gioprism
DIAMOND DIGGER
Re: The Buzz Chat 01/24
« Reply #315 Yesterday at 9:15pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday at 4:26pm,
A couple of points about this appeal of the Bivens dismissal, and whether it would be an "insurance policy" for SH.
First, if there is an appeal, remember it is just an appeal from an Order dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Even if AH appeals to the Ninth Circuit, briefing and arguments well make take a year. At that point, the case is just remanded to the District Court for discovery, trial, etc. It is likely the Government would immediately appeal again on the privilege issue already raised. In short, for Al to win this, and for any meaningful Order or Judgment to result that could be enforced, it would be a few years off, at best. And that is if AH wins--which is be no means a given.
More importantly, the Defendants in the case are the SEC Commissioners. By all accounts, even Al's, they no longer control or possess our monies, or have any power to disburse it. We have been told GI does. How does an Order/Judgment against the SEC Commissioners help us regarding GI? It does not. GI is not a party to the case, and cannot be added on appeal. No new evidence can be added on appeal. The record in the District Court is closed.
Finally, a point I have raised before. It is thus repetition, and meant to be. An attorney, as an Officer of the Court, has ethical obligations of candor to the Court. Judges take this very seriously. If there is a Supreme Court Order/Directive that pertains to our funds, it must be revealed to the Court. Indeed, it should have already been revealed to the District Court. BH, Chucky and Harv all said, as early as the beginning of November, that AH had obtained a SC Order/Directive requiring the release of funds to us, and separating our situation from WGS. However, in AH's recent update, he said that GI (meaning not him) petitioned the SC in camera, after Christmas, and obtained this ruling.
If the SC ruling existing in November, why was it not used before the District Court at the December 6th hearing as precedent--controlling, ironclad precedent, that (1) our Trust exists; (2) we must be paid on or before December 31, 2010 and (3) that this is dispositive--the SC ruled on it, so there need be no further argument or discussion.
Even if GI had our monies at that point, a District Court, in CA or anywhere, could and would enter an Order enforcing a SC ruling against GI or anyone else it applied to or contemplated. Period. That also applies now, meaning today.
If GI was the one that obtained the SC ruling after Christmas, all the better. There is no need to appeal the dismissed Bivens action. Why? We already have a ruling from the highest court in the land in our favor! Either apply to the District Court for an Order enforcing the SC ruling against GI (or anyone else that has our funds); or apply for an enforcement Order at the SC directly (not a contempt Order--an Order requiring them to disburse NOW or face jail).
In a sense then, an appeal of the Bivens case may even be frivolous because it is repetitive, unnecessary and seeks relief (an order to be paid) that the SC has allegedly already given us according to AH himself! No matter what, if there is an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the existence of this SC ruling in our favor must be disclosed to the Court (and it will, one way or another). Why in the world would it not be--it is an immediate win--DONE. If it is indeed true, as AH says, that it exists. I believe him. At this point, why not? Why in the world would he lie about something this important?
This is not rocket science. However, it is a matter of knowing the law and working in the federal courts and the Supreme Court for many years. But what is rocket science, is parsing, dissecting and ultimately understanding exactly what we do have--be it funds, SC rulings, China, WGS, the Dinar RV, etc. In a word, what is the truth?
IMHO
Lumiere702
DIAMOND DIGGER
Re: The Buzz Chat 01/24
« Reply #316 Yesterday at 9:50pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your points are well taken. However, the Bivens action seeks damages for the unconstitutional failure of the defendants to release the funds. It did not seek the release of the funds. The prayer for relief:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment as follows:
1. For a declaratory judgment, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C., Sections 2201 and 2202, which determines and declares the validity of the contentions of the parties set forth in Paragraphs 52 to 54, above;
2. For a judgment for compensatory, general and special damages in the amounts prayed for in the Second Cause of action set forth above;
3. For a judgment for punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and to make examples of these Defendants, and to deter these Defendants and others from engaging in similar conduct;
4. For an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses and costs of suit incurred herein; and:
5. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
The SC order to release the funds is theoretically aimed at the trustee, presumably not a defendant in the Bivens action. It has little bearing on the Bivens action. The defendants, if found liable, will be called upon to pay damages resulting from their unconstitutional actions in years past. The fact that there is an order to release the funds now in no way affects the defendants’ liability for their actions. AH has every right to appeal and is justified to do so.
Could AH have used the SC order at some point? The case was at the pleading stage. The court ruled that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficiently to claim jurisdiction over the defendants(immunity) and that they had a property interest in the trust. I don’t see how the SC order to release the funds would change the district court’s position on either point. I’m open to contrary argument, but that is my opinion.
gitrichordietrying
DIAMOND JEDI
Re: The Buzz Chat 01/24
« Reply #319 Yesterday at 10:55pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumiere702 ....in simple terms are you are saying that possibly the Bivens Action appeal might still be considered desirable for some leverage purposes...and it doesn't preclude some other actions in parallel against some other non-defendant (SC order) trustee like GI for example (or whomever is holding the funds)
millionaires.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=36998&page=16