Declaratory Judgments – If there’s no Remedy, MAKE ONE!
- “The Judiciary invites the public to participate in refining the Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rules of Evidence, and court forms. Submitting a suggestion to one of the advisory committees triggers this cooperative process. Suggestions come from many sources, including judges, practicing attorneys, government agencies, academia, and bar associations.”
- “Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure ought to be user-friendly. This is the prime characteristic of good rules of procedure. …” [Washington] “ Any person may initiate rule changes by submitting the change to the Supreme Court. The Court will determine if the request is clearly stated and in the form required by GR 9. ” FRCP Declaratory Judgment Act 28 USC 2200
- DOUBT & Controversy on the job between the FBI/DOJ on one side and congress and the executive branches at a minimum on the other has come to an impasse. A unique set of circumstances has given rise to public sentiment at the outrageousness of the controversy surrounding the very top of law enforcement agencies. This doubt has not found a resolution for want of an established formal process for which to try this matter.
- Comprehensive review in February 2018 of Strzok’s messages – Fact Pattern has not resulted in a satisfactory resolution, to say the least.
- Further DOUBT of a similar nature has been surrounding and exacerbating the corruption in the professional milieu of these organizations, e.g. Rosenstein, Muller and to a broader, but certainly related extent, the CIA Jackass who recently lost his security clearance, as there has become an obvious reason for suspicion that corruption within the circles of law enforcement at the top of organizations has not limited itself to a single agency. (Who’s the principle? The U.S. is. Don’t forget that the hand that gives is above the hand that receives.)
- The wind in the sails of all of this doubt is the very nature of the controversy – corruption. Corruption isn’t easy to see if casual observers of the world rely on the corporate approved media, which is limited to the standard of the Gunning-FOG Index of between the 8th & 10th grade.
- The issue is truly the ones at the top have been grading their own papers “A+” and delivering “F-” – In propri cuus nemo judex. The complexities are beyond the scope of what can be told on TV.
- Within the scope contemplating the issue of the FBI/DOJ’s role in handling personnel matters as a pragmatic issue the actual level must be ascertained but the historical custom and practice of handling personnel matters exclusively within the organization for which any given employee may need to be disciplined has become insufficient due to conflicts of interest.
- The struggle for resolution between the House and/or the Executive and the FBI/DOJ has been merely a two sided contest, whereby any meaningful witnesses to such an event must rely on material that has been artfully and invisibly edited, heavily colored by context and commentary and, in some cases, subliminal psychological influences. The question of bias has been the the notion under tension. The absurdity that there is an environment whereby the FBI/DOJ have become an inseparable entity from the individuals who are at its control is almost at the verge of an uncivilized free-for-all. The management of the organization avails themselves to being both the decision making entity and the very entity subject to the controversy. The issue at hand has been extensive and drawn out to the point of argumentum ad absurdum. There is so much external influence within the communication chanels having a monopoly on presenting information to the public that controversy now exists as to whether there is or is not a controversy. The derivatives are now greater than the whole.
- As In propri cuus nemo judex. No one can be judge in his own cause. And In repropri iniquum admodum est alicui licentiam tribuere sententiae. It is extremely unjust that any one should be judge in his own cause, the FBI/DOJ can not have standing to be the subject of the controversy and the judge claiming resolution of the very controversy that it is involved in.
The element that is missing is a proper process and venue for which to have a hearing that would satisfy Due Process.
- As Due Process is simply stated as “ Substantive due process, in United States constitutional law, is a principle allowing courts to protect certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if procedural protections are present or the rights are not specifically mentioned elsewhere in the US Constitution. ” it’s clear to see that a third, independent arbiter is required for this situation.
- The Declaratory Judgment Act provides for such considerations. Creation of a Remedy! This statute is quite short and reads in pertinent part, “ In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except […] , as determined by the administering authority, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.” Declaratory Judgment Black’s 4th , page 497 “One which simply declares the rights of the parties or expresses the opinion of the court on a question of law, without ordering anything to be done. Its distinctive characteristics are that no executory process follows as of course, nor is it necessary that an actual wrong, giving rise to action for damages, should have been done, or be immediately threatened.[…] It must deal with real dispute of real fact.[…]It is distinguished from other actions in that it does not seek execution or performance from the defendant or opposing party. [citations removed]. It’s the statutory expression of the maxims; Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem. It is the part of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction; that, his remedial authority. Chan. Prec. 329; 1 Wils 284; 9 M. & Wels. 818. Est boni judicis ampliare jurisdictionem. It is the part of a good judge to extend the jurisdiction.Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also provide for such a remedy.
- Prayer For Process is what is required. A petition filed in “any court of the United States”, a request for Declaratory Judgment as an authorization for the jurisdiction of the Court, with the facts as provided in the various examinations and cross-examinations both private and public, FOIA requests, and other standards of evidence of any particular individual, would be facts already established. The point of authority for which to be cited and asked for adjudication can be Employee handbooks, Agency guidelines or any other promulgated standard that might have been established for hiring, firing, demotions, promotions or the granting or rescinding of security clearances used between the parties at any point along the way.
- Bonum judex secundum aequum et bonum judicat, et aequitatem stricto juri praefert. A good judge decides according to justice and right, and prefers equity to strict law- Lord Coke. So, find a good judge & take this with you. Son of a bitch is dug in like an Alabama tick!