A Second Amendment Case from a Merchant Seaman’S Perspective Examined Through Federal Laws and International Law on Human Rights” Ii LIST of DEFENDANTS
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Northern Division Don Hamrick, pro se ) (Private Attorney General) ) (Non-State Actor) ) 5860 Wilburn Road )18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) Wilburn, AR 72179 ) 42 U.S.C. § 1983; § 1985; § 1986; § 1988 PLAINTIFF ) v. ) ) United Nations, et al ) Jury Trial Demanded c/o Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General )Damages Sought: 405 E 42nd Street )$14.4 million from United States Defendants New York, NY 10017 )$14.4 million from United Nations DEFENDANTS ) Civil RICO Act Complaint No. 1:06-cv-0044 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISMISS This case has the potential to be considered as a case of first impression! “A Second Amendment case from a merchant seaman’s perspective examined through federal laws and international law on human rights” ii LIST OF DEFENDANTS United Nations c/o Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General 405 E 42nd Street New York, NY 10017 President George W. Bush White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC 20500 Michael Chertoff, Secretary Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC Michael Prendergast Associate Director for Security Operations U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC Admiral Thad Allen Commandant (G-C) U.S. Coast Guard 2100 2nd Street, SW Washington, DC (1) Judge Reggie B. Walton (2) Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle U.S. District Court for DC 333 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 Dennis Barghaan U.S. Attorney’s Office 2100 Jamieson Ave. Washington, DC 22314 Heather Graham-Oliver U.S. Attorney’s Office Washington, DC iii iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Motion for Permanent InjunctionAgainst Dept./Transportation & U.S. Coast Guard . 2 A. IN GENERAL ................................................................ 2 The 8th CircuitOn the Excessive Use of Summary Judge .......................... 2 Rule of Liberal Construction................................................ 4 Pro Se Pleadings ........................................................ 4 Opposition to Summary Judgment .......................................... 4 What Constitutes a Genuine Issue of Material Fact . 5 Facts That Support More Than One Inference . 5 What Constitutes a Genuine Issue ........................................... 5 What Constitutes a Material Issue............................................ 6 What May Be Considered ................................................. 6 On Summary Judgment................................................... 6 Res Judicata is Not an Affirmative Defense in This Case . 8 The Federal Judiciary Warring Against Civil Rights: The Buckhannon Case.............................................. 9 Disarming the Private Attorney General . 11 Private Attorneys General andThe First Amendment . 15 The Procedural Attack on Civil Rights:The Empirical Reality of Buckhannon for the Private Attorney General................................ 21 B. DISPUTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS ...................................... 29 I. Introduction ......................................................... 29 Exhibit 1. U.S. Coast Guard Letter dated April 19, 2002. 29 .......... Exhibit 2. U.S. Coast Guard Letter dated May 24, 2002 U 35 Exhibit 3. U.S. Coast Guard Letter dated April 29, 2003 . 35 Exhibit 4. U.S. Coast Guard Letter dated January 7, 2004 . 35 Exhibit 5. Docket Report U.S. District Court, DC 1:02-cv-1434-ESH . 35 Exhibit 6. Judge Huvelle Memorandum on Dismissal With Prejudice, Case No. 02-1435-ESH dated October 9, 2002 . 36 Exhibit 7. Judge Huvelle Order Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied With Prejudice; Case No. 02-1435, dated October 10, 2002 . 36 Exhibit 8. Thomson/West Search: Hamrick v. Bush Judgment, DC Circuit No. 02-5334, dated October 28, 2002 . 36 Exhibit 9. Judge Reggie B. Walton, Memorandum Opinion on Dismiss With Prejudice, U.S. District Court for DC, Case No. 03-2160, dated August 16, 2004............................................ 36 v Exhibit 10. DC Circuit, Order, Case No. 04-56316, dated September 9, 2004, Affirming dismissal of RICO claims but removing “With Prejudice” stigma and Remanding on Second Amendment grounds .........................................................36 Exhibit 11. DOT Bar Notice, dated September 17, 2004. 36 ............ Exhibit 12. “In the News!” Article dated May 25, 2002 U 36 Exhibit 14. DOT Bar Notice August 11, 2006 . 39 II. Judicial Defendants....................................................41 III. Plaintiff’s Complaint Does Not Comply With Rule 8(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 IV. The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff’s RICO Claim . 45 V. Plaintiff’s Claim for a Writ of Mandamus is Barred By Res Judicata, And Even If It Were Not, Plaintiff Cannot Satisfy the Essential Elements for a Writ of Mandamus. ................................................45 VI. The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Any Constitutional Claims. 45 VII. Should the Complaint be Construed to Assert Claims Against the Defendants In Their Individual Capacities, such Claims are Barred for Multiple Reasons . 46 VIII. Any Claims Not Dismissed Should Be Transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. ...............................................47 C. TREATIES ..................................................................48 D. Nelson Lund: HAVE GUN, CAN’T TRAVEL: THE RIGHT TO ARMS UNDER THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF ARTICLE IV, George Mason University School of Law, Law and Economics Working Paper Series 05-34 . 53 E. CASE LAW AND OTHER AUTHORITIES RELATING TO THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL ..................70 1. Patricia Johnson; Michael Au France v. City of Cincinnati, 6th Circuit ..............70 2. State v. Burnett (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 419.].................................73 3. Defining Rights .......................................................77 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.....................................................94 vi JUDICIAL NOTICE RE: INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER! THERE IS NO RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS! I hereby Object to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. While I am very appreciative for the Court setting the trial date for the week of November 12, 2007 but it appears that the Court has neglected to enter into the Docket Report the Court’s Order Denying the Defendant’s MOTION TO DISMISS that would propel my case toward a trial. While there are many genuine issues of material facts in this case the ultimate and pivotal genuine issue of material fact to all others is the issue of whether an individual U.S. citizen (i.e., a U.S. seafarer as a class of citizens) can exercise two constitutional rights simultaneously under the Bill of Rights simultaneously in interstate and intrastate travel without running afoul of the laws any one of the 50 states or of the laws of the United States. The next most pivotal genuine issue of material fact is whether Capt. J. P. Brusseau’s duty to approve or deny my application for the “National Open Carry Handgun” (United States terminology) or the National Open Carry Small Arms and Light Weapons (United Nations terminology) endorsement on my MERCHANT MARINER’S DOCUMENT was a discretionary or a ministerial duty. Capt. J. P. Brusseau freely admits there were no federal laws or regulations regarding such an endorsement. My contention is that because their were not lawful guidance for Capt. J. P. Brusseau, it was his Oath of Office compelling him to support and defend the Constitution of the United States that made his duty to approve my requested endorsement a ministerial duty. Under his Oath of Office I did not have the authority to exercise his own discretion in denying my application. There lies the tort. It is my contention that because I am a Free and Natural Person and because I have not given up any of my “Rights” and that travel upon the streets or highways of any city or town in any State by me or upon the interstate between the contigious 48 States is an inalienable “Right.” Therefore, it is my contention that I am not subject to regulation or legislation by the General Assembly of the 50 States on the basis of my right to travel and my right to keep and bear arms in intrastate and interstate travel under the BILL OF RIGHTS, the INTERNATIONAL BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS, and the CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE . 1 MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST DEPT./TRANSPORTATION & U.S. COAST GUARD I hereby Motion the Court to issue a Permanent Injunction against the Dept. of Transportation and the U.S. Coast Guard, squashing the DOT’s Bar Notice permanently because its sole purpose was to obstruct justice and to harass in retaliation for my litigation against the U.S. Coast Guard. A. IN GENERAL THE 8TH CIRCUIT ON THE EXCESSIVE USE OF SUMMARY JUDGE Lucille K. Melvin v. Car-Freshener Corporation, 8th Circuit, No. 06-1279, July 12, 2006, Before BYE, LAY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. RILEY, Circuit Judge. Lucille K. Melvin (Melvin) appeals from the district court’s1 order granting summary judgment to Car-Freshener Corporation (Car-Freshener) on Melvin’s common law claim of retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy. We affirm. LAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting I respectfully dissent. Melvin has presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that she was terminated because her injury qualified her for workers’ compensation benefits. Although temporal proximity between protected conduct and discharge is insufficient to establish retaliation under Iowa law, Hulme v. Barrett, 480 N.W.2d 40, 43 (Iowa 1992), temporal proximity coupled with another aggravating