involving greater than minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit to the child,
but likely to yield knowledge about the child's disease.
• Not otherwise approvable, but presenting an opportunity to understand, prevent, or
alleviate a serious problem for children.
In 1998, the NIH wrote a policy and Guidelines on the Inclusion of Children as Research
Participants in all studies supported and/or conducted by the NIH. The goal of this policy is
to increase the participation of children in research so that adequate data will be developed to
support the treatment modalities for disorders and conditions affecting adults that may also
affect children. Proposals for research involving human participants must include a
description of plans for including children or an explanation for their exclusion. This policy
is found at http: / /grants.nih.gov /grants /guide /notice - files /not98- 024.html. The FDA has
published an Interim Rule entitled "Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical
Investigations of FDA - regulated products" (21 CFR Parts 50 and 56). This rule can be found
at the following address: http: / /www.fda.gov /ohrms /dockets /98fr /042401a.htm
Research With the Decisionally Impaired
Research involving individuals with questionable capacity_to consent requires careful
consideration in order to provide these participants with additional safeguards. This
vulnerable population may include persons with psychiatric illnesses, neurologic conditions,
substance use history, and various metabolic disorders. Some individuals may not be able to
6/2009
M
give informed consent, so "permission" for certain kinds of research can be given by a
legally authorized representative and "assent' of the participant is substituted.
Research with Prisoners
Prisoners are confined under the strict control of people whom they must please and to whom
they must appear cooperative if they are to earn their release. These potential participants
may believe, probably as a result of their dependent situation, that their agreement to
participate in research will be viewed positively by their wardens. In addition, such
individuals are readily available in large numbers. In the past, prisoners have accepted the
risks of research in disproportionate numbers, while the benefits of the research in which
they participated went to all segments of the population. Therefore, special regulations_are in
place that restrict the involvement of prisoners in research. For example, it is appropriate to
include a prisoner as a voting member of the IRB when decisions are made for studies that
involve prisoners.
With these caveats and an understanding of the Federal regulations in mind, researchers must
also be careful not to overprotect vulnerable populations to the extent that they are excluded
from participating in research in which they wish to participate, particularly where the
research involves therapies for conditions with no available treatments. So, too, patients with
serious or poorly understood disorders may want to participate repeatedly in research
designed to provide a better understanding of their conditions. The fact that participants may
be either patients of the principal researcher or patients in the clinic or hospital in which the
researcher conducts the study should not preclude them from the opportunity to choose to
participate as often as they wish.
XII. EDUCATION AND TRAINING
The IRB will establish educational training and oversight mechanisms (appropriate to the nature and
volume of its research) to ensure that research investigators, IRB members and staff, and other
appropriate personnel maintain continuing knowledge of, and comply with, relevant ethical
principles, relevant Federal Regulations, OIIRP guidance, other applicable guidance, state and local
laws, and institutional policies for the protection of human subjects. Furthermore, OIIRP
recommends that a) IRB members and staff complete relevant educational training before reviewing
human subject research; and b) research investigators complete appropriate institutional educational
training before conducting human subject research.
In addition to the TCNJ required training, researchers applying for federal funding through NIH must
complete the NIH On -line Educational Module prior to beginning the study. The certification of
completion from this module must be forwarded to the OAGSR The NIH On -line Educational
Module can be accessed at: httv: / /cme.nci.nih.gov /.
6/2009
39
XIII. REPORTING TO THE IRB
A. Each approved study is expected to submit a brief report annually to the IRB (unless a
more frequent renewal cycle is required). The report should summarize all procedures
and interactions with human subjects in the study during the year.
B. Principal Investigators must promptly report to the IRB, appropriate institutional
officials, the relevant Department or Agency Head, any applicable regulatory body, and
OHRP of any unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others.
C. Changes in approved research protocols must be reported promptly to the IRB, and the
changes may not be initiated without IRB review and approval, except when necessary to
eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the subject.
6/2009
40
APPENDIX
Instructions for Submitting a Human Subjects Proposal
Human subjects proposals are submitted for approval by using the electronic form located on the
institutional review board website insert new URL Before completing the electronic proposal form,
the principal investigator or project director should be familiar with the policies and procedures of The
College ofNew Jersey as described in a guidebook of policies and procedures for research involving
human subjects (hereafter referred to as Guidebook). Investigators may not initiate any research
involving humans until they have received notification of IRB approval and have agreed to comply
with all contingencies made in connection with that approval.
The investigator must complete the electronic proposal form. If the investigator is a student, the
application must be approved by the student's faculty sponsor.
Supporting materials such as questionnaires, approval letters from cooperating institutions, consent
forms, etc., must be included. Any investigator who has submitted or plans to submit a project to an
external agency for funding must forward one complete copy of the external proposal to the
Committee as soon as it is available. The external proposal should be considered as a supplement or
appendix to the IRB application.
If the investigator's school or department maintains an internal review committee, their approval and
remarks should be submitted to the IRB Chair will notify each applicant of the committee's decision.
Investigators must electronically submit proposals for full committee review, expedited review, or
exemption from review. Investigators must indicate the "Level of Review" on the electronic proposal
form and the applicable category justifying this request. However, the IRB reserves the right to
change the level of review required
A written informed consent form documents the consent process. This process consists of a
description of the specific research project, the procedures each subject will undergo, and a
delineation of the individual's rights as a research subject.
Informed consent must normally be obtained in a written format that requires the subject's signature
or that of the subject's legally authorized representative. The IRB may grant a waiver of this
requirement if the investigator provides adequate justification for the request. In all cases a copy of
the written informed consent must be given to the subject unless the IRB specifically waives this
requirement.
Proposals for proper review must be submitted in a timely fashion. Proposals are expected to be
submitted at least two weeks before the next scheduled IRB meeting.
6/2009
Brain Computer Interfaces: Psychology and Pragmatic
Perspectives for the Future
Ray Adams', Gisela Susanne Bahrz and Benign Moreno'
Abstract. Whilst technologies, such as psychophysiological
measurements in general and electroencephalograms (EEG) in
particular, have been around and continually improving for many
years, future technologies promise to revolutionise the emerging
Information Society through the development of brain- computer
interfaces and augmented cognition solutions. This paper ex-
plores critical psychological and pragmatic issues that must be
understood before these technologies can deliver their potential
well. Within the context of HCI, we examined a sample (n —
105) BCI papers and found that die majority of research aimed to
provide communication and control resources to people with
disabilities or with extreme task demands. However, die con -
ecptc of usability and accessibility, and respective findings from
their substantial research literatures were rarely applied explic-
itly but referenced implicitly. While this suggests an increased
awareness of these concepts and die related large research litera-
tures, die tack remains to sharpen these concepts and to articulate
their obvious relevance to BCI work.
I INTRODUCTION
The concept of die brain computer interface (BCI) presents
some startling possibilities for enhanced communication and
accessibility: BCls have the potential for helping individuals
with severe communication and control problems due to disabil-
ity or extreme circumstances, as well as giving anybody who
requires or desires non - traditional human -to- system communica-
tion tools additional input/output channels. The notion of BCI
may be simple, but the underlying science is complex. Herter,
an effective application of BCI necessitates an adequate appre-
ciation of the underlying scienec. For this reason, this paper sets
out to consider the psychology and rehabilitation engineering
underlying BCI.
An effecfive BCI system is based on the following dirce
axioms: (1) It is possible to take sensitive and reliable measure
ments of aspects of human brain activity on a non - invasive basis;
(2) These aspects of human brain activity can be controlled sys-
tematically and dependably by the individual; (3) These mcas-
urements of human brain activity can be readily used to control
or communicate with interactive systems or to communicate
with other people [1]. These are die specific requirements for
effective BCIs. In addition, we suggest that there are at least
three generic requirements that apply to any communication and
CIRCUA, Collaborative International Research Centre for Universal
Access, School of Computing Science, Middlesex University, The
Burroughs, Hendon, London NW44BT Email: ray.adams @mdx.ae.uk
2 Gisela Susanne Bahr, Florida Instimle of Technology, Florida, USA.
gsbahr @gmail.com
' Benign Moreno, Fundacio Ave Maria, Engineering R &D, ing-
iWterra.cs
control systems: Functionality [2], i.e., does it support important,
useful and desirable tasks? Usability [3], i.e., is die system too
difficult to use? and Accessibility [4] i.e., are there any barriers
that prevent or disadvantage users when using die system?
This paper is structured in four sections to present and discuss
(a) important psychological factors for BCI, (b) practical factors
for BCI, (c) die implications of BCls for the future of Human
Computer Interaction and (d) a futuristic BCI vision.
2 PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS FOR BCIs
We propose that any consideration of psychophysiological
measurements must include the rigorous scrutiny and interpreta-
tion of these measurements in a human ecntred context. This
includes a popular measurement approach for BCI, die scalp -
recorded clectmencephalographic measurement (EEG). EEG
refers to the placement of electrodes on die head of a human or
animal in order to measure the electrical consequences of brain
behaviour. The conventional view of BCI is that EEG will en-
able severely disabled individuals to communicate with and
control their environments through control of screen displays,
prosthetic devices and robotic systems. This conventional view
is changing, however, particularly as are the results of die
emerging psychological and pragmatic issues. The following
four factors provide not an exhaustive but comprehensive set of
psychological considerations for analysis.
They arc (a) die types of cognitive function reflected in the
EEG, (b) die nature of feedback and the modalities involved, (c)
the types of intended users and (d) the types of tasks and envi-
ronments chosen.
The first consideration is that different patterns of die brain
activity may be mapped to respective cognitive functions. If so,
then different aspects of the EEG may reflect different functions
to a greater or lesser extent One of die most obvious areas is that
of motor — related EEG. Since voluntary movement control
already exists as an internal control system in humans, it is natu-
ral to use voluntary movement related potentials (VMRPs) to
drive a BCI [5]. Thus it is possible to detect actual index finger
flexions in an individual's EEG records. Furthermore, imagined
voluntary movements with able - bodied persons can be reliably
detected and measured [6]. This opens some major opportunities
for individuals with significant psychomotor impairments.
perceptual and cognitive brain processes can also be de-
tected. We know from primate studies that decision making
involves at least two general phases of neural processing, namely
the depiction of sensory information and the accumulation of
evidence from decision - related regions. Recent research [7] de-
ployed a cued paradigm plus single trial analysis of clectroc-
necphalography (EEG) and found temporally specific compo-
nents related to perceptual decision making. They then went on
to conduct further analyses of their EEG recordings to under-
stand their analyses of fMRI data collected for the same behav-
ioural task to identify the cortical locations of these EEG com-
ponents. They found evidence of a cascade of events associated
with perceptual decision making that takes place in a highly
distributed actual network. Of particular importance is activation
in the lateral occipital complex supporting the view that perccp-
mal persistence is a mechanism by which object -based decision
making in the human brain takes place.
In addition to EEG and FMRI, consider event related poten-
fials (ERPs). These are clectrophysiological responses to inter-
nal or external stimuli, including perceptions or thoughts. Event -
related potentials (ERPs) are seen in the clectromoaphalogmm
(EEG). Since ERPs may be used to measure brain activities as-
sociated with human related information processing, they may be
able to indicate variations in cognitive load [8] [9]. The meas-
uremcnt of ERPs in a laboratory setting is relatively easy, but
much more difficult in the real world, due to all manner of un-
controllable factors such as eye movements, switching of atten-
tion, continuous as opposed to discrete sensory inputs. [10].
These researchers reported a range of techniques that they could
produce significant single trial ERPs in such circumstance, lead-
ing to the generation of useful averaged evoked potentials
(AEPs) over multiple trials. They were able to locate the spatial
origins of these ERPs. Finally they were able to observe minute
by minute changes in cognitive load and overload, using (back-
propagation) actual networks to do so.
A second psychological factor is the nature of the feedback
given to the individual using the BCI. In particular, choosing the
modality for feedback is perhaps the most obvious choice. It is
often assumed that the feedback modalities of choice are visual,
auditory or their combination. However, researchers [1l] have
reported a system that uses vibrotactile biofeedback to supply
hapfic information. They found that six, healthy, young, male
participants could use a mu- rhythm based BCI within a motor
imagery paradigm to control the position of a virtual cursor. The
cursor position was shown visually as well as transmitted hapfi-
cally by varying the intensity of a vibrotactile stimulus to the
upper limb. The six subjects operated the BCI in a targeting task,
receiving only vibrotacfile biofeedback of performance. They
were able to control the BCI using only vibrotactile feedback
with an average accuracy of 56% and as high as 72 %. The re-
sults of this study show that vibrotacfile feedback works as a
possible feedback modality to operate a BCI using motor im-
agery.
A third psychological issue is the choice of intended users.
Whilst much of the above work has been conducted with the
support of non - disabled participants, these are often tests of the
feasibility and practicality of the proposed methods. The authors
often state their aims are to be to assist individuals with high
levels of disability, particularly psychomotor disabilities. How-
ever, we can also be disabled by our circumstances and by the
excessive demands that tasks place on us. In particular, cogni-
tive overload occurs when the information throughput of our
tasks / circumstances become too high or complex for us to cope
[12]. In such cases, augmented cognition through modality spe-
cific input scheduling is a potential solution. If BCI is a progres-
sively more viable option, as current research suggests, then BCI
can provide another communication channel as a basis for aug-
mented cognition. The difference between augmented cognition
and BCI approaches is in the intent of the user. In the former the
system senses user state and engages tack dependent mitigations
to optimize performance; conversely, the later accepts deliberate,
intended, cognitively articulated input from the user. For exam-
ple some researchers [13] state their research question as "How
can BCI be used to assist neurologically healthy individuals in
specifically demanding task;?'
A fourth psychological consideration is the choice of tacks
and context of use that are chosen. Many of these studies make
use of simple tasks such as the control of screen cursors to dem-
onstrate the impressive potential of BCI; few of the studies have
based their insights on an analysis of user requirements. Future
BCI investigations require the systematic evaluation of user
requirements to improve the user- sensifivity of the chosen de-
signs of such BCI systems. Where individuals have substantial
psychomotor deficits, any opportunity to communicate and con-
trol the environment appears to be beneficial, but, as science
moves on, these individuals may wish to enhance their quality of
life through the control of screen displays, prosthetic devices,
robotic systems etc. If so, the consideration of more user sensi-
tive design could be beneficial. However, BCI is likely to be
beneficial to a wider range of intended users and beneficiaries.
Individuals with reduced sensory, psychomotor or cognitive
attributes may also benefit and would surely want more than the
basic functionality of BCI based control of simple systems.
However, the increasing work on augmented cognition demon-
strates that there will be individuals who are working in high
information or high stress environments and could use BCI
communication (active or passive) to indicate a need for changes
in the task / information configurations that they must face.
Considering all these potential, intended users, it is clear that the
tasks and environments supported by BCI will soon need to be-
come much more enriched and interactive than at present. Of
course, the tasks / environments must not only be functionally
enriched, they must also be perceived as positive and welcom-
ing. In the past, assisfive technology has sometimes proved to be
functionally valuable but aesthetically inadequate. People with
disabilities and indeed all potential users may be discouraged
from using unattractive technology that seems to stigmatise its
users. If this argument is correct, then the BCI systems of the
future must be acceptable to intended users in the gestalt of a
sophisticated industrial design that meets functionality needs and
user requirements whilst affording usability, accessibility, acs -
thcfics and personae.
In summary, we have proposed four psychological factors
that are of practical importance to BCI developments and appli-
cations. They are all important if BCI methods are to be effeo-
lively understood and applied. the following four factors are of
highest face validity. They arc; (a) the types of cognitive func-
tion reflected in the EEG, (b) the nature and modalities used for
feedback, (c) the types of intended users and (d) the types of
tasks and environments chosen. However, these factors have
been chosen on the basis of face validity. How can such factors
be identified on a more conceptually robust basis, without treat
ing cognitive overload for the BCI scientist or pmctifioner?
Elsewhere, it has been suggested that nine factors can be used to
capture the essentials of human cognition. Research [12] has
proposed nine factors that have been validated by two, large
sample validation studies. Those nine factors are (from a user
perspective); input processing, feedback management, executive
functions, working memory, long term memory, emotions and
motivations, mental modelling, out put and learned, complex
output sequences. Episodic memory has also been suggested as
an extra factor, but it has been argued by leading researchers
[14] that this is best scen as part of working memory.
3 SOME PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF BCI
BCI can be seen from a number of distinct perspectives.
Above we considered a psychological perspective and the nature
of the psychological processes involved. Herr, we look at BCI
from the perspective of rehabilitation engineering.
Traditionally, EEG has been the measurement of popular
choice and, within that, EEG related to the motor cortex and thus
to psychomotor processes. As discussed above, simple psycho-
motor responses (e.g. finger flexions) are feasibly detected in an
individual's EEG. This would be helpful for an individual with
limited movement to control a system with minimal physical
effort. In addition, improving technology now allows for the
cortical clectrophysiological correlates of imagined movement
(e.g. imaginary finger flexions) to be detected and that is much
more promising for people with severe limitations. There are a
significant number of ways to extract measurements from an
EEG record, of which the event related potential (ERP) or
evoked potential (EP) and the averaged evoked potential (AEP)
are perhaps the best known. However, current and recent work
shows how many variations of this theme are possible and so the
race is on to determine the most effective options.
Continuing the focus on evoked potentials and averaged
evoked potentials (AEG), researchers [15] explored the meas-
uremrnt of the P300 component of the human EEG, with a new
and unsupervised algorithm for P300 estimation, thus improving
the raw EEG records. They proposed and tested a new method
to detect the P300 potentials in the human EEG by a P300 based
BCI. The results were favourable to this new approach over a
selection of older methods.
Other researchers [16] explored the use of flash onset and
offset visual evoked potentials (FVEPs) to activate a BCI sys-
tem. Flashing stimuli displayed on a screen are used to produce
onset and offset EVEN when the users looks at them. By shift
ing their visual attention to different items, users can produce
strings of letters or numbers with which to communicate or to
control useful systems. They also produced averaged evoked
potentials from their data, including the differences between the
N2 and P2 peaks and the NI and PI peaks. In two experiments
with five subjects in two experiments, they found an accuracy
level of 92.18 %, showing that the onset and offset FVEP -based
BCI can achieve a high information transfer rate. In contrast,
other researchers [17] explored steady state visual evoked poten-
fials (SSVEPs) with overlapping stimuli that can evoke changes
in SSVEP activity without the need for shifting gaze. They
found that half of their subjects could achieve a suitable level of
control of a BCI. Though further work is needed to improve this
percentage, the authors argued that this method might be very
suitable for severely disabled users.
One way to improve the effectiveness of EEG based BCIs
is to develop more advanced measures. Some researchers [18]
explored the use of energy density maps derived from EEGs in
ten healthy volunteers, comparing two real as well as between
two imaginary movements. They were able to identify the most
discriminative features based on statistically significant differ-
ences between the energy density maps. They concluded that
these types of analyses could provide a larger number of com-
mand signals to control the external systems via a BCI. In addi-
tion, researchers [19] explored the potential of machine learning
methods for compensating for the high variability in EEG data
when analyzing single trials in real -time. They concluded that
such methods contributed to the creation of cleaner data and thus
more effective BCI systems.
Of course, there is no need to use EEG measurements in
isolation. It can be put to joint use with the respiratory heart rate
response, induced by brisk inspiration [20]. They investigated
the ways in which a BCI could be turned on or off by the user.
They found that ten healthy subjects were able to switch on and
use a steady-state visual evoked potential based (SSVEP) BCI
using one ECG (electrocardiogram) and EEG channel, after only
20 min of feedback training. In addition, the subjects made very
few false positive errors. On this basis, the combination of EEG
and ECG promises to be very useful in the future. A further
methodological improvement is based on the concept of the
"quasi - movement" [21] defined as voluntary movements that
have been minimised as to be virtually undetectable, making
them rather like imagined responses. In fact, quasi - movements
are consistent with the proposed continuity between real and
imagined movement. They found that in healthy subjects quasi -
movements work well in brain - computer interface, bring associ-
ated with significantly smaller classification errors when com-
pared conventional imagined psychomotor responses. It is also
feasible to consider the potential role of near - infrared spectros-
copy (NIBS) for BCI [22]. They concluded LAIRS that instru-
ments are only small -scale and can be used to make noninvasive
measurements. They were able to show that they could measure
regional cerebral blood flow effectively by LAIRS during a tap-
ping task (preferred hand) and reported methods to evaluate
NIRS measurements by use of an artificial actual network.
So far, we have assumed that the BCIs will be based on
hard -wired systems. This is a reasonable assumption given cur-
rent experience of wired and wireless Internet interfaces. How-
ever, wireless systems offer potentially greater flexibility given a
suitable wireless environment. Thus it is important to consider
wireless BCls. Thus wireless systems for BCIs could make use
of subcutaneous transmitters with little loss of signal strength!
[23]. Such wireless systems can be strengthened further by the
effective use of compact, operational amplifiers that require little
power and can support implantable systems [24]. Such an ampli-
fier has only a power consumption of only 736 nW and a chip
area of only 0.023 mm2. Another, non - invasive option is the
application of wireless principles to EEG using an electrode cap
with a wireless link A study of the Armoni Project [25], using
non - invasive criteria, designed an EEG cap that made the EEG
system become invisible to the wearer (sce graphics pictures
below).
3 BCI IMPLICATIONS FOR HCI
The brain computer interface (BCI) should be the instantia-
tion of access "par excellence ". Current work, as discussed
above, has established the feasibility, in principle, of communi-
cation and system control through a BCI. It is clear that a range
of psychophysiological measures can be used either singly or in
combination. Intended users range from individuals with virtu-
ally no disabilities to those individuals with severe psychomotor
impairments. BCIs can also be used by individuals facing cogni-
tive overload or inappropriately high stress levels. Such systems
can now be set to detect such problems and provide cognitive
augmentation through tack or information sharing. For example,
a task can be carried out jointly by a system and a person. Alter-
natively, the person could take one task and the system could be
given mother tack. It is also increasingly possible to identify
those aspects of human cognition that are reflected in different
components of the EEG. This would allow BCIs to focus on the
most relevant cognitive functions, perhaps capturing the most
accessible or usable. Whilst visual feedback is the most com-
mon form, as discussed above, BCIs can use a range of different
modalities to guide the user. Finally, it is important to add that
powerful data analysis methods can be used to extract the maxi-
mum informational value from psychophysiological data with
consistency and reliability.
The above summary demonstrates the successes of current
BCI research and development and points to their use to solve
accessibility problems, particularly for people with severe psy-
chomotor deficits, but also much more widely. However, it is
remarkable when we considered a large sample (n = 105) of BCI
related papers, very few made reference to, or use of, the exten-
sive research literatures covering universal accessibility or us-
ability. Yet these should be ccntmI to the development of this
field. This is undoubtedly due to the current state of the art and
the necessary focus upon demonstrating validity and feasibility.
However, such systems are not themselves immune to us-
ability and accessibility problems. Whilst these two topics are
much too big to be discussed in depth here, some simple links
can be suggested. Usability is defined in terms of the level of
tack difficulty that a system requires. Them arc many experts on
usability, but for our focus on BCI, references to the work of
Nielsen [3] and Shneiderman [26] will have to suffice. The
point is that there are simple ways to conduct usability evalua-
tions for interactive systems. Accessibility is defined here as the
lack of barriers between a system and a user that would other-
wise degrade or prevent the effective use of system.
Universal accessibility is equally large as a topic. Here the
work of [27] can be singled out The accessibility of an interface
depends on at least four factors: the technology platform, the
intended users, the tacks and the context of use. All of these four
factors have been discussed above, but their contributions to
accessibility need a more explicit treatment For a system to be
truly accessible, it can also be said that depends on (a) the cho-
sen hardware, (b) the quality of the connection, (c) the users'
ability to perceive incoming information and feedback, (d) the
making of appropriate responses with sufficient case, (c) cogni-
tive accessibility i.e. the ability to navigate efficiently (with few
errors) and to comprehend the information given and (f) the
achievement of their objectives through the use of an interactive
(BCI) system [28]. If BCI research and development can
achieve these twin goals of usability and accessibility, then BCI
promises to become a mainstream technology and a substantial
contributor to the global Information Society.
A new application of BCI is discussed by the Armoni Pro-
ject [25]. The low levels of motivation that people with intellec-
toad disability often experience during long periods of their daily
life when they are without adequate cognitive, sensory and mo-
tar stimulation is an aggravating circumstance that can have a
detrimental impact on their moods [29], their well -being and,
therefore, their quality of life. Thesc cognitive, sensory and mo-
tar decrements can be mitigated by systems based on ICT tech -
nologics, using feedback with indicators based on BCI (Brain
Computer Interaction), EEG pickups of the real time emotion
states of the users of such a system.
To meet these needs, a BCI related PC station has been
constructed, which can be assembled in groups of two, three or
four unit's ensembles. BCI (Brain Computer Interaction) tech-
niques are used, with technically advanced and conventional
peripherals, as well as state of- the -art software with auto-
adaptive capacities. They are designed for dependent -disabled
people and allows access to and interaction with more than 100
activities, with systems that, from the point of view of the user,
are significantly: easy to use, accessible (according to the differ-
ent degrees of disability), cognifively interesting for all types of
people considered here, recreationally funny, easy to learn and to
use for learning, rehabilitation and maintenance activities.
There is a substantial amount of research that demonstrates
emotional monitoring in people with EEG [30], with evoked
emotions [31], cerebral laterality- emotion and EEG [32], recog-
nition of emotions [33], emotion assessment [34]frontal EEG
asymmetry as a monitor of emotions [35] and depression meas-
ured through EEG [36]. This development of an appropriate
EEG methodology, allows for a baseline to be established for
each user, in terms of his/her emotions plus the map of the EEG,
particularly of the ventromedial frontal zone of the human brain
cortex [37].
All this feedback, coming from standard peripherals, as
well as from advanced systems, particularly the EEG cap, can be
formally processed. BCI provides an objective and real time
interaction and supplies us with feedback mlafing to the mental
state of the cortex of the user through real -fine evaluation of the
correlative EEG, with order-disordcr states of the brain (polarity
of emotion and probably intensity, [38], and customized emotion
performance and identified for each user by therapist in instim-
tions. State of the art BCI (Brain Computer Interaction) technol-
ogy, and the specific case adopted here of BCI by EEG (clectro-
encephalogram), has developed systems that are very focused on
the ability to control peripheral elements and devices (for exam-
ple, moving a cursor, moving a wheelchair etc). The Armoni
project immerses the user in a new perspective, focussing on the
emotional personal state of the user, capturing it in the main-
frame computer of the stimulation station through wireless based
EEG (This has been supported by clinical trials).
4 THE FU'T'URISTIC VISION OF BCI
Imagine a situation in which you are working in your home
study. You notice that the room temperature is slightly Rai high,
so you turn your gaze to the temperature display and think it
down a few degrees. The mom cools to a more acceptable level.
Your next task is to send a package to a colleague by 3Dmail.
You had prepared the package the night before, so all you have
to do is to think yourself through the process. A copy of the
package goes and you are rewarded by feedback in the form of a
brief passage from Mozart. Suddenly, you find that you have a
home visit from a colleague, a rare treat these days. YOU both
exchange archived information via your systems and exchange
pleasantries. She shows you her new system, which is not based
on the familiar hat system but on subcutaneous units, set almost
flush the skull. You make a cognitive note to explore the options
sometime, but not sometime soon. You both agree that some-
times it is nice to get out
Later, you inspect your news feeds, filtering out those items
that do not accord with your religious views. This reminds you
to switch on your background prayer mode. You notice the item
in which some criminals have adapted their BCls so that they
can control other peoples' robots and wireless enabled property
and down load it for immediate inspection. Before you have a
chance to read, you receive a handwritten, hence highly secure
text message from your daughter saying that she is on the inter-
continental bus and needs you to send some credits as she is
over - extended
This view of BCI future may be in turn, attractive or repel -
Icnt, depending on your world view, but in the nearer future, we
can surely look forward to BCls that make usable, accessible
contributions to universal accessibility.
[]1 Wolpaw, I.R. Birbaumer, N. Hwtderks, W.I. McFarland,
D.I. Peckham, P.H. Schalk, G. Donchin, E. Quatrano, LA
Robinson,.J. Vaughan,T.M. (2000).Braincomputerinterl'ace
technology: a review of the first international meeting: IEEE Trans-
actions on Rehabilitation Engineering [also IEEE Trans. on Neural
Systems and Rehabilitation, 8,164.
[21 Szykman, S., Racz, I. W. and Sriram, R.D. (1999). The rcTw%cnta-
tion of function in computer-based design. Proceedings of the 1999
ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences September 12 -15,
1999, Las Vegas, Nevada, DETC99/DTM-8742.
[31 Nielsen, I. (1994). Usability engineering. N.Y., Morgan Kaufman.
[41 Lawrence, S. and Giles, C. L. (1999). Accessibility of information on
the web. Naturc 400, 107
[51 de Jong, R., Gladwin, T. H and Hart, B. M. (2006).Movement-
related EEG indices of preparation in task switching and motor con-
trol. Brain Research doi: I0.1011j.brainres.2006.03.030.
[61 Bozorgzadch, Z, Birch, G. E. and Mason, S. G. (2(X10). The LF -ASD
brain computer interlace: on -line identification of imagined linger
flexions in the spontaneous EEG of able-bodied subjects. Acoustics,
Speech, and Signal Processing, 2000 Vol 4. 2000 IEEE International
Conference.
[71 Philiastides, M. G. and Paul Sajda (2007) EEG-Imoned IMRI Re-
veals Spatiotempoml Characteristics of Perceptual Decision Making.
I. Neuroscl., Nov 2007; 27: 13082- 13091;
d6:10 .1523 /JNEUROSCI.354( }07.2(1(17.
[81 Schullheis, H. and Anthony Jameson, A. (2004). Assessing Cognitive
Load in Adaptive Hypermodia Systems: Physiological and Behav-
ioral Methods. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 3137,225-234.
[91 Ullsperger, P., Preude, G., Erdman, U. (2001). Auditory probe sen-
sitivity to mental workload changes - an evenbrclaled potential study.
International Journal of Psychophysiology 40, 201 - 209.
[101 Tang, A. C., Sutherland, M. T., McKinney, C. J., Liu, J., Wang, Y.,
rr
Paa, L, Gerson, A.D. and Sajda, P. (2006). Classifying Single-Trial
ERPs from Visual and Frontal Cortex during Free Viewing. 2006 In-
ternational Joint Conference on Neural Network. Vancouver, BC,
Canada. July 16 -21, 2006.
[I 11 Chattojeel, A., Aggarwall, V., Ramos, A., Acharya, S and Thakor,
N V. (2007). A braincomputer interlace with vibrotactile biolccd-
back for haptic information. Journal of Neurolingincring and Rcha-
bilitation 2007, 4:4Od6:l(1.1186 /1743- O(X)14 -40.
[121 Adams, R. (2007). Decision and stress: Decision and stress: cogni-
tion and e-accessibility in the inl'onation workplace. Universal ac-
cessin The imonation society,
[131 Pam, L. C., Christol'mou, C., Gerson, A, Dyrholm, M., Lao, A.,
Wagner, M., Philiastides M. G. and Sajda, P. (2008) Spatioaemporal
linear decoding of brain state: Application to performance augmenta-
tion in high- throughput tasks. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine,
January 2008.
[141 Baddelcy, A D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of
working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, (11): 417 -423.
[151 Rivet B, and Souloumiac A (2007). Subspace estimation approach
to P300 detection and application to Brain -0omputer Interlace. Coal'
Prom IEEE Eng Mod Biol Sm. 2007; 1: 5071 -4.
[161 Ice PL, Hsich JC, Wu CH, Shyu KK, Wu YT (2007) Brain com-
puter interface using flash onset and offset visual evoked potentials.
Clin Ncurophysiol. 2007 Dec 27
[171 Allison BZ, McFarland DJ, Schalk G, Zheng SD, Jackson MM,
Wolpaw JR. (2(X)8).Towards an independent brain-computer inter-
face using steady stale visual evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol.
2008 Feb; 119(2): 399 -408.
[181 Vuckovic A, Sepulveda F (2008). Quantification and visualisation
of differences between two motor tasks based on energy density
maps for brain-computer interface applications. Clin Ncurophysiol.
119(2): 44658.
[191 Muller KR, Tangenann M, Domhcgc G, Kraulodat M, Curio G,
Blanken, B. (2008). Machine learning for real -time single-trial EEG-
analysis: from brain-computer interlacing to mental state monitoring.
I Ncuroscl Methods. 2008 Jan 15; 167(1): 82 -90.
[201 Scherer R, Muller-Putt GR, Pfurtscheller G. (200). Sell initiation
of EEG -based brain-computer communication using the heart rate re-
sponse. I Neural Eng. 2007 Dec; 4(4): L23 -9.
[211 Nikulin VV, HohlcMd FU, Jacobs AM, Curio G (20(17). Quasi -
movements: A novel motor-cognitive phenomenon. Neuropsycholo-
gia. 20(17 Oct 22.
[221 Tsubonc T, Muroga T, Wada Y. (20(17). Application to robot con-
trol using brain function measurement by near- inGared spectroscopy.
Cont Proc IEEE Eng Mod Biol Sm. 2007; 1: 5342 -5.
(231 Chow EY, Kahn A. Irazorlui PP. (2007). High Data -Rmc 6.7 GEL
Wireless ASIC Transmitter for Neural Prostheses. Com Proc IEEE
Eng Mod Riot Soc. 2007; 1: 6580 -3.
[241Dreshcr R. P., and Irazoqui PP. (2007). A Compact Nanopower Low
Output Impedance CMOS Operational Amplifier for Wireless In-
traocular Pressure Recordings. Cont ' Proc IEEE Eng Mod Biol Sm.
Zan.
(251 Moreno Vidales, B. (20(17). Armond Pmjmt presented to European
Commission inside FP7 Call 2007 7.2 Accessibility and Inclusion,
part c) Brain Computer Interaction (BPI). Engineering R&D, Fun -
dacio Ave Maria.
(261 Shnciderman, B. (2007). Web Science: A Provocative Invitation 0
Computer Science. Commwticatu ns of the ACM. June 2007fVol.
50, No. 6.
[271 Stephanidis, C. (20() 1). User Interfaces for All. Mahwah, NI: LEA.
[281 Adams, R. and Gill, S.P. (20(17). Augmented Cognition, Universal
Access and Social Intelligence in the Information Society. HCH
2007 Beijing
(291 Reeve, I. (1994). Activity Cceling scale H [AFS IT]. In Fischer I &
Corcoran K (1994). Measures for clinical practice: A sourmbook-
2nd Ed. (vol. 2). New York: Free Press.
(301 Forbes, E.H. (2003). Children's emotion regulation: frontal EEG
asymmetry and behaviour during a disappointment. Doctor Thesis.
University of Pittsburgh 2(X)3.
[311 Baumgartner T., Esslen M., Janke, L. (2005). From emotion per-
ception to emotion experience: Emotions evoked by pictures and
classical music Institute 1'or Psychology, University of Zurich.
1321 Nicmic C. P., Warren K. (2002). Studies of Emotion. A Theoretical
and Empirical Review of Psychophysiological Studies of Emotion.
(Department of Clinical and Social Psychology). IUR Rochester, 1,
1,15 -19.
[331 Takahashi K. (2004). Remarks on Emotion Recognition from Bio-
Potential Signals. 20 International Conference on Autonomous robots
and Agents. December 1315, 20(14 Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Faculty of Engineering, Dohisha University, Kyoto, Japan.
[341 Chanel G. Kronegg I., Grandjean D., Pun T. (2005). Emotion As-
sessment- Arousal Evaluation Using EEG "a and Peripheral Physio-
logical Signals. Computer Vision Group. University of Geneva -
Switzcrland.
[351 Coan I. A., Allen I.I.B. (2(X)4). Frontal EEG asymmetry as a mod-
erator and mediator of emotion. University of Arizona. Tucson USA-
Biological Psychology 67 (2(X)4) 7 -49
[361 Ions, N.A., Field T., Fox, N.A., Davalos M., Gomez, C. (2001).
EEG during different emotions in I (Imonthcld infants of depressed
mothers Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, Volume
19, Number 4,17 November 2001, pp. 295 - 312(18)
[371 Bacham A., Damasio H., Damasio A.R. (2(XX)). Emotion Decision
Making and the Oritolrontal Cortex. Department of Neurology, Uni-
versity of Iowa College of Medicine Oxford University Press 200().
[381 Schmidt L, Trainor L.I. (2(X)1). Frontal brain electrical activity
(EEG) distinguishes valence and intensity of musical emotions. Psy-
chology Press.
Marian Karr
From: tony barino <barrinotony @gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:02 PM
To: Council
Attachments: PRESS CALL[1].doc; trillionaire communications.doc
TRILLIONAIRE COMMUNICATIONS -- NEVER FEAR GREENSPAN IS HERE-- -
DOW NOTE -- FBI ALERT- OBAMA ALERT
* SITUATION: EXPLANATION
& US MARKETS: NEED NOT FEAR THE LITGATION WILL INSURE THAT THE
WASHINGTON GOLD HOLDING "POST
OUTSIDE THE US TREASURY CONTROL" INTO THE BENEFICIARIES
ACCOUNT NAME 0 "AUDITED TARE" .0
1. TO ENSURE THAT 100 TRILLION DOLLARS IN GOLD -- DOES HAVE THE
IMMEIDATE ABILITY TO PRINT TO SOLVE
WHATEVER ISSUE. 100 TRILLION DOLLAR GOLD IS TOO MUCH TO LOSE
FOR THE FUTURE RECOVERIES OF AMERICA
AND OTHER WORLD ISSUE (immediate mircoeconomic issue that can resolve
immediately)
STIMULUS PACKAGES: DOES NOT GRACE OR CONSIDER THE GRASS ROOTS
COMAPNIES Z SCORE AND BURN
RATE
2. REDUCE AND MINIMMIZE THE POTIENTIAL DIGRUNTAL, NERVOUS AND
FINANCIAL UNREST IN THE FUTURES
"BEARAURACY" IS STAGNATES ACTION IN THE RESOLVE OF
INTRACACIES -- ONSET OF PROBLEM IS USUALLY
COMPLEX MORE THE IGNORING OR RELUUCTANCE TO ACT THE
HARDER IT IS TO FIX A EFFECTUATING
FINANICIAL ISSUE (COMPOUNDED AND SNOWBALLED) - -- IT TAKES A
WHILE TO REPAIR - - -- (I.E. EGYPT, CAIRO
WENT TO SHIT IN SHORT TIME - -- LOOK AT THE "GOLDMAN SACH
PROTEST') -- REDUCE THE ODDS THAT
DISGRUNATALNESS IS GROWING IN THE FUTURE. "HARD
DEPRESSION OR PROPLONGED RECESSION IS
HARD TO FIX UNLESS YOU GRASS ROOTS RECOVERY -- OR HAVE
FLEXIBILITES TO IMMEDIATELY QUASH THE
AND FIX ISSUE - - - -- "NARROW THE CONSUMER DEBT" WITH
ACCURACY - - -- CREDIT DRIVEN BASED ECONOMIES
NEED WAYS TO CLOSE AND FILL GAPS WHERE THERE IS NO MORE
PAYMENT OR THERE IS SO PAYMENT.
STIMULUS IS JUST THAT T IN A STIMULATE IN BAND - AID EFFECT AND
MOST OF THIMES IS SLOW TO HAVE AN
EFFECT AND SOMEITMES FADES TO THE COMPOUNDED ADVERSITY OF
THE RESESSION -- NEVER ADDRESS THE
PROMOLGUATED UNLYING COMPLEXITYAND CAUSATION OF THE
RECESSIONAND DEPRESSION- - --
66 3. WITH 100 TRILLION DOLLAR GOLD/DOLLARS POSTED OUTSIDE
THE BEAREAUCRAY -- "HINDER DELAY --
CONVIULED INSIGHT AND CONVULED VISION. + ONE PROGRAM
DRAWN OFF AN ACCOUNT SUCH THIS GOLD
HOLDING'# BANCKRUPCTY COMPANY FILING YOU CAN REDUCE 50%---
DECREASE THE ODDS OF A "HARD
BANKRUPTCIES" spill and pitch - -- fill out application if your z score - and
burn rate are bad enough to meet the
criteria of the program or you expect to layoff twenty or more people due to area and
overall slow down -- recession projections-
companies layoff people due projection in slow down and stagnation
N "call it proactive company presevation needs assistance to maintain "N
U 0 22 and 23 century cost overhead can not be estimated at this time 0 U
MARKETS UP
PRINCPLE BEFORE PERSONALITES - --
DOCTORINE - PRINCIPLE HAVE ESTABLISHED CAPTIALISM TO
FUNCTION - -- SELECTIVE DEIVATION FROM THE PRACTICE IS NO
GOOD IDEA
TRILLIONAIRE COMMUNICATIONS -- NEVER FEAR GREENSPAN IS HERE-- -
DOW NOTE -- FBI ALERT- OBAMA ALERT
Marian Karr
From: tony barino <barrinotony @g mail. com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:01 PM
To: Council
Attachments: PRESS CALL][1 ].doc; people of the nation are not your commerce.docx; take another look at
the first attachments.doc; trillionaire communications[1][1].doc
TRILLIONAIRE COMMUNICATIONS -- NEVER FEAR GREENSPAN IS HERE-- -
DOW NOTE -- FBI ALERT- OBAMA ALERT
* SITUATION: EXPLANATION REASONING TO THE
US MARKETS: NEED NOT FEAR THE LITGATION WILL INSURE THAT THE
WASHINGTON GOLD HOLDING "POST
OUTSIDE THE US TREASURY CONTROL" INTO THE BENEFICIARIES
ACCOUNT NAME 1 "AUDITED TARE" 0
1. TO ENSURE THAT 100 TRILLION DOLLARS IN GOLD -- DOES HAVE THE
IMMEIDATE ABILITY TO PRINT TO SOLVE
WHATEVER ISSUE. 100 TRILLION DOLLAR GOLD IS TOO MUCH TO LOSE
FOR THE FUTURE RECOVERIES OF AMERICA
AND OTHER WORLD ISSUE (immediate mircoeconomic issue that can resolve
immediately)
STIMULUS PACKAGES: DOES NOT GRACE OR CONSIDER THE GRASS ROOTS
COMAPNIES Z SCORE AND BURN
RATE
2. REDUCE AND MINIMMIZE THE POTIENTIAL DIGRUNTAL, NERVOUS AND
FINANCIAL UNREST IN THE FUTURES
"BEARAURACY" IS STAGNATES ACTION IN THE RESOLVE OF
INTRACACIES -- ONSET OF PROBLEM IS USUALLY
COMPLEX MORE THE IGNORING OR RELUUCTANCE TO ACT THE
HARDER IT IS TO FIX A EFFECTUATING
FINANICIAL ISSUE (COMPOUNDED AND SNOWBALLED) - -- IT TAKES A
WHILE TO REPAIR - - -- (I. E. EGYPT, CAIRO
WENT TO SHIT IN SHORT TIME - -- LOOK AT THE "GOLDMAN SA CH
PROTEST') -- REDUCE THE ODDS THAT
DISGRUNATALNESS IS GROWING IN THE FUTURE. "HARD
DEPRESSION OR PROPLONGED RECESSION IS
HARD TO FIX UNLESS YOU GRASS ROOTS RECOVERY -- OR HAVE
FLEXIBILITES TO IMMEDIATELY QUASH THE
AND FIX ISSUE - - - -- "NARROW THE CONSUMER DEBT" WITH
ACCURACY - - -- CREDIT DRIVEN BASED ECONOMIES
NEED WAYS TO CLOSE AND FILL GAPS WHERE THERE IS NO MORE
PAYMENT OR THERE IS SO PAYMENT.
STIMULUS IS JUST THAT T IN A STIMULATE IN BAND - AID EFFECT AND
MOST OF THIMES IS SLOW TO HAVE AN
EFFECT AND SOMEITMES FADES TO THE COMPOUNDED ADVERSITY OF
THE RESESSION -- NEVER ADDRESS THE
PROMOLGUATED UNLYING COMPLEXITYAND CAUSATION OF THE
RECESSION AND DEPRESSION- - --
di 3. WITH 100 TRILLION DOLLAR GOLD/DOLLARS POSTED OUTSIDE
THE BEAREAUCRAY -- "HINDER DELAY --
CONVIULED INSIGHT AND CONVULED VISION. ',+ ONE PROGRAM
DRAWN OFF AN ACCOUNT SUCH THIS GOLD
HOLDING" � BANCKRUPCTY COMPANY FILING YOU CAN REDUCE 50%---
DECREASE THE ODDS OF A "HARD
BANKRUPTCIES" * spill and pitch - -- fill out application if your z score - and
burn rate are bad enough to meet the
criteria of the program or you expect to layoff twenty or more people due to area and
overall slow down -- recession projections-
companies layoff people due projection in slow down and stagnation
N "call it proactive company presevation needs assistance to maintain "N
8 122 and 23 century cost overhead can not be estimated at this time 9 9
d4 MARKETS UP di
PRINCPLE BEFORE PERSONALITES - --
DOCTORINE - PRINCIPLE HAVE ESTABLISHED CAPTIALISM TO
FUNCTION - -- SELECTIVE DEIVATION FROM THE PRACTICE IS NO
GOOD IDEA
Markets should stabilize through out the week rest of the week
Article II section 4
United states v McNally — Evans v United States — Jersey City v Hague
-- -
Skilling v United States - --
TRILLIONAIRE COMMUNICATIONS -- NEVER FEAR GREENSPAN IS HERE-- -
DOW NOTE -- FBI ALERT- OBAMA ALERT
Printer - friendly version/PDF.
Addendum: undated eranhs..
The "General
Welfare" Clause
by
JOHN W
BUGLER
( September
1994 )
Pull the
it of the
,e before
's too late!
We Americans find ourselves faced with the disquieting specter of a five
trillion dollar national debt, a sum truly inconceivable. Many economists
and politicians tell us this debt portends a disastrous financial collapse in
the future and we worry. Once debt free, we are now the largest debtor
nation in the world and as we find ourselves on the precipice we are
confounded as to how we got there. For answers, however, we need look
no further than the farewell address of our first President, George
Washington, who, in reference to our
constitution, warned,
"Let there be no change ]in the
Constitution] by usurpation. For though
this, in one instance may be the instrument
of good, it is the customary weapon by
which free governments are destroyed. "
Change in the constitution by usurpation?
When did that happen? It happened in 1937!
Few americans realize that up until 1937 the Congress of the United
States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen
enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States
Constitution. [Appx. 11 these powers defined clearly the areas of national
purposes over which Congress could enact legislation including the
allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the
enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national
government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional
challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new
deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness.
Ill winds prevailed against the Constitution in the 1930'S. The country
was in the depression and Franklin D. Roosevelt asked for extraordinary
"powers similar to those necessary in time ofwar," to meet the
emergency. Poorly crafted legislation, some of it not printed in time for
floor vote were rammed through a docile and Compliant 73RD Congress.
Everything he asked for was given, with little or no debate.
The first of the new deal statutes to reach the Supreme Court for review,
arrived in January 1935. in the sixteen months following, The court
decided ten major cases or groups of cases involving new deal statutes. In
eight instances out of ten the decisions went in favor of the United States
Constitution and against the new deal. Eight of the ten pieces of "must
legislation" were found to be unconstitutional.
The President reacted as one would after having received a kick in a
sensitive area. He went to the american people with
a fireside chat and stated
"we have therefore, reached the point as a
nation where we must take action to save the
Constitution from the Court and the Court from
itself." (March 9,1937) [II [P.7541
The President declared war on the Supreme Court.
To appreciate the depth of FDR's resolve in such issues, one need only
read his correspondence to representative Snyder of Pennsylvania asking
Congress to pass the national bituminous coal conservation act regardless
of any doubts, "however reasonable," that it might have about the bill's
Constitutionality. It appeared in this case at least, the President was
urging Congress to disregard the Constitution. [2] [p.738]
"In November 1936 the Democratic Party won an overwhelming victory
at the polls. The election confirmed the Roosevelt
administration in power and inspired the President to
attempt a reorganization of the Judiciary in order to
win control of that last remaining outpost of
conservative Constitutionalism, the United States
Supreme Court." [2] [P.749]
Constitutional historians refer to what happened next as the "Revolution
of 1937." The President proposed that for each sitting justice over the age
of seventy there be appointed one new Justice to "help them with their
case load." In reality FDR wanted to pack the court with six additional
justices willing to declare all of his "must legislation" Constitutional.
Chief Justice Hughes was traumatized. He looked for a way to disengage
the Presidents plan which appeared almost certain to pass both houses
and be signed into law. What to do? What was about to happen would
ultimately lead our country to the clear and present danger
of economic insolvency.
One observer noted "Hughes was profoundly convinced
that what was at stake in the crises precipitated by the
[Presidents] court plan was nothing less than the fate of the
Supreme Court's historic role as guardian of the ,
Constitution." He went on to state that What happened next
was a "decision to retreat in the immediate skirmish in order to insure
victory in the larger, struggle for judicial supremacy." [3] CP. 111)
The supreme court at the time consisted of four conservatives, three
liberals, one moderate, and one swing. The liberals were; Stone, Cardozo
and Brandeis. The conservatives were: McReynolds, Sutherland, Butler,
and Van Deventer. The moderate was Hughes. The swing was Roberts.
Hughes prevailed on Roberts to desert the Conservative camp, swing over
with him and join the three liberals in declaring the social security cases
[Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (301 us 548, May 24, 1937)]
Constitutional. [4] [P.56] This Roberts did, and by so doing, took the wind
from the sails of the President's court packing plan. It went back to
committee and died. one Administration official called the court's action,
"the switch in time that saved nine. "
This decision said in effect, Congress would no longer
be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and
spend for anything; so long as it was for "general
welfare."
But the words "General Welfare" in the introduction to the enumerated
powers of Article I Section 8 were never intended to be an object for
extension of the power to tax and spend; and up until the cases noted
above, no court ever so averred.[Appx. 1]
The supreme court surrendered to the new deal on the most fundamental
of constitutional issues. "it is scarcely conceivable that Chief Justice
Hughes and Justice Roberts... were unaware of the political implications
of their move. the President had lost a battle but won a war. In a
remarkable series of decisions ...the Court executed the most abrupt
change of face in its entire history... " -[2] [p.753 -754]
Justice Roberts, writing in 1951, said in effect:
"We voted against the Constitution to save
the Court."
His exact words were:
Looking back it is difficult to see how the Court
could have resisted the popular urge ... an
insistence by the Court on holding Federal
power to what seemed its appropriate orbit when the Constitution
was adopted might have resulted in even more radical changes to our
dual structure than those which have gradually accomplished
through the extension of limited jurisdiction conferred on the federal
government. [3] [p.I13]
His statement "limited jurisdiction " - "conferred on the federal
government" is understandable only when one considers that very few
"extensions" of "limited juribdiction" had been executed by Congress
from the time of the great retreat decisions,[1937] Up to the year 1951.
(The year Roberts book was published)
Nothing much happened immediately after these decisions because o
WW 1I; then post war reconstruction with a strong conservative
Republican leadership under Bob Taft
and a coalition of conservative Outlays for Mandatory Programs
democrats; then Korea; then the
Eisenhower years; then Kennedy [who °
basically was a fiscal conservative]; then
Dallas; then Lyndon B. Johnson and the o
Great Society, [1965] the arrival of
which signaled the commencement of
the full implementation of "Stewart
Machine Co. v. Davis " - -1937.
aoo
Until this time, the American people's
demands on government were modest
and for the most part the government 3�
lived within its means. But LBJ and his
cohorts, both Democrat and moderate 200
Republican, said in effect, "damn the
enumerated powers, full speed ahead."
soa
Something for everyone: spend now,
pay later.
As time went on elected representatives ss 7a s 80 as vu
in washington found it virtually Years
impossible to say no to constituent
demands. Many of the demands were for good things. [It seemed so, if
someone else paid the bill.] Most if not all of these things are best left to
the states, regional authorities, voluntary agencies and, yes, families. [In
terms of sheer economic efficiency, nothing in all of history ever equalled
the family. Whatever happened to them ?]
Fifty legislative debates on the merits and uses of taxpayers dollars for
local purposes is very healthy. Our founding fathers believed in the idea
and we practiced it, almost perfectly until 1965. This gave great power
and strength to our country. People retained more than 80% of their
wages, whereas today they are left with less than 50% and many of us
find ourselves reduced to asking the general government for this or that.
"Give me, give me, give me."
Consider the national debt. Approaching five trillion dollars. How did
s
OMITS ON THE FEDERAL DEBT
Slol utvey Catlmes ap Ovvambor JI
this happen? A "General Welfare
Congress" [session after session]
made this happen. With no limits on
their taxing and spending power,
they became like children in a candy
store.
F{ IIII ``II Study the national debt and
o� # #R!4!l1444 ## #11111 #1441{1 #l��lf�� #1��41- mandatory program curves; they rise
rots reed w4 o. rear wro rots tow rods .e exponentially after the full
implementation of the great society
[APPX.2]. Both national parties
must share blame for the enormous catastrophe befalling our country and
its posterity.
It's really a "Catch 22 ". You want to serve your country. To serve your
country you must be in power [in Congress]. To be in power you must be
re- elected. To be re- elected you must out promise your opponent. To out
promise your opponent you must promise to spend for the "General
Welfare."
And it goes on and on and on, forever, until one of three things happen:
I We adopt good moral sense and courage and say no to the
inordinate demands of our constituents and the special interest
groups.
• This will never happen. Congress prefers to possess the
power to buy the allegiance of their constituents by
providing for their "general welfare. " It is a payoff from
organized government and "we the people" have been led
to believe someone else will pay for it down the line. i.e.
our children.
• Look at the behavior of the "new Congress ". Farm district
Representatnes won't give back on subsidies. Inner city
Representatnes won't give back on aid to teenage mothers.
Defense industry Representatnes won't give back on
defense spending. The cotton and tobacco representatnes
won't give back on their subsidies. Good americans all.
Some are signers of the contract for america. But they
won't give back a dime. They love the power.
• We need a Constitutional Amendment clearly defining just
what they can tax and spend for. [Governments control
people -- constitutions control governments] and if we the
people want them to keep all the power they now have,
then so be it. we conjoin together, singing, "we don't have
to live in the future, our children do. We want ours and we
want it now. "
II. Our nation suffers an economic collapse and/or a total loss of
freedom due to excessive taxation and national debt. This is why
the balanced budget amendment is a danger. Congress will
balance the budget on the backs of the american workers and
entrepreneurs. Congress will not resist unlimited spending power.
Why? Because it feels too good and they are spending other
peoples money. Your money and my money. It's painless when
it's not your money. And the nation as we know it today, will
continue the ongoing surrender of individual and economic liberty
to a form of government that can best be described as legislative
despotism.
III. Our newly - elected Representatives propose a Constitutional
Amendment to the Several States for their consideration, which
shall state that:
1. The phrase "the Common Defense and the General
Welfare" in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution are
not grants of power but merely introductions to the
enumerated powers concerning the common defense and
the general welfare.
2. That all powers seized and accrued to the federal
government since the "revolution of 1937" be submitted to
the several states as part of this amendment and they as a
whole shall vote up and down as to whether or not these
seized powers should be returned to their rightful owners,
i.e. the states or the people, or be added to the
enumerations presently extant in Article I Section 8 of the
U.S. Constitution.
3. And that all future additions to those enumerated powers
for taxing and spending found in Article I Section 8 of the
U.S. Constitution be done as the founding fathers
provided, by Amendment to the Constitution.
In his farewell address, George Washington speaking on
our dual federal system stated., "the spirit of encroachment
tends to consolidate the powers... in one, and thus to
create?, ... a real despotism.- *
He went on to warn:
Let there be no change in the constitution
by usurpation; for though this, in one
instance, may be the instrument of good, it
is the customary weapon by which free
governments are destroyed. [5] [P. 2241]
For "customary weapon" read " Stewart
Machine Co. v Davis" (301 US 548) 1937.
Presently our ship of state is aground on the shoals of uncertain
centralism. At this very moment a great storm -and high tide of optimism
have begun to shake her free; but any freedom will be short lived without
an amendment enunciating clearly what the founding fathers intended:
The General Welfare clause in Article I Section 8
is an introduction to the enumerated powers that follow
and not itself a grant of power.
CLOSING
3 The limits on federal power to legislate for the "general
welfare" remains, to this date, undefined and presumably,
boundless
3 The question that begs an answer is, "if the framers of
our Constitution, who labored so resolutely in philadelphia
that torridly hot summer in 1787 intended the powers of
Congress to have no boundaries, why did they bother to
enumerate seventeen ?"
3 James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare"
clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to
Henry Lee,
If not only the means but the
objects are unlimited, the
parchment [the Constitution]
should be thrown into the fire at
once. [6] [p.257]
REFERENCES
I. Posey, Merlo, J., Charles Evans Hughes
[Vol.21 [Columbia University Press New
York, 1963
2. Kelly, A.H. and Harbison, W.A., The
American Constitution - Its Origins and
Development [W.W.Norton & Co. Inc. New
York, 1948
3. Mason, Alpheus, The Supreme Court from
Taft to Warren [Louisiana State University
Press: Baton Rouge, 19581
4. Krock, Arthur, The Consent of the Governed
- And Other Deceits, [ Little, Brown and
Company - -- Boston, Ma. 1971]
5. Hickey, W., The Constitution of the United
States of America, with Papers of George
Washington. [Philadelphia, 1853] [Farewell
Address of George Washington, President, to
the people of the United States, September
17, 17961
6. Brant, Irving the Fourth President - A Life of
James Madison [Eyre & Spottiswoode
(Publishers) Ltd. London, 1970
APPENDIX 1
DEDICATION
This effort is
dedicated to the
memory of my
mother and
father, and to all
service men and
women who
gave their lives
for the survival of
our posterity.
John W. Bugler
Constitutional
Awareness
bugler@ bugler. org
Article I, Section 8.
Th V The Congress shall have Power
-W To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to
Constitution pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defence and General
Welfare of the United States; but
o F HE all Duties, Imposts and Excises
T
UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
GOVERNMENI PRINIING OFFICE.
WASNINGTOIJ DC 1 1972
shall be uniform throughout the
United States;
f To borrow money on the
credit of the United States;
-O►To regulate Commerce with
foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian
Tribes;
+To establish an uniform Rule
of Naturalization, and uniform
Laws on the subject of
Bankruptcies throughout the
United States;
+To coin Money, regulate the
Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fix the Standard of
Weights and Measures;
-0-To provide for the
Punishment of counterfeiting the
Securities and current Coin of the
United States;
-0-To establish Post Offices and
post Roads;
r►To promote the Progress of Sciencc and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times
to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries;
.►To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
-01-To define and punish piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;
-e►To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;
-o- To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;
-e�To provide and maintain a Navy;
apTo make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Insurrections and repel Invasions;
-0-To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing
such Part of them as may he employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to
the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training
the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
-►To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not
exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the
acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and
to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature
of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, Dock - Yards, and other needful Buildings ; -And
-40-To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution
the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, of in any department or Officer thereof.
APPENDIX 2
Outlays for Mandatory Programs
rw
riU7
500
400
300
200
Boa
0
I 1 I 1
ss 70 75 0 85
LIMITS ON THE FEDERAL DEBT
alawtory corangs oh a9oombor 31
_ L III Io[es
I o�f�444F4ff4� }f #44 }# #44444444 ## #44444 #�# #44444 -
g0 1816 '060 1986 teas 1864 'Pro 1976 1060 1086 teat/
Years Urrpal M4ND I M.n!euWH
ADDENDUM
��
o z
z
0
J
J
(0
"PEOPLE OF THIS NATION ARE NOT GOVERNMENT COMMERCE °DIRECT
CLASS TAXATION IS A NO- NO - -- MAGNIFIED INDIVIDUAL DUTY TAXATION IS
ANO —NO"
Pollock v. Farmers'Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. . 429 (1895), affd on reh'g, 158 U.S. . 601
(1895), with a ruling of 5 -4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United
States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the
Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes and were unconstitutional because they
violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned. The decision was overruled in 1913 by
the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Income taxes pre- Pollock
• 2 Background information
• 3 Decision
o 3.1 Dissent
• 4 Subsequent history
o 4.1 Subsequent court treatments of Pollock and the Sixteenth Amendment
• 5 See also
• 6 References
• 7 Further reading
[edit] Income taxes pre - Pollock
To raise revenue to fund the Civil War, the income tax was introduced in the United States with
the Revenue Act of 1861 It was a flat tax of 3% on annual income above $800. The following
year, this was replaced with a graduated tax of 3 -5% on income above $600 in the Revenue Act
of 1862, which specified a termination of income taxation in 1866. The Socialist Labor Party
advocated a graduated income tax in 1887.0 The Populist Party "demanded a graduated income
tax" in its 1892 platform.111 The Populist Party, led by William Jennings Bryan, advocated the
income tax law passed in 1894,u and proposed an income tax in its 1908 platform L5J
[edill Background information
The provisions of the Wilson -Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 required that, for a five -year period,
any "gains, rp °fits and incomes" in excess of $4,000 would be taxed at 2 %. So, in compliance
with the Act, the New York -based Fanners' Loan & Trust Company announced to its
shareholders that it would not only pay the tax, but also provide to the collector of internal
revenue in the Department of the Treasury the names of all people for whom the company was
acting and thus were liable for being taxed under the Act.
Charles Pollock was a Massachusetts citizen who owned only ten shares of stock in the Farmers'
Loan & Trust Company. He sued the company to prevent the company from paying the tax.
Pollock lost in the lower courts but finally appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which
agreed to hear the case.
Arguing for the plaintiff Pollock was Joseph Choate, one of the most eminent Wall Street
lawyers of his day.
[edit] Decision
The Court handed down its decision on April 8, 1895, with Chief Justice Melville Fuller
delivering the opinion of the Court. He ruled in Pollock's favor, stating that certain taxes levied
by the Wilson -Gorman Act, those imposed on income from property, were unconstitutional. The
Court treated the tax on income from property as a direct tax. Under the provisions of the
Constitution of the United States at that time, such direct taxes were required to be imposed in
proportion to states' population. The tax in question had not been apportioned and, therefore, was
invalid. As Chief Justice Fuller stated:
First. We adhere to the opinion already announced —that, taxes on real estate being
indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct
taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal
property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls
on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the
meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not
apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme
of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
The decrees hereinbefore entered in this court will be vacated. The decrees below will be
reversed, and the cases remanded, with instructions to grant the relief prayed. [158 U.S.
601, 638]
A separate holding by the Court in Pollock -- that federal taxation of interest earned on certain
state bonds violated the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity —was declared by the U.S.
Supreme Court in 1988 to have been "effectively overruled by subsequent case law" (see South
Carolina v. Baker).
edit] Dissent
Justices John Marshall Harlan, Howell Edmunds Jackson, Edward Douglass White, and Henry
Billings Brown dissented from the majority opinion. Justice White argued:
It is, I submit, greatly to be deplored that after more than 100 years of our national
existence, after the government has withstood the strain of foreign wars and the dread
ordeal of civil strife, and its people have become united and powerful, this court should
consider itself compelled to go back to a long repudiated and rejected theory of the
constitution, by which the government is deprived of an inherent attribute of its being —a
necessary power of taxation. [158 U.S. 63 8]
In his dissent, Justice Brown wrote:
The decision involves nothing less than the surrender of the taxing power to the moneyed
class. By resuscitating an argument that was exploded in the Hylton Case, and has lain
practically dormant for a hundred years, it is made to do duty in nullifying, not this law
alone, but every similar law that is not based upon an impossible theory of
apportionment. Even the spectre of socialism is conjured up to frighten Congress from
laying taxes upon the people in proportion to their ability to pay them.0
[edit Subsequent history
The Supreme Court did not rule that all income taxes were direct taxes. Instead, the Court held
that although generally income taxes are indirect taxes (excises) authorized by the United States
Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the taxes on interest, dividends and rents under the
1894 Act had a profound effect on the underlying assets. The Court ruled that the tax on
dividends, interest and rent should be viewed as a direct tax falling on the property itself rather
than as an indirect tax. As direct taxes, these taxes were required to follow the rule of
apportionment found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3.
The rule of apportionment requires the amount of a direct tax collected to be divided by the
number of Representatives in the United States House of Representatives, the quotient is then
multiplied by the number of representatives each State has to determine each State's share of the
tax which it then needs to lay and collect through its own taxing authority.
Congress has had the power to lay and collect an indirect tax on incomes (such as, wages and
salaries) from the beginning of the American Government under the United States Constitution
of 1787. The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to prevent the tax on income from
property from being considered a direct tax, as Pollock had ruled. The Sixteenth Amendment
made the apportionment rule inapplicable to income taxes, including taxes on income derived
from property, by providing that Congress has the power to tax incomes from any source without
having to apportion the tax by population.
In his dissent to the Pollock decision, Justice Harlan stated:
When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot
impose a duty or tax upon personal property, or upon income arising either from
rents of real estate or from personal property, including invested personal property,
bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds, except by apportioning the sum to be so
raised among the States according to population, it practically decides that, without an
amendment of the Constitution— two - thirds of both Houses of Congress and three- fourths
of the States concurring— such.property and in come s,cagnev „er,be mad e. to
contribute to the support of the national government:je�
.............................. ....................
In a nation where the Federal government was beginning its battle against monopolies and trusts,
where the great bulk of wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few, the decision in Pollock
was unpopular, much like the decision in United States v. K C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895) of
the same year. The following year, the Democratic Party, which had grabbed hold of the Populist
movement, included an income tax plank in its election platform.
Nebraska Republican Senator Norris Brown publicly decried the Court's decision, and instead
proposed specific language to remove the Pollock requirement that certain income taxes be
apportioned among the states by population. The proposal was later incorporated into the
Sixteenth Amendment. Fourteen years would pass, however, before the Amendment was finally
passed by Congress in 1909. Upon ratification in 1913, the Amendment effectively made the
Pollock decision moot, removing any requirement that taxes on incomes derived from property
be apportioned by population.1911101
edit Subsequent court treatments of Pollock and the Sixteenth Amendment
Three years after ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court
rendered its decision in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad. In Brushaber, the Court
reviewed the history of the dichotomy between excises (indirect taxes) and direct taxes. The
Brushaber Court noted that the 1913 Income Tax Act was written as an indirect tax and did not
violate the rule of uniformity, so it was not written as a direct tax and was not subject to the rule
of apportionment. The Court summarized what it had decided in Pollock. The Court then went
on to state the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment with respect to income taxes:
66 [TIhg command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be
.......................................................................................... ...............................
subject to.the,rule.of apportionment .by.a.consideration of the source
........ ...............................
from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application
................................. ............................... ... ...............................
to.such taxes.of the.rule.applied in.the Pollock case by.whicb.alone
such, .aXes.were, removed from.the.great class of excises duties,.and.
...................
imposts. subject to the.rule of uniformity. and. were,elaced, under .the
other or direct class.lttI
................. ...............................
The Sixteenth Amendment removed the requirement that those income taxes deemed to be direct
in substance (e.g., taxes on income from property) be apportioned among the states according to
population. Thus, the effect of the Pollock decision had indeed been overturned by the Sixteenth
Amendment L9]
The Court in Brushaber also noted that before Pollock, taxes on income from professions, trades,
employments or vocations were excises, they were indirect in both form and substance and
thereby had never been apportioned; so they were entitled to be so enforced afterwards.IU2 By
contrast, with respect to taxes on income from property, the Pollock decision had disregarded
form and considered substance alone. Justice White's decision in Brushaber shows how the
Sixteenth Amendment was written to prevent consideration of the direct effects of any income
tax laid by Congress.
The Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. added that the "Sixteenth Amendment
........................... .
conferred no new.powerof to %atlon but simply prohibited the previous complete and
plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken
out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged." 240 U.S. 112 (1916).""
This effect was re- affirmed in Bowers v. KerbauQh- Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), in which
the Supreme Court reviewed Pollock, the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 and the Sixteenth
Amendment, and concluded that " jilt was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to
bring and new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all incomes
Marian Karr 4f(9)
From: Roberts, Cindy <cindy- roberts @uiowa.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 4:23 PM
To: Council; Matt Hayek; Rick Dobyns; Jim Throgmorton; Susan Mims; Terry Dickens; Michelle
Payne
Cc: Marcia Bollinger; Tom Markus; Chris O'Brien; Mark Rummel
Subject: city bus and rider behavior concerns - -from Cindy Roberts
Dear Mayor Hayek and City Council members,
I've used the Lakeside bus for many years for the purpose of going to /from work daily. I recently decided
that I need to discontinue using my afternoon Lakeside bus due to the ongoing unacceptable behavior of
some —which has been going on for many months. This behavior includes yelling, arguing, profanity,
playing music w/o ear buds /head phones, derogatory comments towards other passengers, and
sometimes physical disputes. None of this behavior should be categorized as "horsing around ". This is
totally unacceptable behavior on a public transit facility. I've used mass transit in New York,
Washington DC, and Chicago and have never experienced what I have experienced on my Lakeside bus
going home from work.
I (along with other riders) initially brought our concerns to the Transit Office back in December 2011. That
office has been receptive to our concerns and implemented a variety of changes that did make a
difference for awhile —but issues reoccurred and have continued. Many days can be fine - - -and then some
days are just awful. For me, my decision came down to the fact of the uncertainty of what the ride will be
like each afternoon. A person spends a day working and all you want at the end of the day is to have an
uneventful commute home —read a book, listen to music, visit w /someone next to you.
Here's part of the reality of the bus issue...
-some bus drivers really do try and make a difference by monitoring, making announcements, and telling
people to get off the bus as needed.
-some bus drivers don't monitor and do not say or do anything when behavior is getting out of hand.
-some riders tell other riders to stop their behavior —which usually has no affect — except perhaps being
laughed at.
-some riders don't care if their behavior is disturbing others or even if a bus driver tells them to stop.
-some riders have figured this is just something they have to "put up" with if they are going to ride the
bus —they may have no other transportation options.
-some riders have discontinued using the bus all together.
Another unfortunate aspect of this topic...
For those of us who have expressed concern about this behavior, there are some in our community that
view we are the problem because we're not being tolerant or accepting.
Why should any person sit on a city bus and be subjected to this type of behavior and anyone think this is
as "acceptable "? I've observed how this discussion gets turned into an issue of race by the news media
and others. This is an issue of bad behavior — period!
If you want to understand first -hand what's happening on the Lakeside bus —ride it a few times between
3pm -5pm /Mon- Fri. The Lakeside route is not the only route affected by this behavior but this is the only
route I can speak to from extended personal experience.
It is wrong that the behavior of a few affect so many in such a negative way over such a long
period of time. A safe and pleasant commute home that includes civil and respectful behavior
from all should be the norm on all of our transit routes all of the time.
Cindy Roberts
Former Lakeside bus user in the afternoon
Marian Karr
From:
Rick Fosse
Sent:
Wednesday, May 30, 2012 7:41 PM
To:
'mudrums @yahoo.com'
Cc:
Tom Markus; Council
Subject:
Concerns about who hauls our garbage
Dear Mr. Dreier:
4f(10)
Your e-mail regarding Hawkeye Waste has been forwarded to me. I understand that you have concerns about Iowa City
support and tax dollars going to Hawkeye Waste, given the allegations that they avoided paying taxes and worker's
compensation claims. I can tell you that the City does not contract with Hawkeye Waste for services. No City money is
paid to them. Hawkeye Waste does use the Iowa City Landfill. Given our past history with them, we do business on a
cash only basis. We do not offer them credit or a monthly billing option.
I hope this alleviates your concerns. Please let me know if you have additional questions.
Thanks,
Rick Fosse
Public Works Director
From: James Dreier <mudrums @vahoo.com>
Date: May 20, 2012 8:38:45 PM CDT
To: "council @iowa- city.or -g" < council @iowa- city.ore>
Subject: Concerns about who hauls our garbage
Reply -To: James Dreier <mudrums @vahoo.com>
Iowa City Council Members, I was very concerned and surprised to discover that Iowa City does business with a refuse
firm owned by James Watts, who has avoided paying taxes and worker's compensation claims for many years now (see
article in Sunday Des Moines Register link below). As a long -time Iowa City resident and homeowner, I am willing to pay
more in refuse cost rather than to see this kind of business owner get support from our local government. I am also
surprised that Watts' business practices have not come up as an issue previously. These are not the kind of businesses
that Iowa City should support with tax dollars. Please let me know if there is a time when this topic will be raised at a
city council meeting, and /or if there are any plans to rectify this situation. Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Dreier
424 N. Van Buren
Iowa City, IA 52245
319 621 -6002
http : / /www.desmoinesregister.com /article/ 20120520 /NEWS01 / 305200031 / Iowa - trash - hauler- owes -30- million -in-
taxes- U- S- alleges ?odyssey =tab I topnews I text I Frontpage
Marian Karr 4f(11)
From: Kurt Kimmerling <kurtkimmerling @msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:14 AM
To: Council
Subject: Idyllwild Flood Protection
Attachments: Flood White Paper.pdf
The Idyllwild community of 92 properties was severely impacted during by Year 2008 flooding. While it may
be a distance memory to some in Iowa City, it still casts a very large shadow over our residents.
The attached Flood White Paper was initially provided Idyllwild to the City in Year 2010. Our Association
hired MMS Consultants to review future situations with regard to flooding and develop an emergency plan so
we can better react to the next flood which will surely come.
The conclusion of the study is Idyllwild is flood endangered by two very different sources:
1. Flooding from intense rainfall events that collect in the 81 acre watershed north and west of Idyllwild.
This area is under development now and will continue to do so, particularly now that the southwest
corner of the Dubuque Street I80 interchange is to be constructed on.
2. Flooding from the Iowa River, an event we all too well remember.
The Flood White Paper not only evaluates these flood sources in more detail but also makes recommendations
as to how to solve them. I trust you will study and consider them carefully.
Many of our neighbors along Taft Speedway and Parkview Terrace have been very active in protesting any
possible accommodation made to protect Idyllwild from future floods. While I respect their views, the simple
matter is Idyllwild cannot be protected from future Iowa River flooding through temporary mitigation measures
like sandbagging. Our buildings cannot be lifted up and out of flood danger as is possible with their properties.
And finally, we were not considered a candidate for FEMA and CBDG "buyouts" offered to Taft and Parkview
properties owners.
Perhaps Idyllwild should have never been constructed originally and then allowed to be reconstructed after the
Year 2008 experience. But it's been built and then rebuilt with the blessing of the City. The City now has an
obligation to provide us with some sort of protection.
This needs a serious and honest review by our City management and Council.
Kurt Kimmerling
33 Trevose Place
Iowa City IA 52245
IDYLLWILD CONDOMINIUMS OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Flood Mitigation and Emergency Response Plan
The Idyllwild Condominiums Owners Association encompasses 21 acres of land along the Iowa
River just two miles from downtown Iowa City. There are currently 92 properties on the site
housing approximately 200 persons. Property values in Year 2008 are estimated at US$21
million.
In June of year 2010 the Association contracted with MMS Consultants of Iowa City to develop
a flood mitigation and emergency response plan to protect both ourselves and our property
from future flooding events. The process allowed the Association to make an objective decision
about its future against the backdrop of flood events of various risk levels as defined by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The Association is threatened by two sources of flooding; an intense rainfall event in the local
drainage shed and a flood occurring along the Iowa River. Because these two sources are
significantly different they require separate mitigation efforts.
In an intense rainfall event, water runoff from about 81 acres of property north and west of
Idyllwild plus 21 acres of Association property is drained through our property. Intense rainfall
events are expected to increase as reported by several committees formed by State Legislature
after the Year 2008 flooding. The three committees, Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council, the
Iowa Climate Change Impacts Committee and the Water Resources Coordinating Council, all
acknowledge that Iowa faces a future of increased precipitation and increased frequency of
extreme rainfall events. Additionally, the 81 acres above Idyllwild has been under development
for several years now and development is expected to increase in the future with development
along the Dubuque Street 180 interchange. As this occurs, more water is being directed down
through the Idyllwild property. Intense rainfall events are impossible to predict and certainly
difficult to mitigate because there would be little time to use traditional mitigation methods
like constructing sandbag walls.
Flooding from the Iowa River impacts Idyllwild significantly prior to a Flood Risk Level A, also
known as a 100 year flood at a water surface elevation 651.1 feet above sea level at Idyllwild's
western boundary. While all Idyllwild buildings are above 651.1 foot mark, our streets are
typically at 650 feet making them impassable during flood events less than Level A.
The typical method proposed for mitigating Iowa River flood events is through the use of
sandbag walls constructed around Idyllwild's 23 buildings. The estimated number of sandbags
required at various Flood Risk Levels as well as sanitary sewer and storm sewer plugs and roof
downspout bypasses follows:
Flood Risk
Sandbags
Sanitary
Sewer Plugs
Sanitary
Sewer
Service Plugs
Storm Sewer
Plugs
Roof
Downspout
Bypass
A
11,500
0
5
0
50
B
78,620
3
18
3
101
C
166,970
5
23
5
111
D
334,970
5
23
5
111
E
523,510
5
23
5
111
Please note: This chart doesn't include the necessary pumps required to empty water out of
sandbagged areas.
Even under the best of circumstances, any effort to insure temporary protect against flooding,
other than Risk Level A, is in our estimation impossible for Idyllwild to carry out physically or
monetarily. We simply do not have the resources.
Our proposals for mitigating the two flooding scenarios are:
1. To mitigate a locally intense rainfall event, we propose redoing the watershed
management system by constructing a bypass around Idyllwild's property. The proposal
is to install a 48 -inch drainage pipe along No Name Road from our property's northwest
corner, where the 82 acres of watershed runoff is collected, to the Iowa River.
2. Installing a 12 -inch valve in the 48 -inch pipe which connects our retention ponds to the
Iowa River thereby providing a means to cut off the river from our property during river
flood events.
3. Preparing an area around the eastern, southern and western sides of Idyllwild for
deployment of a temporary flood mitigation system. We feel inflatable bladders are our
best solution.
4. Purchasing the necessary sewer plugs and water pumps necessary for protecting
Idyllwild against a minimum Risk Level C flood.
The Association provides Iowa City with the benefits of a unique owner occupied housing
opportunity close to downtown and the University. Year 2008 property taxes paid by our
owners generated nearly $400,000 in revenue to local governments. Unfortunately the flood of
2008 has endangered the make -up of the Association. We feel our long -term viability is highly
dependent on implementing a plan for future flood mitigation. In its absence, it will be very
difficult to maintain the property as it was designed.
Marian Karr 4f(12)
From: Rynes - Weller, Sara L <sara -rynes @uiowa.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 3:29 PM
To: Council
Subject: An interesting article about how to run a city when funds are tight
Attachments: Vallejo. CA. Reinventsltself.docx
Among other things, this article talks about using cameras for law enforcement, which I know is a concern of
yours. Please note that I'm not suggesting that you declare bankruptcy! O
Best wishes,
Sara Rynes - Weller
Vallejo, Calif., once bankrupt, is now a model
for cities in an age of austerity
David Paul MorrisBLOOMBERG - After becoming the largest city in America to declare
bankruptcy in 2008, Vallejo, Calif., began to reinvent itself.
By Ariana Euniun2 Cha, Published: May 23The Washington Post
VALLEJO, CALIF. — The first couple of years were ugly. After this working -class port city
became the largest in America to declare bankruptcy in 2008, crime and prostitution surged as
the police force was thinned by 40 percent. Firehouses were shuttered, and funding for libraries
and senior centers was slashed. Foreclosures multiplied and home prices plummeted.
But then this city of 116,000 began to reinvent itself. It started using technology to fill personnel
gaps, rallying residents to volunteer to provide public services and offering local voters the
chance to decide how money would be spent — in return for an increase in the sales tax. For the
first time in five years, the city expects to have enough money to do such things as fill potholes,
clear weeds, trim trees and repair tennis courts.
The nation's cities are weak links in the U.S. economy and, if they collapse in large numbers, it
could knock the country's recovery off course. Cuts at the federal level are being pushed down to
the states, which in turn are passing the problems to their cities.
The strains are especially great in California, which was at the epicenter of the housing market
meltdown and the deep recession that followed. Even before revenue slowed, the state was
facing unique constraints on public finances because its laws make it difficult to raise taxes.
The dire conditions, however, have made California a laboratory for how to run cities in an age
of austerity.
Declaring bankruptcy used to be a last resort for cities, not only because it would cripple their
ability to borrow for years to come but because of the blow to their reputation. But that attitude
has started to change as more cities have found themselves facing fiscal catastrophe; bankruptcy
offers an opportunity to start over with a clean slate.
At least three California cities — Stockton, Mammoth Lakes and Montebello — have declared
that they are exploring the option. And at least 100 of the state's 482 cities are on track to face a
similar predicament by the end of the year, according to Barbara O'Connor, a professor at
California State University at Sacramento.
Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities, said that "no one
expected the downturn to last this long," adding: "After years of struggling to keep things
together as best they could, cities are getting closer and closer to the edge."
Economists warn that a number of large bankruptcies of cities, concentrated over a short period
of time, could have a devastating effect on the national economy. Banking analyst Meredith
Whitney in 2010 ominously predicted hundreds of billions of dollars in municipal bond defaults.
While defaults on that scale haven't happened — and Whitney's critics came out in droves to
attest to the health of the municipal bond market — the specter of such a crisis hasn't
disappeared.
City's cash runs out
Vallejo, about 35 miles northeast of San Francisco, became the poster child for the failures of
municipal budgeting in 2008 when its cash reserves dwindled to zero and it was unable to pay its
bills amid falling property tax revenue and the soaring cost of employee compensation and
pensions.
During happier times, Vallejo's salaries for city employees had ballooned, with a number of top
officials making $200,000 or $300,000. More than 80 percent of the municipal budget went
toward compensation.
The city's credit rating dropped to junk status, and as part of its bankruptcy settlement, Vallejo
paid only five cents for every dollar it owed to bondholders. On the labor side, officials cut
workers' pay, health care and other benefits but left pensions intact.
For Vallejo to survive, two city council members — Marti Brown, 46, a redevelopment worker
for the state, and Stephanie Gomes, 45, a legislative specialist for the U.S. Forest Service —
decided that the city needed to study best practices from around the world and bring some of
them to California.
"We're trying to be more innovative and risk- taking," Brown said. "It's something we've been
forced to do, but it's turning out to be a really positive experience for the city."
The police went high -tech, investing $500,000 in cameras across the city that allow officers to
monitor a larger area than they could before. The department deputized citizens to participate in
law enforcement by sharing tips on Facebook and Twitter.
Gomes, whose husband is a retired police officer, focused on public safety. The couple went
neighborhood to neighborhood setting up e-mail groups and social media accounts so people can,
for instance, share pictures of suspicious vehicles and other information. "There have been
countless cases where ordinary people have stopped crimes this way," Gomes said.
The number of neighborhood watch groups jumped from 15 to 350. Citizen volunteers came
together monthly to paint over graffiti and do other cleanup work.
And the city council struck an unusual deal with residents — if they agreed to a one -penny sales
tax increase, projected to generate an additional $9.5 million in revenue, they could vote on how
the money would be used. The experiment in participatory budgeting, which began in April, is
the first in a North American city.
The approach was pioneered in Port Alegre, Brazil, as a way to get citizens involved in bridging
the large gap between the city's middle -class residents and those living in slums on the outskirts.
Individual districts in New York and Chicago are also experimenting with the process, and
residents there have expressed interest in spending money on things such as more security
cameras and lighting, public murals, and Meals on Wheels for seniors.
A statewide shortfall
As the 2012 -13 budget season kicks off in California, Vallejo's neighbors are looking at severe
cuts, in part because of reduced support from the state. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) this month
revealed that California is facing a crushing$16 billion deficit because of a shortfall in tax
revenue. As a result, the state is diverting billions that had been earmarked for redevelopment or
housing assistance away from cities that were already under fiscal stress.
Stockton is in eleventh -hour negotiations with creditors to try to avoid bankruptcy. The city of
Hercules defaulted on a $2.4 million bond interest payment in February. Vacaville is considering
closing City Hall every Friday and forcing employees to take unpaid leave or vacation time.
The state capital, Sacramento, which is expecting an $18 million deficit for fiscal 2012 -13, has
proposed cutting 286 full -time jobs, including police and firefighters, a move that would
probably leave the city unable to respond to home burglaries and car accidents and lengthen the
response time for 911 calls in all but the most dire cases.
Vallejo is in a markedly different situation. While it still faces some serious challenges — crime
continues to be a problem, and the housing market remains depressed — the city's finances are
doing so well that a federal judge released it from bankruptcy in November.
"We're seeing a lot of cities around us that are where we were five years ago," Gomes said.
"Some of those cities were laughing at us back then. It's nice to be on the other side of it."
While its general -fund budget of $69 million for 2012 -13 is a far cry from the $85 million at its
peak in the 1980s, Vallejo is in much better financial shape than many other cities around the
country.
Assistant City Manager Craig Whittom, who has worked in Vallejo since 2003, said the
bankruptcy may have been the best thing to happen: "It was effective at helping us re- create
ourselves and change the culture so that we could restart from a stronger financial footing."
4f(13)
May 28, 2012
Dear members of the Iowa City Council:
Through its Sanctuary City Committee, the Consultation of Religious Communities has continued to take
seriously the needs of our neighbors who have come from other nations to live in this vibrant city. We
are grateful for the steps the Iowa City Council has taken to make Iowa City a more just and welcoming
place for immigrants. And we hope for further action on the part of our City government to make this
community more safe and hospitable for all.
To that end, a number of clergy people and immigrant leaders will be attending the June 5 City Council
meeting. At that meeting, we will present a resolution which we ask you to take on as an agenda item as
soon as possible. We would appreciate your prompt and attentive response to our request.
Thank you,
Pastor Robert Dotzel
The Executive Committee of the Consultation of Religious Communities
r0
�.A C-
ry7
The religious traditions of Iowa City's Consultation of Religious Communities (CRC) together
espouse a moral imperative: They believe that the essence of our common humanity is to offer
the compassion that one hopes to receive. Immigrants in Iowa City deserve our compassion and
hospitality: They are equally guests, friends, and neighbors with all of us. As is true for each of
us, the creator has endowed them with inalienable rights that command a deeper respect that
must not be contravened by human legislation.
Therefore, CRC declares its solidarity with all immigrants, authorized or unauthorized, in the
present circumstances in which they are threatened by federal action. The CRC calls on Iowa
City Council to approve swiftly the following resolutions, in addition to carrying out its prior
commitments to our immigrant neighbors:
Because American democracy requires local municipalities to comply with state and federal laws
and regulations, and simultaneously expects federal and state authorities to respond effectively to
the stresses experienced within these jurisdictions;
Iowa City Council previously has taken bold moral stands on such issues as the transportation of
nuclear weapons and the equal treatment of persons of diverse cultures, races, and sexual
orientations without fear of retribution or criticism;
Iowa City treasures its ethnic diversity, and is culturally and economically enriched by all
immigrants residing therein;
The federal Secure Communities initiative requires local municipalities, such as Iowa City, to
participate in an oppressive policy that has negative consequences for relationships between
cities and their immigrant residents;
It is the responsibility of the Iowa City Council to comply with federal legislation, human
decency and morality compel the Council not to support state and federal initiatives that tend to
yield immoral or unjust consequences for our immigrant neighbors;
The Iowa state motto asserting that "our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain" is as
important to Iowa City residents as the air we breathe and the water we drink,
Now therefore CRC requests the Iowa City Council to implement the following resolutions:
1. Address a communication to the President of the United States, and relevant U.S. Senators
and Representatives, protesting the so- called Secure Communities legislation, and calling upon
our national executive and legislative branches of government to reform immigrationl tw so that
it reflects the ethics of a nation built on the efforts of immigrants and honors&. ' contributions of
authorized and unauthorized immigrants to our national fabric;
2. Publish and post instructions, in diverse languages, directing city emploe no see
information regarding immigration status, except as explicitly mandated by stale oretleral ,
subpoena, or criminal activities apart from immigration status. -"'+
3. Instruct city employees follow city, state, and federal legal mandates with a spirit of
hospitality toward all who seek access to city services, and to publish and post instructions, in
diverse languages, for city employees to request no immigration status documentation, except
when state or federal law, or program guidelines, clearly obligate proof of such status prior to
service provision.
4. Publish and post instructions, in diverse languages, for city employees to allow forms of
personal photo identification other than a U.S. - issued driver's license or a Social Security
number, except as required to support I -9 forms.
5. Instruct all city employees to exert every effort to make Iowa City a safe, hospitable, and
friendly community for all persons, regardless of citizenship status.
6. Direct the City Attorney to work with the Iowa City Human Rights Commission to prepare
guidelines, regulations, codes, statutes, and municipal laws to be reviewed by Council, to guide
all city employees in fulfillment of the above resolutions.
Marian Karr
From: Steve Cooper <steven.cooper @mercyic.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 2:31 PM
To: Council
Subject: Towncrest Area
Council Members:
4M 4
I spoke to Wendy Ford today of the Iowa City Economic Development Office — Wendy is terrific. We spoke in general
terms about progress or lack thereof at revitalizing the Towncrest Area of Iowa City. It seems like five years since we
first met in community forums, proposed bold ideas, then were delivered a nice packet with pictures and fountains;
fancy signs; and great promise. What I see today are deteriorating buildings; a very odd looking Free Medical Clinic; pot
holed streets; liquor bottles strewn about; signage in ill repair; and lots of "For Sale Signs ". Clearly the financial
incentives to the local property owners (this business included) are not sufficient or poorly aligned with needs to bring
about changes. We recently spent $50,000 to make repairs to our railings, paint the fagade, repair some concrete,
etc. None of this qualified for any financial incentive based on the conversations I had before undertaking these
upgrades. As we weigh our cost to stay on this side of town in terms of lost opportunity, I would hope that the city
could re- evaluate its role in urban renewal here. Specifically, consider annexing or purchasing Towncrest Drive. Put in
some sidewalks and maintain the street. While the City of Coralville has been criticized for its municipal planning
process, I have to say at least there is some action. I suspect our business too will either make its way to Northgate or
Coral West without some private or public development into the Towncrest area in the near future.
Sincerely
Steve Cooper
Administrator, Towncrest Internal Medicine
06 -05 -12
4f(15)
Marian Karr
From: Jean Walker <walkersic @yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:58 AM
To: Council
Cc: Jean Walker
Subject: Item for the City Council
Attachments: 711 Mel roseResponseToU112_05- 31.docx
5/31/12
To:
David Kieft
Rod Lehnertz
Iowa State Board of Regents
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning and Zoning Commission
Iowa City City Council
At the last Iowa City City Council meeting (May 15), David Kieft, representing The
University of Iowa and the Regents, stated, regarding the razing of nine homes in the
Melrose Neighborhood for the construction of the university's parking lot there:
"None of the homes that are being razed as part of this are themselves historic
structures and even the Planning and Zoning Commission also noted that. There
were no homes on here that were on the Historic Register."
There appears to be basic misunderstandings by some of these entities concerning
the Melrose Historic District, which need to be corrected.
It is simply untrue that none of the homes are on the National Register of Historic
Places. One of them, 711 Melrose Avenue, is listed on the National Register and has
been since 2004. Although it is not a key structure in the Melrose Historic District,
it is a contributing structure, along with many others in the District. Its Site
Inventory Form from the successful nomination of the Melrose Historic District to
the National Register was given to the University's Planning Department by the
Neighborhood at an initial meeting concerning the planning of this parking lot. This
Site Form includes a map of the area delineated as the Historic District and 711 is
marked with a large arrow within that area (see below: from the nomination of the
District to the National Register of Historic Places, prepared by architectural
historian Marlys Svendsen).
It should also be noted that at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting April 5,
concerning the vacation of Melrose Place, referenced by Mr. Kieft, the Commission
did not indicate that the 711 house was not historic or not part of the District. City
Staff in fact referred to 711 as being "in the Melrose Neighborhood National Register
Historic District ".
That City Staff member said that staff did not include the condition of saving 711
Melrose Avenue because the university has driveway access that is not contiguous
to the vacation, and it's not dependent upon the vacation.
The sentiment of the Commission was that preservation of 711, regardless of its
inclusion within the Melrose Historic District, was not something the majority of the
commission was willing to insist on as a condition of vacating the Melrose Place
street right -of -way.
In addition, these entities do not appear to have an understanding of the nationally -
recognized Melrose Historic District. When this Historic District was accepted to be
listed on the National Register of Historic Places, it was accepted as a defined,
concise entity consisting of a mix of architecturally - diverse, historically- significant
structures /properties that are either key structures or contributing structures that
tells an important part of the history of the University and the City west of the Iowa
River - that is what constitutes this District. It is not just an area with key and
contributing structures that can be individually discarded. To do so would be to
destroy the integrity of the nationally- recognized Historic District, whose key and
contributing structures were deemed by the NRHP to constitute that District.
Previous small neighborhoods in the area have been destroyed over time by the
expansion of the University on the west side of the river. The Melrose Historic
District is the last vestige of this history and needs to be protected.
To concentrate only on the preservation of the key structures in the Historic District
and say that the contributing structures are dispensable can be compared to
keeping the large jewels of a one -of -a -kind, never- to -be- repeated Faberge egg and
discarding the rest, the result being having a bunch of loose jewels and no egg. The
Melrose Historic District was recognized by the National Register of Historic Places
precisely to preserve the egg intact.
It is unfortunate that decisions, such as razing of a house on the National Register of
Historic Places, are being made when some of the information relevant to those
decisions appears to be incorrect or misunderstood.
As I stated at the Council meeting, the City needs to follow the recommendations in
their various documents concerning the preservation of the Melrose Neighborhood,
before it is too late.
Jean Walker
Melrose Neighborhood Representative
335 Lucon Drive
Iowa City
kiwra Deparknont of CL&NiM Airs
Sbft Historical Society of lom Sara Number &MIS
Iowa Site inventory Form
Continuation Sheet
Pane 3
Carlson, RWmu d. 'ENV WskmV of Rouses at 303 -741 Melrose Avenue,' wW~W research study for Melrose
NeW boftod Sum" Project AsprN 26-May 3, MA04,
klerview w th Pat and George Turscsk, owners of 711 Melrose /Avenue; by Jew Walker, A 3004.
FuN Leo Description: W 6$' of E 132' of N 617' of Lot 4 Custer's SubdMalon, in 46 M.
Sketch Map of Makoes Matork D"ict
u
741 �. 727 F fB9 ,'� /OI 1 1211311'. 163 II 421 407 3I3 309 307
16f 215,
13-14 IQ. lit £1, 123'
R
1 ®{ 1 .. 235. 224
221 SN 326
f 3 f f 3 233 316
1 4 - 363 312
331
7� E
314
- E \..__ 4 311 M6
313 i Us 360
in
3" i 3 _ 400
d 331 ! 32f Elf .. "
._.._. __. A K
f23 : i 462
401407 to M (fli A f
.J
- —
401 t V
469 i 410 _ �L. i E.7 f
i r at:
421
42-1 ��a24 411
Im
:411 112 .d 316 IR._; . .
-- —
_ --
CREST En E11 ro
405
p4
Marian Karr
From: Dorothy Whiston <dwhiston @mchsi.com>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:52 PM
To: Council; clerk
Subject: Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity
Attachments: Council letter.june12.docx
Friends,
Attached is a letter on behalf of the Coalition for Racial Justice regarding the establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on
racial diversity. My apologies for not getting this to you in time for it to be included in your information packets, but I hope
you will still be able to consider this input as you discuss the make -up and scope of the committee in your Work Session
tomorrow, June 5. 1 would of course be glad to answer any questions you might have about our recommendations. I look
forward to listening to your deliberations.
Thanks.
Dorothy Whiston
Pastor Dorothy Whiston, D. Min
First Baptist Church
500 N. Clinton St., Iowa City, IA 52245
319.321.7920 dwhiston(c)-mchsi.com
The Coalition for Racial Justice
c/o First Baptist Church
500 N. Clinton, Iowa City, IA 52245
Pastor Dorothy Whiston
319- 321 -7920
dwhistonCaD-mchsi.com
June 4, 2012
To: The Mayor and City Council
Re: Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity
On behalf of the broad -based community network called The Coalition for Racial Justice (which came
out of the Consultation of Religious Communities' Task Force on Race, Poverty and Public Safety), I
would like to commend the City Council for your decision to form an Ad Hoc Committee to look at
issues of racial diversity and disparity in our community. This is a very important step toward making
our city even more livable and pleasant than it already is.
The Coalition has been meeting for nearly two years to investigate issues related to race locally as well
as nationally recognized models for working toward racial equity in communities. The Coalition will
soon issue a 2012 Racial Equity Status Report for Iowa City /Johnson County in conjunction with a
community forum we're co- sponsoring on June 14 called "Trauma and the Human Side of Racial
Disparity." We hope members of the Council and other City leadership will be able to attend this
important event (that you should have already received information about).
Based on our work, the Coalition would like to make a few recommendations regarding the Ad Hoc
Committee on Diversity. First, we'd suggest the committee be composed of 7 -9 members. While we
understand that a somewhat smaller group might make for slightly more efficient meetings, we believe
it is very important to have a broad cross - section of the community represented in terms of race, length
of time living here and socio- economic status. It seems that it would be hard to get that kind of
diversity with a membership of less than 7 members.
Probably the most important issue before the Council at this time is to establish the scope of the
committee's work. It seems that the primary question before our community is just what kind of
dialogue we need to have about race. While it might be tempting for the committee to jump in and
look at this or that specific issue related to racial equity, we believe that the most important task for the
committee is to frame a public conversation about race that will be ongoing.
To that end, we would recommend the initial scope for the committee include the following:
• To do some study on currently recognized approaches and models for assessing and addressing
issues related to racial equity and public policy in local communities. (There are several
websites, articles and other resources readily available, as well as local professionals trained in
this field. The Coalition would be glad to recommend resources.)
• To select one or a combination of approaches or models and participate in more in -depth study
and training in this area. (Relatively low or no -cost webinars and local consultants are available
for this sort of preliminary training.)
• To devise and propose a plan for City Department heads and other key City employees and
officials to participate in training on issues related to racial equity. This might also include a
provision to offer this training to other members of the community so that people will have
some similar background and information to draw on in future conversations.
• To investigate national standards and practices and then propose a plan, based on research -
based models, for each City Department to assess the department's current policies, practices,
staffing and budget as they impact racial disparity in that department's functions and outcomes.
We believe these tasks could all occur within an initial 6 -month period. Obviously, this proposed
scope for the committee pre- supposes that more work will be done on these issues long -term.
Hopefully, the City will go on to do the much needed analyses of racial disparities and develop a
strategic plan for addressing disparities and working toward racial equity. This future work could be
done under the guidance of this ad hoc committee if it is renewed or the Human Rights Commission or
both.
In any case, our hope is that the current committee will take a research - verified approach to its work.
Establishing an objective, outcome -based way to look at race issues takes the discussion out of the
realm of personal or even institutional intentions (or blame) and looks instead at actual outcomes of
current policies, practices, staffing and budgeting as they relate to racial equity.
Only then can people decide if the current outcomes are, in fact, the outcomes we want to achieve
locally. And if they're not, we can then look at and implement well - studied approaches along with
creative innovations that will more likely achieve the outcomes our community desires in terms of
racial equity. We are confident that working toward racial equity is something the vast majority of
Iowa City people support.
Again, please know that members of the Coalition for Racial Justice and of the Consultation of
Religious Communities are very pleased about the establishment of the ad hoc committee on diversity
by the Council. We hope these proposals will assist you in going forward with this good work.
Sincerely,
Rev. Dorothy Whiston
Pastor, First Baptist Church
For the Coalition for Racial Justice
-0111�5
URBAN CHICKENS: FAQ
Provided by I- CLUCK: Iowa City Citizens for the Legalization of Urban Chicken Keeping
City budgets are already strained. Will
legalizing backyard chickens increase Iowa
City's program costs? Will it burden city
staff?
Backyard chicken keeping can have a negligible impact
on current city budgets. A properly shaped ordinance is
required to reduce or eliminate unnecessary costs. For
example:
• Allowing only 6 or less hens (not roosters) will
eliminate or reduce noise and sanitation issues.
• Issuing a set amount of permits (25 for example)
during the first year would prevent city staff from
being overburdened by backyard chicken keeping.
Additionally, a set number of permits the first year
would allow the city to gather actual data on the
impacts of backyard chicken keeping. Then a
decision about backyard chicken keeping can be
made based on facts.
• Requiring abuilding permitand inspection forchicken
coops is not necessary, and would only burden city
staff. Currently in Iowa City, building permits are
only required for storage sheds with a floor area
larger than 144 square feet, or fences higher than 6
feet. Most chicken coops would not fall under those
requirements.
• As part of the permitting process, chicken keepers
should be responsible for finding a home for roosters,
should they end up with one. Taking a rooster to
the animal shelter could be grounds for having your
permit revoked permanently.
Will urban chicken coops be an eye -sore in
the community?
Chicken keepers take great pride in the homes of their
backyard chickens. They would have as much impact on
a neighborhood as do garden sheds and dog houses.
What about the animal shelter? It is unclear
where the new facility will be and when It will
be back within city limits. What impact will
this have on the already overburdened animal
shelter?
A properly formed ordinance and only allowing a set
number of permits the first year will greatly reduce or
eliminate impacts. Whenever the shelter situation is
resolved, or after the initial year, the city can evaluate
the impacts of chickens and issue more permits as
seems appropriate/feasible.
Requiring a chicken keeping permit and attendance
at a local chicken keeping class will reduce the
amount of people who decide to get chickens on
a whim. This will require chicken keepers to plan
ahead for chickens and be educated on how to care
for them, thereby reducing the burden of unwanted
chickens at the shelter.
Citizens have expressed interest in fostering
unwanted chickens to keep them out of the shelter
(similar to what happens for cats and dogs at the
shelter). Additionally, the Cedar Rapids animal
shelter has a chicken coop that was donated by the
local chicken keeping group, and I -CLUCK could
fundraise for a chicken coop for the Iowa City shelter.
"There has been minimal impact from the urban
chicken ordinance here in Cedar Rapids. I believe
the latest permit count is somewhere between 30-
35." - Dianne Webber, Cedar Rapids Animal Care &
Control (April 2012)
Below are examples of creative coop designs from
around the country.
P1 n"
r of
.�rovicled by I-CLUCK: Iowa City Citizens for the Legalization of Urban Chicken Keepineg
I'm concerned about my neighbors having
chickens. Will 1 smell or hear chickens? Now
will this effect my property value?
A properly designed ordinance can eliminate or
reduce potential issues between neighbors. For
example, by only allowing 6 or less hens, and
no roosters, noise and sanitation issues would
be rare. While hens do occasionally make some
noise, they are only active during daylight hours
and they are generally much quieter than a barking
dog. Additionally, a limited number of hens means
waste is easily manageable and odors should not be
noticeable.
Given the limited number of hens, and that eggs
would be for at home (non - commercial) consumption,
there is no reason to be concerned about property
values. In fact, many young homeowners are
seeking neighborhoods that support backyard food
production.
Again, proper communication with neighbors on any
issue is important. You may even benefit by receiving
free eggs!
Iowa City is a university town. Should we be
concerned about students getting chickens
and abandoning them?
Requiring attendance at a chicken keeping class and
a city issued permit forces people to invest time and
money in acquiring chickens. Regardless of whether
or not they are students, only those people who are
most committed to keeping chickens will do so.
Unsubstantiated fears about the student population
keeping chickens should not keep residents (student
or non - student) from having the opportunity to keep
chickens legally and responsibly. A set number
of permits the first year as a trial run will help to
determine if this is an actual issue.
The Ames, IA animal shelter reports they have never
had an instance of students abondoning chickens.
What about bird flu? Should I be concerned if
my neighbors have chickens?
There are many resources on bird flu that state that
backyard poultry is not a concern for the mutation and
spread of bird flu. For example:
• City and County of San Francisco, CA bird flu fact
sheet specifically states in relation to backyard
poultry: "Yes, domestic U.S. poultry is safe to handle
and be around at this time. For sanitary reasons, you
should wash your hands after handling any poultry."
http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=l 070
• From the book "Bird Flu -- A Virus of Our Own
Hatching" by Michael Greger, M.D., the Director
of Public Health and Animal Agriculture at The
Humane Society of the United States: "To reduce
the emergence of viruses like H5N1, humanity must
shift toward raising poultry in smaller flocks, under
less stressful, less crowded, and more hygienic
conditions, with outdoor access, no use of human
antivirals, and with an end to the practice of breeding
for growth or unnatural egg production at the expense
of immunity." Based on this quote, backyard poultry
production is part of the solution.
• Dr. Darrell Trampel, ISU Extension Poultry Veterinarian,
head of the ISU Extension Poultry Division: "Disease.
There are a few diseases which can be transmitted
from chickens to humans, such as Salmonella.
However, Salmonella can also be transmitted to
humans from common house hold pets, such as
dogs or cats. Because the body temperature and
physiology of birds is much different than mammals,
chickens probably are less likely to transmit diseases
to humans than dogs or cats."
What other Midwest cities have legalized
chicken keeping?
• Ames, IA*
• Cedar Rapids, IA
• Des Moines, IA*
• Hills, IA
• Urbandale, IA
• Clive, IA
• St. Louis, MO*
• Kansas City, MOI
• Madison, WI*
• Oshkosh, WI*
• Chicago, IL*
• Minneapolis, MN*
• Ann Arbor, MI*
• Kalamazoo, MI*
* Represents cities with significant university populations
May 18, 2012
Johnson County Board of Adjustment
913 S. Dubuque Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
;will IP
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(319) 356 -5000
(319) 356 -5009 FAX
www, icgov. org
RE: Conditional Use Permit for Croel Redi -Mix Inc. located at 5085 Herbert Hoover Highway NE
Dear Members of the Board,
The Iowa City City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission have reviewed the request
submitted to Johnson County by Croel Redi -Mix Inc., to allow operation of a temporary, portable
concrete batch plant at 5085 Herbert Hoover Highway NE. The Johnson County Zoning. Code requires
review by the City for all conditional use permits for property within the Fringe Area.
In a memo dated May 4, City Staff noted that because the site for the conditional use is outside of the
Iowa City growth boundary, it is unlikely to have negative impacts on existing or planned development
within Iowa City in the near future. At its May 17 meeting, the Iowa City Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of this conditional use permit. The City Council concurs with the
Commission and recommends that the conditional use permit requested by Croel Redi -Mix be approved.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments on this application.
Sincerely,
Matthew J. Hayek
Mayor
May 18, 2012
Johnson County Board of
913 S. Dubuque Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: Conditional Use Permit for
Dear Members of the Board,
Redi -Mix
The Iowa City City Council and the i
submitted to Johnson County by Croel
concrete batch plant at 5085 Herbert Ho
review by the City for all conditional use
� r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826
(319) 356 -5000
(319) 356 -5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
)85 Herbert Hoover Highway NE
ing and Zoning Commission have reviewed the request
i -Mix Inc., to allow operation of a temporary, portable
Highway NE. The Johnson County Zoning Code requires
its for property within the Fringe Area.
In a memo dated May 4, City Staff,oted that ecause the site for the conditional use is outside of the
Iowa City growth boundary, it is 0)4kely to ha negative impacts on existing or planned development
within Iowa City in the near fu 're. At its M 17 meeting, the Iowa City Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended appro 1 of this Condit nal use permit. The City Council concurs with the
Commission and recommends tla the conditional use it requested by Croel Redi -Mix be approved.
Thank you for your consider
Sincerely, f
l
1
Matthew J. Hayek
Mayor
of our comments on this
C' e
r CITY OF IOWA CITY 6e
r_ 1
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern
Date: May 4, 2012
Re: CU12- 00001: Croell Redi -Mix Inc. Conditional Use Application -5085 Herbert
Hoover Highway NE, Lot 3 of Sharpless Subdivision
Croell Redi -Mix Inc. has filed an application for a conditional use permit to establish a
temporary, portable concrete batch plant on a 12.74 -acre lot located at 5085 Herbert Hoover
Highway NE. The batch plant would be used to support paving operations on Interstate 80. The
batch plant would cover roughly 8 acres of the property, which is owned by Sharpless Auctions
and would be leased to the applicant. Since the property is located within the City's
extraterritorial review area (Fringe Area B), the County's zoning ordinance requires the City's
review and comment on the application. If opposed by the City Council, a four -fifths majority
vote of the Board of Supervisors would be needed in order to approve the application.
The proposed site is bounded by the Sharpless Auction building to the west, Interstate 80 to the
south, Herbert Hoover Highway NE to the north, and by agricultural land to the east. Access to
the site would be from Herbert Hoover Highway NE, by widening an existing driveway to 85 feet
and adding granular surface material as needed to create a stable roadway. Drives subject to
heavy loads from trucks carrying concrete and delivering raw materials would be constructed to
a six -inch minimum to prevent pumping of subgrade and rutting. Activity from the batch plant
would be surrounded by a berm constructed from existing material stockpiled on the site.
Fringe Area Agreement: The Fringe Area Agreement for Area B states that on the balance of
land in Area B that lies outside Iowa City's projected growth area, agricultural uses are preferred
and until otherwise changed by amending this agreement, this area should be restricted to uses
consistent with a rural /agricultural area as indicated in the Johnson County Land Use Plan. The
Johnson County plan does allow this type of temporary use provided that a conditional use
permit is granted. Since the proposed facility would not be permanent, and the applicant has
indicated that after the construction project on Interstate 80 has been completed, all areas
without vegetation or stabilized with granular material or pavement would be seeded and
vegetation restored, the proposed batch plant does not appear to conflict with the Fringe Area
Agreement. Since this area is outside the City's anticipated growth area, it is also not contrary
to the City's long range Comprehensive Plan.
Environmental measures: The applicant invited comment on the impact of the project from the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. The application included a letter from the DNR
providing a record of review of protected species, rare natural communities, state lands and
waters in the project area, which included review by state parks, preserves, recreation areas,
fisheries and wildlife personnel. The DNR found no site - specific records that would be impacted
by this project. The applicant has stated that best management practices for sediment and
erosion control, according to the Iowa Storm Water Management Manual, would be used. The
applicant has stated that sediment and erosion stabilization would occur as soon as possible but
not more than 14 days after completion of the activity that disturbs the affected areas.
Water and sewer: The applicant has submitted a storm water site plan. The applicant
addressed issues raised in a review by the Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation
District. The JCSWC review stated that permanent storm water structures would not be needed,
since the facility will be temporary. The applicant has stated that one or two portable toilet
facilities —to accommodate the four to 20 employees working at the site —would be used. The
applicant has stated that wastewater from the operations would be minimal, all water would be
delivered to the site, and water from concrete washout would be contained within washout
areas, which would be excavated and feature stable side slopes. The applicant has also stated
that water spilling around the batch plant would flow to the exiting intakes, which would have
inlet protection installed around them. The applicant has acknowledged the responsibility to use
best management practices as outlined in the storm water pollution prevention plan.
Temporary use: The application form submitted to the County notes that the proposed facility
would be temporary. The general permit for the storm water pollution prevention plan, issued by
the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, is limited to three years. The batch plant must be
removed within 180 days of completion of the construction project.
Dust control: The applicant has stated intent to control dust on the site, but has not indicated
how dust control would be handled. The County should review whatever dust control measures
are being proposed for this facility and be comfortable that this issue is being appropriately
addressed prior to approval of this application.
Staff recommendation
Staff recommends that a letter be forwarded to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment
recommending approval of CU12- 00001, a request for a conditional use permit to establish a
temporary, portable concrete batch plant on a 12.74 -acre lot located at 5085 Herbert Hoover
Highway NE.
Approved by: .
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Attachment
Location map
/�
N .'.
cs.
�'
4
rig
r�
�!' r
i
�
fi �. _;��
1
�
i
'�
�
;�'
:iy x
1
fr 1
'
{"
:�
�! _
.il
�
•
.
r^
�r
J � '�
�Wk�r
1
�� y-
a N
�
•
i
�'�F
i
9
..
�
)t$
' \,
T
�