Replies

The U.S. Constitution guarantees your Right to represent yourself in Civil Court, and have a fair hearing. However, Judges, as a practice, do not read the pleadings or letters of the self-represented, non-attorney, plaintiff. Judges have authorized their clerks to decide all cases of non-attorney plaintiffs, and to write the orders, and to stamp the orders with rubber-stamp of the Judge’s signature; and to reply to letters. The clerk, often a student, relies upon the more experienced attorney in the case, the opposing attorney. The opposing attorney is always able to come up with a pretense to dismiss the case, and always does for the win. Thus, the opposing attorney always decides the case, and always wins. The same process occurs upon your appeal.

All trial-attorneys know this, and immediately “confer” with the Judge’s clerk. Many trial-attorneys, knowing Judges do not read the pleadings of non-attorney plaintiffs, will have some fun. The attorney will write an inflammatory pleading to upset the non-attorney, and to which the non-attorney responds. The attorney will willfully write a false-summary of the non-attorney’s pleading and falsify the facts to confuse the non-attorney. The attorney will misrepresent the law and precedent cases. The attorney will run that non-attorney around with false pleadings for about six months, until the non-attorney’s finances are gone.

An attorney’s motion to dismiss on the face of the complaint prohibits the attorney from attacking the facts of the complaint without making an Answer first, or verified-answer, committing to his story, rather than changing his story depending upon what the non-attorney says. The attorney will ignore this rule and attack the facts of the complaint without answer. The attorney and clerk will write an order dismissing the case and denying the hearing of any motions of the non-attorney for saying the case is dismissed upon the face of the complaint, when in fact the case was dismissed based upon the facts, facts not investigated, and the falsified facts according to the attorney. Attorneys of the offices of the State and Federal Departments of “Justice” are the worst offenders of this practice; when, to the contrary, they have the fiduciary duty to end this practice.

The Courts have procedures that allow this to happen. The Courts do not have the procedures that I list below, that would help prevent this from happening. Therefore, by giving their clerks rubber-stamps of the Judge’s signature, and the like, Judges have stepped into unlawful position where motive and opportunity lie for Judge’s clerks and opposing attorneys to decide the cases of non-attorney plaintiff. The law presumes that unlawful acts occur in unlawful positions, in the dark. Therefore, I am correct in presuming that Judges operating in the dark outside the light of day, in unlawful position, do not read the pleadings of non-attorney plaintiffs, though my experience in Civil Court has confirmed this.

Judges are attorneys and members of the attorney-club. Judges are government employees. Government employees have organized and unionized. Government employee unions, which seek “Rights” beyond the Rights of non-union, non-government employees, are inherently unlawful. Government unions have acted to prevent government employees from being held accountable for their actions, and for unlawful actions, and for using their offices to commit malicious acts against citizens. The Virginia Tech University shooting is an example. The University President did not inform the students that two students had been shot that morning on campus for more than two hours, in the hope that the gunman on the loose would be captured, and the University President could quiet news-press about the shooting for public-relations reason. Warned students would have been looking for suspicious behavior, and had the choice not to attend classes. Yet this University President, a government employee, was not held accountable, and still holds his job, and will make the decisions in the event of another shooting on his campus. Judges, as attorneys and government-employees, are in conflict-of-interest, presiding upon the case of a non-attorney and non-government employee plaintiff against government employees or their agency and against their attorney. Therefore, there must be these procedures insuring the non-attorney’s Right to a fair hearing. Though, all such cases should automatically go before a jury of peers, without opportunity for dismissal.

Do you still have some doubts whether attorney-Judges and government-employee-Judges are biased against the non-attorney and non-government employee plaintiff? The Federal Court of Claims gives the government-employee, attorney, 30-days to reply to the pleading of the non-attorney. The attorney has legal experience, a secretary, and a copy-machine. The Court gives the non-government-employee, non-attorney but 10-days to reply to the pleading of the attorney. The non-attorney has no legal experience, has no secretary, and has no copy-machine. This Court will refuse the pleading of the non-attorney submitted 13-days in reply. This Court will accept the pleading of the attorney submitted 30-days in reply.

Needed written procedures: 1. All cases of a non-attorney plaintiff, non-government-employee plaintiff, bringing suit against the State or Federal government, (and often the subsequent actions of their attorney), is to have his case heard and decided by a jury of his peers, without the opportunity for dismissal by the government.

Otherwise: 1. The Judge, who was an attorney, must hand write and date a gist of their order and outline of their order, in cases where one party is a poor, non-attorney, pro-se party, and the opposing party an attorney, prior to permitting their clerk to format and clean-up the order, or add the specifics of laws and precedent-cases. 2. A rubber-stamp of the Judge’s signature is not permitted to exist. 3. The Judge, who was an attorney, must always require Answer of the opposing attorney party, in cases where one party is a pro-se plaintiff and the opposing party an attorney. 4. The Judge, who was an attorney and likely knows the opposing attorney, must always hear and act upon the motions of the non-attorney, pro-se party, in cases where one party is a poor, non-attorney, pro-se party, and the opposing party an attorney. 5. The Judge, who was an attorney, if raising jurisdiction, must transfer the case to the proper Court without further action by the plaintiff; in cases where the plaintiff is a non-attorney, pro-se plaintiff, opposed by an attorney, and especially if the non-attorney plaintiff is in forma pauperis status. 6. The Judge, in the attorney-club, if raising jurisdiction, must write a dated order to transfer the case to the proper Court, without further action by the pro-se plaintiff, within 30-days of the filing of complaint, or otherwise hear and act upon the motions of the pro-se plaintiff, regardless, with assumption the complaint is valid until proven otherwise; in cases where one party is a poor, non-attorney, pro-se party, and the opposing party an attorney. 7. Judges, of the attorney-club, must note that they have read the pleadings of the non-attorney, pro-se party, in cases where one party is a poor, non-attorney, pro-se party, and the opposing party an attorney. 8. Judges, who are government employees, must require the Department of “Justice” to investigate any allegations of the opposing, non-government-employee, non-attorney, pro-se party, regardless of whether the Department of “Justice” files a motion to dismiss, or not; and especially in cases where a non-government-employee, pro-se party alleges a crime committed by government-employees under color of law; in all cases involving a government-employee, State or Federal Department of “Justice” attorney as an opposing counsel. 9. The non-attorney party is granted the same time to reply to a pleading that the federal attorney is granted.

U.S. Constitution, 1st Amendment: “The Congress shall make no law…abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Lawyers and Judges have concealed from the American people that the American citizen who cannot afford a lawyer wastes his time filing a lawsuit no matter how valid his case. Lawyers and Judges are cowards for not telling the American people the truth. The incentive of the attorney profession is making lots of money. Judges and attorneys show they have lost the capacity to understand Justice and Ethics. Attorneys and attorney-Judges have unlawfully usurped the American citizen's Right to a hearing, in order to make lawyers rich.

Sincerely, Brian Greer