2 Reconsideration and Exparte He by pengtt

VIEWS: 64 PAGES: 18

									                             Superior Court District of Columbia
                                       Civil Division
                                      Washington, D.C.
Petitioner; Rodney Dale;
Carl Weston,
C/o P.O. Box 435,
High Shoals, NC 28077,
Private Attorney General,
                                  Case # 2009 CA 005391 B
         V.
                                  Judge BRIAN F HOLEMAN

                                 Date July 29, 2009

UNITED STATE, dba, Corporation,
LAW FIRM ERIC HOLDER,
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001,
                    Defendant.


 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DEFAULT AND OBJECTION/RESPONSE
                  TO NOVEMBER 4TH 2009 ORDER

*On Our Adversarial System; Mack vs. City of Detroit, Chief Justice Cavanagh, No. 118468,
2002.

           "The adversarial system ensures the best presentation of arguments and
           theories because each party is motivated to succeed. Moreover, the
           adversarial system attempts to ensure that an active judge refrain from
           allowing a preliminary understanding of the issues to improperly influence
           the final decision. This allows the judiciary to keep an open mind until the
           proofs and arguments have been adequately submitted. In spite of these
           underlying concerns, the majority today claims that the benefits of full
           briefing are simply a formality that can be discarded without care. The
           majority fails to comprehend how the skilled advocates in this case could
           have added anything insightful in the debate over the proper interpretation of
           a century's worth of precedent. Whatever its motivation, the majority
           undermines the foundations of our adversarial system."



       COMES NOW, I, Rodney Dale, Class, Carl Weston, Petitioners as Private Attorney

General(s) Files an MOTION to this Court for Reconsideration and Objection/Response to the
November 4th 2009, Order by Judges Brian F. Holeman and states as follows:

1.      To address the issue of the default the Petitioners first filed into the Clerk of Court a

Notice of Default with a Request for Default with an Affidavit. The Clerk of Court sent to the

Petitioners a notice to file an Motion before the Court but failed to state if it was to be under Rule

55(a) or Rule 55(b). The defendant has failed to respond. An Motion was filed per the request of

the Clerk of Court. Under the rules of Court the Court was required to place in a not guilty plead

and set it for a hearing. The Petitioners can show this Court when the United States and the

Defendant this very issue is by the courts are over looked and when an Plaintiff addresses these

issue before the court the Courts look the other way.

2.      The Petitioners filed into the recorded a NOTICE TO THE COURT of this very issue of
Rule 4, of failure to serve. The Petitioner did file into the court with the summons a copy of the
tracking number sheet from the Post Office, off of their computer. This copy of the tracking
number from the certified mail receipt was stamped with a red postal stamp to show that the
defendant on August 3, 2009, at 11:47 am. was served by certified mail receipt. By the time the
Petitioners did receive the green card back the date stamp on it was not the same as date
delivered. This is mail fraud and mail tampering which has been one of many issues that has
been brought to the attention of many courts. Who cares, maybe the Hague - Netherlands. The
Petitioners will place in as Exhibit “A“, copies of the green cards, returns from the defendant to
plaintiffs then filed into the record of the Superior Court clerk of Courts in D.C.. Plaintiffs will
also file into the record Exhibit “B”, the differences in service and pattern “grammatically,
logically, and legally incomprehensible”, from the Defendant’s return of service verified verses
clerk of court civil division D.C., 500 Indiana Ave. NW.

#
3.   The Petitioners will set forth the issue that the defendant was served properly by Rule
4(i)(1), of the court rules. Certified mail was one of the choices to serve:


“(i) Serving the United States, its agencies, corporations, officers or employees.
(1) Service upon the United States shall be effected
(A) by delivering a copy of the summons, complaint and initial order to the United States
Attorney for the District of Columbia or to an assistant United States Attorney or clerical
employee designated by the United States Attorney in a writing filed with the Clerk of the Court,
or by sending a copy of the summons, complaint and initial order by registered or certified mail
addressed to the civil process clerk at the office of the United States Attorney”


Done correctly, the issue that the court could not find proper service was attached to the summon
document with a copy of the tracking sheet from the United States Post Office. The issue is the
defendant has failed to respond. There are case(s) to were a defendant has refused to place a plea
and the court took it upon it self to enter a plea on behalf of the defendant. Title 41, USC 1981,
equal protection would have require the court to place a plea on the record, to avoid any form of
being bias, prejudice, discriminatory, ect…. Failing to do so is in violation of the equal
protection clause of the United States Constitution. This act would lean toward a violation of the
Taft-Hartley Act of running a close union shop. The imply would be, we must protect our own
mentally instead of fair and unbiased system. These are the very issue of this claim that the
system is cover up for their own people and failing to protect rights of the we, the people.

4.   The Court is in error per Title 28, USC, this is judicial procedure manual to which all

courts received their jurisdiction but also Title 28, USC, points out section 454 & 455.

TITLE 28 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 454. Practice of law by justices and judges

Any justice or judge appointed under the authority of the United States who engages in the
practice of law is guilty of a high misdemeanor.

Note: With no Motions filed by Defendant(s), to address the issues in the November 4,
      2009, Order, This Court’s Order is Void on its face at bar. Judge Holeman, can not
      play Defendant and must stay neutral.

TITLE 28 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate
judge.

ALL of this section applies under 28 USC. The Petitioners are pointing out that Title 28, of the

UNITED STATES CODES(USC) is the rule book for the court system. Not part, no some, but

ALL under this title defines on how the court is to operate. Any violation under these codes is a
procedural and Due Process violations.



The Superior Court received its jurisdiction from Title 28, sec. 1343 and from Volume 24,

American Jurisprudence, 2d District of Columbia ß 21, Superior Court of the District of

Columbia and divisions thereof The District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, the Juvenile

Court of the District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia Tax Court were consolidated in a

single court known as the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and Congress established

District of Columbia in 1970. Definition (General “jurisdiction" as used in reference to subject

matter jurisdiction.)


5.   Rule 12 (h)(3) States: “Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the
Court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the Court shall dismiss the action.”
At no time has the defendant filed any document challegening the jurisdiction of this Court along
with no Motions addressing any of the subject matters in the November 4, 2009, order. The
Petitioners gave this Court jurisdiction over this matter. Failing to do so would show that the
Court could be bias & perjudice and unwilling to hold it’s own accountable under the very code
they have created and this would show wilful denying the Petitioners to Due Process and equal
protection under Title 42.USC, sec. 1981
 TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1981. Equal rights under the law
(a) Statement of equal rights

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State
and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and
equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed
by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and
exactions of every kind, and to no other. Etc…



6.   The Court drawed a conlusion that page two (2), paragraph two (2), of “II”, the Petitioner 22
hand number pages was grammatically, logically, and legally incomprehensible. What the Court
has failed to state that each of these issue come from the library of Congress and from
Congressional reports, records and very legal documents created in part by the defendant(s)
them selves. This is the very issue of this case. If the court can not understand such writing
created by the defendant(s) and its employees then how can Petitioner(s) intrepid such issue(s) of
right and wrong from their incomprehensible writing including numbering of pages which the
Defendant has not raised.

7.   The Court has error in fact, it has argued on behalf of the defendant in stating that the United
States is only a Corporation in Federal Debt Collection and has immunity from when not in
collectin debt. The Petitioners will point out the following case that the United States lost its
immunity when it became a collection agency.

       a) Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904; 6 L. Ed. 24, (1824), the Court
       stated, in part: “The government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty…
       exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter.”

       b)"Governments lose their immunity and descend to level of private corporations when
       involved in commercial activity enforcing negotiable instruments, as in fines, penalties,
       assessments, bails, taxes, the remedy lies in the hand of the state and its municipalities
       seeking remedy." Rio Grande v. Darke, 167 P.241.

       c) "The rule of governmental immunity as to all political subdivisions of government is
       hereby abrogated as it has heretofore been abrogated as to municipal corporations, i.e.,
       cities. No longer is the defense of governmental immunity for tort liability available,
       irrespective of whether the involved political subdivision is functioning 'governmentally'
       or 'proprietarily'." MYERS v GENESSEE COUNTY , 375 Mich 1, 1965.

       d) "The general rule is that a qualified immunity defense fails once a plaintiff has alleged
       that defendants have violated the plaintiff's clearly established rights. Occasionally,
       however, objectively "extraordinary circumstances" are present which combine to justify a
       grant of immunity nonetheless." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982).

      e) "Sovereign immunity does not apply where (as here) government is a lawbreaker              or
jurisdiction is the issue." Arthur v. Fry, 300 F.Supp. 622 (1960).

       f) The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. citing In
       re Merriam's Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed U.S. v. Perkins, 16 S.Ct. 1073,
       163 U.S. 625,

       g) The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62,
       page 419, chartered a Federal company entitled “ United States ,” a/k/a “US Inc.,” a
       “Commercial Agency” originally designated as “ Washington , D.C. ,” in accordance with
       the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.
8.   The Petitioners will place in as an Exhibit of a Ruling from the Tenth Circuit Court

of Appeals stating the United States in its official capacity is a Corporate Appellee. (See

Exhibit C)

The Petitioner has just place a few case law in conflict with the Court defense on behalf of the

defendant. The Court could have pointed out and used the about case law to support the

Petitioners Claim against the United States. By the Court taking upon itself to act and defend the

defendants the Adversarial System; has been errored and/or abused. The Court has also failed to

Clearified which United States, it was give immunity to and which United States has the

sovereignty.


The United States Supreme Court has Ruled that their in fact three United State. In the following
case law and In Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 43 S.Ct. 504 (1923), The court ruled
that "The term United States is a metaphor [a figure of speech]".

       a) Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)] [65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed.
       1252
       b) United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 3 Wheat. 336 336 (1818)

       c) United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).

In the Court defense for the defendants the court has used the word United States in such a way it

would be unclear to the term used or which United States the Court was referring to. The United

States of the some fifty states is sovereign, but this is not the United States that a claim is against.

The Petitioner claim to which United States which injured the Petitioners is within this Court

juridiction of the Ten square mile as define in the District of Columbia Constitution under

Article 1 section 8 clause 17 and in The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, Forty-first

Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419. `It is well settled that “United States” et al., is a

corporation, originally incorporated February 21, 1871 under the name “District of Columbia,”

16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62. It was reorganized June 11, 1878 with all federal territories and
possessions. This corporation also copyrighted the names UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

UNITED STATES, USA, US and AMERICA .

The Court has error in the understanding of sovereignty again defending the defendant in their

behalf quoted case law. The Court should have quoted case law in behalf of the Petitioners

pointing out sovereignty stand with the People. The Court is acting as counsel in pointing out

what would be in the best interest of the United States instead of the interest of the Petitioners or

the People.

        “One sovereign does not need to tell another sovereign that he/she is sovereign.
        The sovereign is merely sovereign by his very existence.” The People are
        sovereign, not the governmental bodies that serve them. Kemper v. State, 138
        Southwest 1025 (1911), page 1043, section 33.


        Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884): “There is no such thing as a power
        of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States…In this country
        sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which
        they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it. All else is withheld.”

        Perry v. U.S., 294 U.S. 330 (1935): “In the United States, sovereignty resides in
        the people…the Congress cannot invoke sovereign power of the People to
        override their will as thus declared.”

        Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886): “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not
        subject to law, for it is the author and source of law…While sovereign powers
        are delegated to…the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people.”


9.   The Court has error in it conclusion that it lack jurisdiction over the United States. Again,

the Petitioner point out the loose usage of the term United States. The Petitioners has made it

clear in its talking about the Ten square miles as found in the District of Columbia Constitution.


"IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO DECLARE THE MEANING OF WHAT IS
WRITTEN, AND NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE WRITTEN. J.W. Seavey Hop Corp.
v. Pollock, 20 Wn.2d 337, 348-49, 147 P.2d 310 (1944), cited with approval in Berg v.
Hudesman, 115 Wn.2d at 669.

              The constitution of the Union constitutes a contract with the members and is
           the measure of the authority conferred upon the organization to expel or
           otherwise discipline them. [Citing cases]; Accord: Leo v. Local Union No.
           612 of International Union of Operating Engineers, 26 Wn.2d 498, 174 P.2d
           523 (1946).



We find in federal law, Congress defines various places of exclusive federal jurisdiction as

"States". These places are not "states of the Union ". The other manner in which federal law

sometimes addresses this issue is with the phrase, "…in the United States , and subject to its

jurisdiction" , as in 26 CFR 1.1-1 ( which therefore refers only to federal places.)


Title 28, United States Code, Section 297, defines the several States of the union as being "freely

associated compact states" in subsection (a), and then refers to these freely associated compact

states as being "countries" in subsection(b) . The individual states were considered to be foreign

countries to the United States and to each other.

The United States within the ten square miles lack jurisdiction to act outside of its federal zone.

In the same manner that this Court is trying to state it has no jurisdiction over the District of

Columbia. If this is the case then this court had NO jurisdiction to rule in Defendant’s faver.

10.   The Court error when the Court rule and dismiss on a 12(b)(6) it would have to have

jurisdiction to make such a ruling and the Court has claimed it has no such jurisdiction. Under

Rule 12 (h)(3), this goes back to line 5 about the documents created by the United States

Defendants are in fact incomprehensible and grammatically logically questioned.

Second issue is that the defendant did not object by placing any document to bring this to the

attention to the Court for the Court to have ruled under 12h(3), a challenge had to be placed into

the recorded by the defendant, NOT this court.
Third the Petitioner will point that the Court records of when the UNITED STATES or UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA, vs., any citizen of the united states the court does not step in on behalf

of these defendants and make such a claim on behalf of the people that the UNITED STATES or

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA failed to state of 12(b)(6) on behalf of the people. By the

Court failing to show equal protection under law this violates judicial procedure under 28 USC

455. It shows that this Court is bias, ect…

11.For the Court to put a 12 (b)(6), on behalf of the United States violate 28 USC 1343 (3), to

redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or

usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by

any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction

of the United States and 28, section 1443, (1) Against any person who is denied or cannot

enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of

citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof. (2) For any act

under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do

any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.

Rule 12(b)(6) fails to define to what or what is not relief on how it can be granted. The Court

fails to define that relief. Is it monetary, is it a mean of correcting a wrong, if so how. The

Petitioners did both or is this a ruling the courts hide behind knowing that there is no correct

answer and what every the people ask for ,it will always be wrong. It’s a fact that the defendant

and the people in these position use it as a escape clause to avoid conviction and to deny the

people of this nation an honest service government. Their is no court record that has ever show

or stated how relief could to granted when the people are the defendants and the Court has never

dismiss a case because the UNITED STATES or the STATE OF has failed to state a claim of
relief.

The Petitioners have notice the Court using Bracket symbols “[ ]”, that comes from the United

States Style Manual. It refers to anything inside the brackets or after is not true. What is this

Court trying to say when it use such symbols in its filing on the first page of the ORDER and

thru out the document. A clarification of this needs to be addressed. The Petitioner would like to

have a EXPARTE hearing to discuss these issues of conflicts.



                                           CONLUSION

The Court has error in this deiscion to dismissed. Title 28, of the UNITED STATE CODES is

not just a law book, but a procedural book to how the Courts are to conduct bussiness in a

courtroom. The Jefferson Manual and the Senate Manual are the procedural book on how laws

are to be passed. The judiciary Act of 1789, created the all courts under the Constitution. The

Enabling Rule Act created the rules to how court are to be unbias and fair. The administrative

procedure act of 1946, under 60 stat 237, set up a remedy court for the people to address the

wrongs of public office or agencies when they violate the people rights. There is a 62 page

Congressional Report on how administrative courts are conduct its procdures.

No government corporation or government agency can legal place a claim against the people as

all monetary value lies with the people. With out the people the UNITED STATES could not

borrow money or create public debt. The UNITED STATES has no way to pay off a debt

without the people being misuse used for that means. The Taft-Hartley Act being violated as the

people, the employers and corporation and its employees. The courts outside of the ten square

mile have willfully violated this act of Congress by act in a manner to cover up corruption and

wrong doing of it own officers. “Its all for one and one for all”
The Petitioners can before this Court as it was stated that this is the Constitutional Article III,

Court in D.C.. This Court has Jurisdiction to subpeona all public official in their official capacity

or private capacity. The Petitioners place this MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

DEFAULT AND OBJECTION/RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 4TH 2009 ORDRER back before

the Superior Court to reconsider its findings in law and help the people to restore the checks and

balance back into government by holding the corporation responablity for its action. The

Petitioner know after talking with the Committee of the Judiciary John Conyer Jr. and Patrick

Leahy over the last 3 half years that the Superior Court is the proper court of jurisdiction to

address such issue.


                                                   ______________________________
                                                   Petitioner; Rodney Dale;
                                                   C/o P.O. Box 435,
                                                   High Shoals, NC 28077,
                                                   Private Attorney General,


                                                       ____________________________________
                                                       Carl Weston, P.A.G.
                                                       2851 N. Hwy 66, #18
                                                       Catoosa, Ok. 74015




                                  PROOF OF SERVICE
I Rodney Dale; Class and Carl Weston come with MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
DEFAULT AND OBJECTION/RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 4TH 2009 ORDRER is being
placed before the Clerk of Court of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on this day of
_____________ and month of_____________ in the year of our Lord 2009 AD Service well be
delivered by U.S.PS. Certified mail with green card return


                                                 ________________________
                                                 Petitioner; Rodney Dale;
                                                __________________________
                                                Carl Weston,
                                                C/o P.O. Box 435,
                                                High Shoals, NC 28077,
                                                Private Attorney General,
CC
UNITED STATE, dba, Corporation,
LAW FIRM ERIC HOLDER,
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001,




                              Superior Court District of Columbia
                                        Civil Division
                                       Washington, D.C.
Petitioner; Rodney Dale;
Carl Weston,
C/o P.O. Box 435,
High Shoals, NC 28077,
Private Attorney General,
                                                  Case # 2009 CA 005391 B
          V.
                                                  Judge BRIAN F HOLEMAN

                                                  Date July 29, 2009

UNITED STATE, dba, Corporation,
LAW FIRM ERIC HOLDER,
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001,
                    Defendant.



                                               ORDER

The Petitioners did place evidence before the Superior Court and showed that the Defendants

was properly serviced under Rule 4 (i)(1). The defendants are in default. The Court was in error

and well over turn it’s Ruling that the Petitioner failure to service properly.

The Petitioners pointed out that Rule 12 (h)(3), require two parties the defendant failed to enter a

plea into the court, the court can not find in the record of a challenge to the court jurisdiction,

subject matter and Defendant not answering the original petition admitting or denying according

to the rules of this court. So the Court will in error and well over turn its Ruling on the 12 (h)(3),

The Petitioners gave jurisdiction to the Court to hear this case under Title 28 USC 1343 & 1443

The Petitioner provides the Court with overwhelming case law that show the Government lack

immunity and sovereignty . The Court was in error and well over turn its Ruling that the

Government has immunity and sovereignty dew to the proof of the new evidence placed before

the Court.
The Petitioners addressed the 12(b)(6), to which relief could be granted. The Court fines that the

Petitioner did place a dollar amount and did state how relief could be granted. The Petitioner did

in fact address the equity of the claim and the remedy to how relief could be rendered.

The Court after reading the Petitioners MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DEFAULT

AND OBJECTION/RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 4TH 2009 ORDER

The Court well over turn its ORDER and give the Petitioner their default judgment and against

the Defendants and Order the judgment office render default and collection .



The Superior Court well Render DEFAULT JUDGMENT according to petitioners request in

their conclusion in the original petition filed., IT IS SO ORDERED.



                                                ____________________________
                                                   Judge Brian F. Holeman




                               Superior Court District of Columbia
                                         Civil Division
                                        Washington, D.C.
Petitioner; Rodney Dale;
Carl Weston,
C/o P.O. Box 435,
High Shoals, NC 28077,
Private Attorney General,
                                                 Case # 2009 CA 005391 B
          V.
                                                 Judge BRIAN F HOLEMAN

                                                 Date July 29, 2009

UNITED STATE, dba, Corporation,
ERIC HOLDER,
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001,
                    Defendant.

                            MOTION FOR A EXPARTE HEARING

NOW COMES Rodney Dale ;Class ,Carl; Weston with a MOTION FOR A EXPARTE

HEARING. The Order of November 4, 2009, has error in laws and conflict to the

grammatically, logically, and legally incomprehensible as Judge Brian Holeman as pointed out.

When such conflict accrue in Congressional Reports, Executive Orders, Court decisions and

United States Codes etc., an EXPARTE hearing is needed to address these conflicts in the Rule

of Law that the Petitioners has brought into the Court.

The Petitioner has looked over the ORDER and feel that Eric Hold law office or a law clerk

wrote this ORDER an not the Judge. A Judge would not make the error in law or procedures as

the Petitioner found in this Order.

It is obvious that you can see the bias and perjudice in this Order that a first law student would

make and no Judge would violate the Rule of Law or Procedure in such a manner.

The Petitioners respectably ask this Court for an EXPARTE hearing.

.

                                      _______________________________
                                      Petitioner; Rodney Dale;
                                       C/o P.O. Box 435,
                                     High Shoals, NC 28077,
                                     Private Attorney General,

                                               ________________________________
                                      Carl Weston, P.A.G.
                                      2851 N. Hwy 66, lot 18
                                       Catoosa, Ok. 74015




                                    PROOF OF SERVICE
I Rodney Dale; Class and Carl Weston come with MOTION FOR A EX-PARTA HEARING is
being placed before the Clerk of Court of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on this
day of _____________ and month of_____________ in the year of our Lord 2009 AD Service
well be delivered by U.S.PS. Certified mail with green card return



                                            _______________________________
                                                Petitioner; Rodney Dale; Class
                                               C/o P.O. Box 435,
                                               High Shoals, NC 28077,
                                               Private Attorney General


                                                ________________________

                                               Carl Weston, P.A.G.
                                               2851 N. Hwy 66, #18
                                               Catoosa, Ok. 74015


CC
UNITED STATE, dba, Corporation,
LAW FIRM ERIC HOLDER,
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001,




                              Superior Court District of Columbia

                                         Civil Division
                                           Washington, D.C.

Petitioner; Rodney Dale;
Carl Weston,
C/o P.O. Box 435,
High Shoals, NC 28077,
Private Attorney General,
                                        Case # 2009 CA 005391 B
          V.
                                         Judge BRIAN F HOLEMAN

                                         Date July 29, 2009

UNITED STATE, dba, Corporation,
ERIC HOLDER,
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001,
                    Defendant.



                                                ORDER

It is apparent to the Court that there is a conflict with case law when it has two or three different

decision on the same topic. When Congressional Records have more then one interpretation to

the meaning to which it was written. Executive Order stating one intent and the carrying out of

that order is different then the intent this is conflict in law.

U.S. SUPREME COURT DECIDES MELENDEZ-DIAZ, BREATHES LIFE INTO

CRAWFORD AND THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE

                 In Melendez-Diaz vs Massachusetts (No. 07-591, June 25, 2009)

___U.S.___[2009D.A.R9363], the U.S. Supreme Court-by a 5-4 vote- held that a drug analyst’s

affidavit discussing the nature of the substance tested and its weight was a testimonial statement

for purposes of the Sixth Amendment, and as such, absent a showing of unavailability and prior

opportunity for cross-examination, a defendant is entitled to confront the analyst at trail. The

majority found this to be a “rather straightforward application” of Crawford vs Washington
(2004) 541 U.S. 36.

The Court fine that this case law has merit, and such conflicts in the legal system having

conflicting Congressional Bills intent , Executive Order intent and Court decisions been

misconstrued need to be clarification and addressed .

The Superior Court further ORDER that ALL Court cases be put on hold dew to such a conflict

in law would resolve in a grave injustice to the people of this Nation. The Superior Court does

this as to prevent wrongful conviction base on conflicting view points in the Rule of Law.

The Superior Court well set EXPARTE hearing on______________________ of 2009, IT IS

SO ORDERED.


                                                     ____________________________
                                                       Judge Brian F. Holeman

								
To top