Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

National Economic Security and Recovery Act (NESARA)

You can dispute these facts all you want, but this is how the US Government overstepped the rule of law and disregard for the Constitution.

These official documents were published by the now-defunct Administration of the United States.

With all their power and money (our money!), Government officials and bankers consider themselves to be above the Law, but cracks are now appearing in their foundations, and angry Americans are beginning to fight back.

Farmer Claims Class Action Lawsuit

This change began in the mid 1970’s, when the Federal Land Bank illegally foreclosed on farmers mortgages all throughout the Midwest. In each of these cases the farmers were defrauded by the banks with the approval of the Federal Reserve System. These court cases would eventually become known as the farmer claims program.

In 1978 an elderly ranch farmer in Colorado purchased a farm with loan from the Federal Land Bank; after he died the property was passed on to his son General Roy Schwasinger, who was a retired military general. Soon after a Federal Land Bank officer and Federal Marshall appeared on his property and informed him the bank was foreclosing on his farm and to vacate within 30 days. Without his knowledge, his deceased father signed a stipulation which reverted the property back to the Federal Land Bank in the event of the borrower’s death.

Outraged, Roy Schwasinger filed a class action lawsuit in the Denver Federal Court system. But the case didn’t go very far and the suit was dismissed from filing incorrectly. This began Roy Schwasinger’s investigation into the inner workings of the banking system. In 1982 he was given a contract by the US senate and later Supreme Court to investigate banking fraud. But because he was under a strict non-disclosure order he was not allowed to tell the media what he discovered. In the late 80s he began sharing his knowledge with others including high ranking military personnel who helped him bring about a class action lawsuit against the federal government.

The first series of these lawsuits began in the mid 1980’s when William and Shirley Baskerville of Fort Collins, Colorado were involved in a bankruptcy case with First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins; who was trying to foreclose on their farm. At a restaurant their lawyer informed them that he would no longer be able to help them and walked-off. Overhearing the conversation Roy Schwasinger offered his advice on how to appeal the case in bankruptcy court. So in 1987 they filed an appeal with District of Colorado, US Federal District Court Cases (Case No. 87-C-716) with the United States District Court in Colorado.

On November 3, 1988, the Denver Federal Court system ruled that indeed the banks had defrauded the Baskervilles and proceeded to reverse its bankruptcy decision. But when the foreclosed property was not returned they filed a new lawsuit. Eventually, 23 other farmers, ranchers, and Indians swindled by the banks in the same manner would join in the case.

In these cases, the banks were foreclosing on the properties using fraudulent methods such as charging exorbitant interest, illegal foreclosure, or by not crediting mortgage payments to their account as they should have but instead would steal the mortgage payments for themselves triggering foreclosure on the property. After running out of money they continued their fight without the help of lawyers. With some assistance by the Farmers Union a new lawsuit was filed against the Federal Land Bank and the Farmers Credit System.

(1) Case No. 92-C-1781

The District Court ruled in their favor and ordered the banks to return the stolen properties with help from either Federal Marshals or the National Guard. But when no payments were made, the farmers declared involuntary Chapter Seven Bankruptcy against the Federal Land Bank and the Farmers Credit System. The banks appealed their case insisting they were not a business but a federal agency therefore they were not liable to pay the damages.

So the farmer’s legal team adopted a new strategy. According to the Federal Land Bank’s 1933 charter they are not allowed to make loans directly to applicants, but instead could only back loans as a guarantor in case of default. Because the Federal Land Bank had violated this rule the farmer’s legal team was able to successfully sue the bank for damages.

Word of the lawsuit began to spread; the legal team would teach others how to fight foreclosure and to help them file lawsuits as well (Case No. 93-1308-M). Celebrities such as Willie Nelson joined in the cause and helped raise money during his “Farm Aid” concerts. Here is short clip of Willie Nelson describing in his own words the series of events leading up to the farmer claims legal case……

The Baskerville case had now become the Farmer Claims Class Action Lawsuit. Worried about the legal ramifications the government retaliated against the farmers by hitting them with either outrageous IRS fees, or by imprisoning the legal team under frivolous nonrelated charges. When the farmers realized they were being unfairly targeted, they had military generals such as General Roy Schwasinger sit in the courtroom to make sure the bribed judges would vote according to constitutional law.

The farmers now with a large team of knowledgeable people of the law behind them filed a new case to claim additional damages from the fraudulent loaning activities of the Farmers Credit System.

The government tried to settle but they had already lost many cases and were now loosing the appeals as well. More and more evidence was collected. According to the National Banking Act  all banks are required to register their charters with the Federal and State Bureau of Records, but none of the banks complied, allowing the legal team to sue the Farmers Credit System. Not only was Farmers Credit System not chartered to do business with the American Banking Association, but so were other quasi government organizations such as the Federal Housing Administration, The Department of Housing and Urban Development, and even the Federal Reserve Bank.

The Farmers Claims lawsuit was thrown out of court at each level with the records purposely destroyed. So in the early 1990’s Roy Schwasinger brought the case before the United States Supreme Court. Some of the content of this case is sealed from public eyes but most of it can be viewed today.

Almost unanimously the U.S. Supreme Court Justices ruled that the Farmers Union claims were indeed VALID, therefore, all property foreclosed by the Farmers Credit System was illegal and all those who were foreclosed on would have to receive damages. In addition, they ruled that the U.S. federal government and banks had defrauded the farmers, and all U.S. citizens, out of vast sums of money and property.

And furthermore, the court ruled the shocking truth that the IRS was a Puerto Rican Trust and that the Federal Reserve was unlawful, that the income tax amendment was only ratified by four states and therefore was not a legal amendment, that the IRS code was not enacted into “Positive Law”* within the Code of Federal Regulations, and how the U.S. government illegally foreclosed on farmer’s homes with help from federal agencies.

*Positive Law

Laws that have been enacted by a properly instituted and recognized branch of the government.

Irrefutable proof was presented by a retired CIA agent. He provided testimony and records of the banks illegal activities, to lead further evidence that the Farmers’ Union claims were indeed legitimate. The implications of such a decision were profound. All gold, silver, and property titles, taken by the Federal Reserve and IRS must be returned to the people.

The legal team sought assistance from a small group of benevolent visionaries, consisting of politicians, military generals, and business people who have been secretly working to restore the constitution since the mid 1950’s. Somehow within their ranks, a four star U.S. army general received “title” and “receiver” of the original 1933 United States Bankruptcy.

Sam Nunn

Sam Nunn on the millionaires who divide us

When the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, they ruled in his favor, giving the Army General title over the United States, Inc. Legal action was then passed on to the Senate Finance Committee and Senator Sam Nunn, who was working with Roy Schwasinger. With the help of covert congressional and political pressure, President George H.W. Bush issued an Executive Order (a) on Oct. 23, 1991, which provided a provision allowing anyone who has a claim against the federal government to receive payment as long as it’s within the rules of the original format of the case.

(a) Executive Order No. 12778 Principles of Ethical Conduct for Government Officers and Employees; October 23, 1991

According to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, all present and succeeding debts against the U.S. Treasury must be assumed by the Federal Reserve. Thus the famer’s claims legal team was able to use that executive order to not only force the Federal Reserve to pay out damages in a gold backed currency but also allow them to receive legal ownership over the bankruptcy of United States, Inc.

To collect damages the farmers legal team used an obscure attachment to the 14th amendment which most people are not aware of. After the civil war the government allowed citizens to claim a payment on anyone who suffered damages as a result of the Federal Government failing to protect its citizens from harm or damages by a foreign government. President Grant had this attachment sealed from public eyes but somehow, someone the farmer’s legal team got a hold of it.

If you listened to that carefully, it specifies damages by a foreign government. That foreign government is the corporate federal government which has been masquerading to the public as the constitutional government. Remember this goes back to the Organic Act of 1871 and the Trading with the Enemies Act of 1933, which defined all citizens as enemy combatants under the federal system known as the United States. The Justices and farmer’s legal team recognized how evil and corrupt our federal government had become and to counteract this they added some provisions in the settlement to bring the government back under control.

a. First they would have to be paid using a lawful currency, backed by gold and silver as the constitution dictates. This would eliminate inflation and gyrating economic cycles created by the Federal Reserve System.

b. Second they would be required to go back to common law instead of admiralty law under the gold fringe flags. Under common law if there is no damage or harm done then there is no violation of the law. This would eliminate millions of laws which are used to control the masses and protect corrupt politicians.

c. Lastly the IRS would have to be dismantled and replaced with a national sales tax. This is the basis of the NESARA  Law.

When the legal team finally settled on a figure, each individual would receive an average of $20 million dollars payout per claim. Multiplied by a total of 336,000 claims that were filed against the U.S. Federal Government, the total payout would come out to a staggering $6.6 trillion dollars.

The U.S. Supreme Court placed a gag order on the case, struck all information from the Federal Registry, and placed all records in the Supreme Court files. Up to that point Senator Sam Nunn had kept the Baskerville Case records within his office. A settlement was agreed to out of court and the decision was sealed by Janet Reno. Because the case was sealed, claimants are not allowed to share court documents to media outlets without violating the settlement, but they can still tell others about the lawsuit. This is why you probably have not heard about this.

In 1991 Roy Schwasinger went before a senate committee to present evidence of the banks and governments criminal activity. He informed them how the Corporation of the United States was tied to the establishment of a New World Order which would bring about a fascist one world government ruled by the international bankers. So in 1992 a task force was put together consisting of over 300 retired and 35 active US military officers who strongly supported constitutional law.* This task force was responsible for investigating governmental officials, congressional officers, judges, and the Federal Reserve.

*Chief of Naval Operation, Jeremy Michael Boorda

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/18/us/admiral-in-suicide-note-apologized-to-my-sailors.html

Admiral, in Suicide Note, Apologized to ‘My Sailors’ – New York Times
I seriously doubt Boorda committed suicide.

*GENERAL DAVID J. MCCLOUD

David J. McCloud

*William E. Colby, Director, Central Intelligence Agency

WHO MURDERED THE CIA CHIEF?
William E. Colby: A Highly Suspicious Death

They uncovered the common practice of bribery and extortion committed by both senators and judges. The criminal activity was so rampant that only 2 out of 535 members of congress were deemed honest. But more importantly they carried out the first ever audit of the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve was used to giving orders to politicians and had no intentions of being audited. However after they were informed their offices would be raided under military gunpoint if necessary; they complied with the investigation. After reviewing their files the military officers found $800 trillion dollars sitting in accounts which should have been applied to the national debt. And contrary to federal government propaganda they also discovered that most nations had in fact owed money to the United States instead of the other way around.

These hidden trillions were then confiscated and placed into European bank accounts in order to generate the enormous funds needed to pay the farmers claims class action lawsuit, later this money would become the basis of the prosperity programs.

Despite these death blows President George H.W. Bush  continued on with their plans of global enslavement.

HISTORY OF THE RECONSTRUCTION APPLICATIONS-

This information is being supplied in order that you may understand how our financial situation has got in the situation we are in now.

This will tell you how the lending institutions have duped us of much of our money, a lot of property and a good way of life.

Much of the fraud and deceit involved was set up by money people to try to keep, we the people, in servitude and have to depend on the government to survive.

You may, after you read this, decide you want to put in a claim to recover assets you have lost because of fraudulent and illegal practices inflicted on you by our lending institutions and judicial system.

If you do, contact the appropriate people for assistance. Background information for reconstruction claims applications.

The amount of claim is not taxable. A class action effort is under way in Denver, Colorado which is in the 10th U.S. District Court in the Baskerville and Foster case (25 F. 3d 1055 – Baskerville Jb v. Federal Land Bank Na). This case is the foundation on which all the reconstruction claims will be filed.

William G. BASKERVILLE, Shirley A. Baskerville, J.B. Foster,
Lorraine L. Foster, also known as Lorraine Laveda
Foster; Roy E. Schwasinger; William J.
Logan; Nancy L. Logan,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL LAND BANK, a corporation, also known as Farm Credit
Services, also known as Farm Credit Bank of Wichita,
formerly known as The Federal Land Bank of Wichita; First
Interstate Bank of Fort Collins, N.A.; Ernest L. Wimmer, an
individual; Hill, Hill, and Manges, P.C.; William F.
Dressel, an individual; Charles E. Matheson, an individual;
Fischer, Brown, Huddleson & Gunn, P.C.; Stephen J. Jouard,
an individual; Saxton, Shively, Strommen and Holst; J.A.
Simplot Company, doing business as Simplot Soilbuilders,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-1450.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

June 1, 1994.

25 F.3d 1055
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

More about this later.

There’s a group of people who banded together to accomplish all that has been done thus far. It is composed of both active and inactive military who have been brought back on active duty, national manufacturers and the medical profession.

The following is a brief history of events that brought us to our present situation. It began in the 11th century in France. The nobles were the ruling class. They were both the kings and the judges. The bailiffs were the tax collectors.

The working class were kept poor and in deplorable conditions because that made them easier to rule and control. These conditions finally brought about a revolution. Because there had been so many intermarriages between the ruling families of Europe, those of the ruling families in France escaped to England and were accepted and protected.

Those who did not flee France were beheaded. Those that fled to England became Wigs or the lawyers and judges which was the basis of the English Bar.

The wealthiest family on the whole European continent was the Rothchilds. The Rothchilds made a deal with the monarchs to supply all of the “paper money to subvert the economies if they were paid back in gold.”

“Under our Constitution, our monetary system was established on the basis of gold and silver as the standard.”

In the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Preamble to the Constitution several references are made to “Titles of Nobility.” Our forefathers never wanted to have “Titles of Nobility” included in our government.

In the period prior to the Civil War the entities described above tried to intervene and get a foothold in our booming economy.

Title of Nobility ClauseJust before the Civil War, 16 states ratified the original 13th Amendment prohibiting the granting of “Title of Nobility Clause” as well as prohibiting anyone who accepted, from retaining their citizenship or holding public office.

(The ratification of the 13th Amendment by Virginia, the last state needed to make it an amendment, was suppressed partly by taking advantage of the poor communication of the period.)

A fire occurred in Washington, D.C. in which a lot of records were destroyed. The fire was believed to be set as part of the cover-up of the ratification by the 16th state, but the fact that it had been ratified by 16 states, was published and printed in the other 15 states as well as in some of the areas that were territories at the time.

The “Title of Nobility Clause” amendment was hidden from the public by the group that it would have the greatest effect on, which is lawyers.

After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was passed which was referred to as the Slavery Amendment. It said that “All” people born or naturalized citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The term subject means slave. The term subject inferred that there was an inequality among citizens. When our forefathers created the Constitution they said “All men were created equal with certain inalienable rights”.

The 14th Amendment took them all away in 1868. In 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was passed which was both unlawful and unconstitutional.

The Rothchilds came in and subverted our economy. The deal was made that they would put a billion dollars into our economy in exchange for the establishment of the Federal Reserve which they would own.

There was included a buy-out clause which will become important and will be discussed later on.

This was forced on us. Through this control they manipulated our money and caused the stock market crash of 1929-1933. In the Jackson era we were taken off the gold standard several times, but we couldn’t stand the inflation. In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was forced to sign an executive order to allow the Federal Reserve to take us off the gold standard. This removed the basis for our money. We still had silver, but it was over inflated. That worked until 1937. The act that FDR used to justify signing that executive order was the War Powers Act, ratified in 1916. This is legislation that was designed during the war to allow decisions to be made rapidly by bypassing Congress, but was used as an emergency act to allow the Federal Reserve to take over the monetary system. Our nation went bankrupt in 1933. It was motioned in the Congressional record in 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1937. One man, Clom Mospaden, lost his life because he mentioned it. In 1967, we went off the silver standard. In 1982, a new Constitution was invoked on us called the District of Columbia. This needed only two people in each state to ratify it. To take effect, that was done by two congressmen from each state. It was really designed to be only for a 10 mile square area for the seat of our government. It allowed the banks and judicial system to have total control over us. In January of 1990, there was a plan that was thwarted to install a new constitution in place of our original constitution. This would have placed everyone who is in office now, in office for 25 years and removed our rights to hold elections to elect new officials. We already had another constitution that was instituted in 1982 called the District of Columbia. In 1916, the Federal Land Bank originally submitted its charter. These papers were returned to them 4 days later for corrections. They were never resubmitted. For 6 years, there were repeated demands to have the papers resubmitted by the Bureau of Records. In 1932, it was investigated as to whether the Federal Land Bank was legal and had filed with the Bureau of Records. It was found that they were not. They have since tried to file, but have been denied because of the original foul-up. They tried to change their name to Farm Credit Services and were denied because their official name and charter was the Federal Land Bank. They then tried as simply Farm Credit. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Federal Land Bank is a misnomer because it never existed legally. The National Banking Act required them to register with either the State or Federal Bureaus. State banks registered with the State and Federal Banks with the Feder- al Reserve, neither one registered with both. The Federal Re- serve is not filed or registered with the Federal Bureau of Registry or with any of the states. The Farm Credit Act mentions the District of Columbia juris- diction. In law week 6-LW-3233. There is a Supreme Court case, Williams vs. Federal Land Bank of Jackson, Oct. 6, 1992, 12 USC 2278 (A) – 1 (B). All Federal Agencies have a rate as Federal instrumentalities. Federal judicial power extends to all Federal instrumentalities. All Federal instrumentalities are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. When the Federal Agencies and instrumentalities moved against us in foreclosures and other actions, they took us to state district courts which assumed jurisdiction which they did not legally have. They took people into a court that was displaying a flag with a golden fringe on it. The golden fringe on the flag indicated this was a court under military maritime law. In a court displaying this type flag you have no Constitu- tional rights and your civil rights are violated. How can you receive a fair trial when you are in a court where you have no rights? The class action case referred to on page 1 was filed by the following plaintiffs: William G. Baskerville Shirley A. Baskerville J. B. Foster, Lorraine Foster aka LaVanda Foster The defendants are as follows: Federal Land Bank Farm Credit Services Credit Bank of Wichita Federal Land Bank of Wichita, A Corporation First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins Earnest L. Wilmer, an individual Fisher, Brown, Muddleston, Gunn, Sackston, Shibley, Struman and Holts. Hill, Hill and Mangiee William F. Dressail, an individual Charles E. Mathison, an individual Stephn J. Jord J. A. Simplot, doing business as Simplot Builders All defendants were fined $50,000 which became $1,000,000. All were ordered to pay. All licenses were suspended and they were not allowed to practice their professions. When you got a loan you were sold a credit life policy or you were told to get one to get your loan with the lender as beneficiary so in case you died the loan would be paid off. It was a default policy. If they could force you into default so you couldn’t pay your note, they were paid off by the policy you bought, plus they got the property back. The following institutions and agencies are all fraudulent: World Bank Interntional Monetary Fund Federal Reserve Banks There are two governments in the United States. The Consti- tutional government of the 50 republic states aligned under the Constitution. The other is the Legislative Democracy which is the District of Columbia. The federal states (Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, The Virgin Islands, and the Mariannas) and territories. On December 11, 1992, President Bush was to sign an executive order allowing the banks to close, forcing us into an economic chaos. He was to sign another then, to put us into the new Constitution and the One World Order. The 1936 National Banking Act required all lending institutions to register their original charters with the Federal and State Bureau of Records. None of them complied. NO lending institutions are properly registered and are therefore not legal- ly able to operate as a lending institution. Janet Reno, the new U.S. Attorney General has agreed to do everything she can to bring us back under the umbrella of the Constitution. An announcement will be made that all corporations are null and void. There will be a new banking system and banks will register with the new system. Those that don’t will be taken over by the government and controlled by the government. New money will be issued and it will be backed by gold and silver. The 13th Amendment is to be implemented and enforced. At that time, all elected and appointed officials who are lawyers will be sent home, except those that will be tried for treason. This will include Clinton and all past living presidents. Delta Force, a special group of the military group that banded together under Constitutional Law, confiscated the assets of everyone who owned stock in the Federal Reserve, foreign countries, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. This was done under a Supreme Court order. They went into foreign countries and brought it all back. It was placed in a special account that these claims will be paid out of. Over 800 trillion dollars was collected, enough to back every dollar in circulation and more. It is deposited in various places all over the country. This started over 18 years ago, but only in the last 1 1/2 years have these groups been reclaiming our assets. Cosmos, a former CIA organization, broke banking codes and rerouted transfers to bring the money back into the continental United States. Less than one year ago, the Joint Chiefs of Staff met with President Bush and told him they had a signed order given to them by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. This executive order gave them the power in an economic emergency to declare martial law. They did not want to invoke it, but they threatened him with it. They ordered Bush to take the necessary steps to take us back to the Constitution. When Bush was campaigning, he kept talking about the New World Order. During the Iraq War he kept talking about NWO. Less than one year ago, Bush changed his physical appearances and never spoke of the New World Order. After this, he always ended debates or speeches with “May God bless the United States of America”. He never repeated the words “New World Order” ever again. Bush was ordered by the military to quit using the term “New World Order” and this shows the influence of the military. This also is the reason Clinton has backed off Bosnia. Everything with Clinton is a smoke screen. He was not elected legally. First of all, he is a lawyer. Secondly, he was not elected by the majority vote. Thirdly, without a majority vote, it should have been decided in the House of Representa- tives. Three other requirements for the president to be official are: 1) He must have a complete cabinet appointed within 100 days of taking office. Clinton still does not have a complete and confirmed cabinet. 2) He must give a state of the union address. Clinton simply gave an economics address. 3) He must be ratified by Congress. Since most (90%) of Congress are lawyers, who cannot hold office because of the 13th Amendment, Clinton cannot be properly ratified. The people who are not lawyers are the only legal Congress. When Roy Schwasinger began in October, 1992, he said he was under mandate from Congress. If all Congress refused to recognize him, there is only one reason, only true members of Congress gave him the mandate. Those who were not lawyers. There are less than 12. There used to be 20, some have died. Joseph Byden and Sam Nunn are 2 of the 12. Secretary of FDIC is dead – unexplainably. All Greenspan attempted suicide. On life support? Uncon- firmed. A rumor concerning the deaths of officers of the Federal Land Bank of Wichita was brought up. It was stated that this office used to have 60 people working there, but now has only 4. This was confirmed by someone who had been there. They also noted that the bank had a new name, did not have a new seal and that it was not insured by the FDIC. Someone at the office told them that they do not have, never had, nor ever will have any accounts that will need to be insured by anyone. No judges are legal. According to state law, judges must file an oath of office every 6 years. If they do not, they are not legal. Any oaths of office they administer are not legal either. The New Bank of the United States of America, will not have any stockholders because there won’t be any stocks to own. They will only own the actual physical structure (the building) the bank is housed in. There will be new arbitrage like loan agree- ments that will be hard to arrange. When you borrow an amount, another amount is set aside to liquidate that loan over a period of time. This is done through buying stocks that will be managed by that bank. The borrower will never have to pay anything. Loans at banks now are null and void because institutions were not properly registered, the same with credit cards. Any loans made from 1933 to present are void. An announcement is to be made soon that we won’t have to pay back any loans. There will also be an announcement about the IRS very soon. The IRS is a privately owned corporation to collect taxes for the government. (All corporations are to be made null and void.) Under Constitutional Law, only goods and services can be taxed, not income. It is illegal. Tax forms are voluntary. It is a voluntary act. Money will be exchanged dollar for dollar. Any money from overseas will go through a checkpoint. Old money with a strip in it can be counted when you go through sensors at the airports. There will be a bluish and pink tint to the new money. There was a show on PBS that talked about the new money information. The total transition period was to take 2 years, but it is moving faster than expected. The Judicial system is changing fast. Janet Reno has fired all the U.S. attorneys. This was documented in the Tulsa World Paper. All of the U.S. attorneys in every state were fired because they would not agree to hold accountable all the state elected officials for their wrong doings. New attorneys have been appointed. Claims we submit will become indictments against these individuals. They will then be prosecuted by the new U.S. attorneys. State Attorney Generals agreed to prosecute or were fired. Lawyers and judges had protection knowing they would not be prosecuted for their action. They are personally accountable now since President Bush signed an order in 1992 removing their immunity. You should file a claim on everything you have paid in income taxes whether sent in or taken from you since 1933. Husbands and wives can both count everything and file separately. Private contracts, such as divorces, will not be readjudi- cated. White collar criminals (income tax evasion, etc., no hard criminals) will be released. Tax system – excise taxes on goods and services – government can’t exist on excise tax – hasn’t been determined what will be done about this. The National debt does not exist and any debt to foreign countries is paid off. This occurred when the military group confiscated the foreign wealth of the Federal Reserve, the Inter- national Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and their owners. The Trilateral Commission owned these institutions. The foreign countries agreed to allow the military group to do this with the understanding that their national debts were paid off and that it would be a one time thing. Do it, get it done and don’t come back. These foreign countries wanted these people picked up because they were subverting these countries economies also. There is no more International Debt in the U.S. and no debt to the Federal Reserve. In 1913, there was a contract made between the Federal Government and the Trilateral Commission. In exchange for the Trilateral Commission putting one billion dollars into our economy to give it a boost, we would pass the legislation known as the Federal Reserve Act which would give them control over our monetary system by printing money and setting interest rates. There as a buy-out clause in the contract that allowed us to pay back the billion dollars and we would own the Federal Reserve. We recently bought it back with assets that were confiscated. We made them an offer they couldn’t refuse and bout it back with their own money we confis- cated. Actually, it took 4 1/2 months of real legal pressure. It almost came to a real war, a civil war, a blood war with guns. There was a show of force and we won. They gave up control of the Federal Reserve and the Trilateral Commission backed off. There was an agreement made that we can get rid of all congressmen and senators who are not legally holding office up there representing us. We can then elect new people in their places who will be legal. Then they can vote out the name of the Federal Reserve and replace it with the Bank of the United States of America. When we go back to the Constitution and we are again under the Republic, then the Districts of Canada want to become new states of the United States. Only legal ownership of property is through land patents. Some searching will have to be done to determine who really owns parcels of land and land patents will be issued and recorded. Information has been received that the following statement is in effect by order of the U. S. District Court in Denver, Colorado. Under Case Number CV-92-C-1781, that the entire Farm Credit System, Federal Land Bank, Production Credit Association, Farmers Home Administration, National Banking Association, the City of Ft. Collins, Colorado, and the County of Larimor, Colora- do are hereby placed into receivership by order of the U.S. District Court of Denver, Colorado. Darrell Sturgess and Scott Hildebrand have been appointed by the court to act as receivers for entities mentioned above, with the authority to activate the National Guard to insure National Security. These entities are hereby placed on notice that the assets of those placed in re- ceivership are to be turned over to the receivers Darrell Stur- gess and Scott Hildebrand immediately to be recorded with the court and to be disbursed against affidavits of damages submitted by the receivers. These assets include, but are not limited to the assets of the agents, officers, directors, and employees of the above mentioned entities for civil rights violations and fraud which they were a part of and/or perpetrated. The National Banking Associations will be closed and their affairs would be up for their non-compliance with the National Bank Act and their failure to comply with various state laws. The National Guard is hereby notified and given the authori- ty to assist in arresting the perpetrators of fraud as specified in the arrest warrants which were filed in the U.S. District Court of Denver, Colorado under Case Number(s) CV-92=C-1781 because the Federal Marshals have failed to perform their sworn duties to uphold the Constitution of the United States of Ameri- ca. They are on call by Mr. Hildebrand and Mr. Sturgess at their direction. Any individual who wishes to file a claim should contact their state officers for specific details and procedures. Eligibility to file a claim: If you have borrowed money from the banking system, farm credit system, credit cards, etc. and can document the amounts, you are eligible to file a claim. ———————————————— (This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the Patriot FTP site by S.P.I.R.A.L.

On October 23, 1991  President George H.Bush issued an Executive Order which provided a provision which allowing anyone who has a claim against the Federal Government to receive a payment as long as it is within “the rules of the original format of the case.”

George

George Bush

Executive Order 12778 – Civil Justice Reform
October 23, 1991

Whereas, the tremendous growth in civil litigation has burdened the American court system and has imposed high costs on American individuals, small businesses, industry, professionals, and government at all levels;

Whereas, several current litigation practices add to these burdens and costs by prolonging the resolution of disputes, thus delaying just compensation and encouraging wasteful litigation;

Whereas, the harmful consequences of these litigation practices may be ameliorated by encouraging voluntary dispute resolution, limitations on unnecessary discovery, judicious use of expert testimony, prudent use of sanctions, improved use of litigation resources, and, where appropriate, modified fee arrangements;

Whereas, the United States sets an example for private litigation by adhering to higher standards than those required by the rules of procedure in the conduct of Government litigation in Federal court, and can continue to do so without impairing the effectiveness of its litigation efforts;

Whereas, improving the quality of legislation and regulation to eliminate ambiguities in drafting would reduce uncertainty and unnecessary litigation; and,

Whereas, improving the quality of administrative adjudications would reduce the time and resources expended during the administrative process.

Now, Therefore, I, George Bush, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including chapter 31 of title 28, United States Code, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and in order to facilitate the just and efficient resolution of civil claims involving the United States Government, to encourage the filing of only meritorious civil claims, to improve legislative and regulatory drafting to reduce needless litigation, to promote fair and prompt adjudication before administrative tribunals, and to provide a model for similar reforms of litigation practices in the private sector and in various states, hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Guidelines to Promote Just and Efficient Government Civil Litigation. “To promote the just and efficient resolution of civil claims, those Federal agencies and litigation counsel that conduct or otherwise participate in civil litigation on behalf of the United States Government in Federal court shall respect and adhere to the following guidelines during the conduct of such litigation:”

(a) Pre-filing Notice of a Complaint. No litigation counsel shall file a complaint initiating civil litigation without first making a reasonable effort to notify all disputants about the nature of the dispute and to attempt to achieve a settlement, or confirming that the referring agency that previously handled the dispute has made a reasonable effort to notify the disputants and to achieve a settlement or has used its conciliation processes.

(b) Settlement Conferences. As soon as practicable after ascertaining the nature of a dispute in litigation, and throughout the litigation, litigation counsel shall evaluate settlement possibilities and make reasonable efforts to settle the litigation. Such efforts shall include offering to participate in a settlement conference or moving the court for a conference pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in an attempt to resolve the dispute without additional civil litigation.

(c) Alternative Methods of Resolving the Dispute in Litigation. Litigation counsel shall make reasonable attempts to resolve a dispute expeditiously and properly before proceeding to trial.

(1) Whenever feasible, claims should be resolved through informal discussions, negotiations, and settlements rather than through utilization of any formal or structured Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process or court proceeding. At the same time, litigation counsel should be trained in dispute resolution techniques and skills that can contribute to the prompt, fair, and efficient resolution of claims. Where such benefits may be derived, and after consultation with the agency referring the matter, litigation counsel should suggest the use of an appropriate ADR technique to the private parties.

(2) It is appropriate to use ADR techniques or processes to resolve claims of or against the United States or its agencies, after litigation counsel determines that the use of a particular technique is warranted in the context of a particular claim or claims, and that such use will materially contribute to the prompt, fair, and efficient resolution of the claims.

(3) Litigation counsel shall neither seek nor agree to the use of binding arbitration or any other equivalent ADR technique. A technique is equivalent to binding arbitration if an agency is bound, without exercise of that agency’s discretion, to implement the determination arising from the ADR technique. The requirements of this paragraph shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with section 4(b) of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, Public Law 101 – 552, 104 Stat. 2736 (1990). Practice under Tax Court Rule 124 shall be exempt from this provision.

(d) Discovery. To the extent practicable, litigation counsel shall make every reasonable effort to streamline and expedite discovery in cases under counsel’s supervision and control.

(1) Disclosure of Core Information. In those cases where discovery will be sought, litigation counsel shall, to the extent practicable, make reasonable efforts to agree with other parties mutually to exchange a disclosure statement containing core information relevant to the dispute and to stipulate to an order memorializing such agreement. For purposes of this subsection, “core information” means the names and addresses of people having information that is relevant to the proffered claims and defenses, and the location of documents most relevant to the case. This guideline to disclose core information shall not apply in cases while a dispositive motion is pending.

(2) Review of Proposed Document Requests. Each agency within the executive branch shall establish a coordinated procedure for the conduct and review of document discovery undertaken in litigation directly by that agency when that agency is litigation counsel. The procedure shall include, but is not necessarily limited to, review by a senior lawyer prior to service or filing of the request in litigation to determine that the request is not cumulative or duplicative, unreasonable, oppressive, unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the requirements of the litigation, the amount in controversy, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and whether the documents can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

(3) Discovery Motions. Before petitioning a court to resolve a discovery motion or petitioning a court to impose sanctions for discovery abuses, litigation counsel shall attempt to resolve the dispute with opposing counsel. If litigation counsel makes a discovery motion concerning the dispute, he or she shall represent in that motion that any attempt at resolution was unsuccessful or impracticable under the circumstances.

(e) Expert Witnesses. Litigation counsel shall make every reasonable effort to present only reliable expert testimony before a court.

(1) Widely accepted theories. Litigation counsel shall refrain from presenting expert testimony from experts who base their conclusions on explanatory theories that are not widely accepted. For purposes of this subsection, a theory is widely accepted if it is propounded by at least a substantial minority of the experts in the relevant field.

(2) Expertise in the field. Litigation counsel shall present expert testimony only from those experts whose knowledge, background, research, or other expertise lies in the particular field about which they are testifying.

(3) Expert disclosure. Litigation counsel shall offer to engage in mutual disclosure of expert witness information for those experts that a party expects to call as expert witnesses at trial, provided, and to the extent, that the other parties agree to make comparable disclosures of any expert witnesses they expect to call at trial.

(4) Ban on contingency fees. The amount of compensation paid to an expert witness shall not be linked to a successful outcome in the litigation.

(f) Sanctions. Litigation counsel shall take steps to seek sanctions against opposing counsel and opposing parties where appropriate.

(1) Litigation counsel shall evaluate filings made by opposing parties and, where appropriate, shall petition the court to impose sanctions against those responsible for abusive practices.

(2) Prior to filing a motion for sanctions, litigation counsel shall submit the motion for review to the sanctions officer, or his or her designee, within the litigation counsel’s agency. Such officer or designee shall be a senior supervising attorney within the agency, and shall be licensed to practice law before a State court, courts of the District of Columbia, or courts of any territory or Commonwealth of the United States. The sanctions officer or designee shall also review motions for sanctions that are filed against litigation counsel, the United States, its agencies, or its officers.

(g) Improved Use of Litigation Resources. Litigation counsel shall employ efficient case management techniques and shall make reasonable efforts to expedite civil litigation in cases under that counsel’s supervision and control. This includes but is not limited to:

(1) making reasonable efforts to negotiate with other parties about, and stipulate to, facts that are not in dispute;

(2) reviewing and revising pleadings and other filings to ensure that they are accurate and that they reflect a narrowing of issues, if any, that has resulted from discovery;

(3) requesting early trial dates where practicable; and,

(4) moving for summary judgment in every case where the movant would be likely to prevail, or where the motion is likely to narrow the issues to be tried.

(h) Fees and Expenses. To the extent permissible by law, in civil litigation involving disputes over Federal contracts pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 601 et seq., or in any civil litigation initiated by the United States, litigation counsel shall offer to enter into a two-way fee shifting agreement with opposing parties to the dispute, whereby the losing party would pay the prevailing party’s fees and costs, subject to reasonable terms and limitations. The Attorney General shall review the legal authority for entering into such agreements.

Sec. 2. Principles to Enact Legislation and Promulgate Regulations Which Do Not Unduly Burden the Federal Court System.

(a) General Duty to Review Legislation and Regulations. Within current budgetary constraints and existing executive branch coordination mechanisms and procedures established in OMB Circular A – 19 (legislation) and Executive Order No. 12291 (regulation), each agency that is promulgating new regulations, reviewing existing regulations, developing legislative proposals concerning regulations, and developing new legislation shall adhere to the following requirements:

(1) The agency’s proposed legislation and regulations shall be reviewed by the agency to eliminate drafting errors and needless ambiguity.

(2) The agency’s proposed legislation and regulations shall be written to minimize needless litigation.

(3) The agency’s proposed legislation and regulations shall provide a clear and certain legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and shall promote simplification and burden reduction.

(b) Specific Issues for Review. In conducting the reviews required by subsection (a), each agency formulating proposed legislation and regulations shall make every reasonable effort to ensure:

(1) that the legislation —

(A) Specifies whether all causes of action arising under the law are subject to statutes of limitations;

(B) Specifies in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, to be given to the law;

(C) Specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law, if any, including all provisions repealed or modified;

(D) Provides a clear and certain legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;

(E) Specifies whether private arbitration and other forms of private dispute resolution are appropriate under enforcement and relief provisions, subject to constitutional requirements;

(F) Specifies whether the provisions of the law are constitutionally severable, if appropriate;

(G) Specifies in clear language the retroactive effect, if any, to be given to the law;

(H) Specifies in clear language the applicable burdens of proof;

(I) Specifies in clear language whether it grants private parties a right to sue and, if so, the relief available and the conditions and terms for any authorized award of attorney’s fees, if any;

(J) Specifies whether State courts have jurisdiction under the law and, if so, whether and under what conditions an action would be removable to Federal court;

(K) Specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court and, if so, describes those proceedings and requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies;

(L) Sets forth the standards governing the assertion of personal jurisdiction, if any;

(M) Defines key statutory terms, either explicitly or by reference to other statutes that explicitly define those terms;

(N) Specifies whether the legislation applies to the Federal Government or its agencies;

(O) Specifies whether the legislation applies to States, territories, the District of Columbia, and the “Commonwealths of Puerto Rico” and of the Northern  Mariana Islands; and,

(P) Addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of legislation set forth by the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and after consultation with affected agencies, that are determined to be in accordance with the purposes of this order.

(2) that the regulation —

(A) Specifies in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation;

(B) Specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or regulation, if any, including all provisions repealed or modified;

(C) Provides a clear and certain legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;

(D) Specifies in clear language the retroactive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation;

(E) Specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court and, if so, describes those proceedings and requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies;

(F) Defines key terms, either explicitly or by reference to other regulations or statutes that explicitly define those items;

(G) Addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of regulations set forth by the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and after consultation with affected agencies, that are determined to be in accordance with the purposes of this order.

(c) Certification of Compliance for Agency Legislation or Regulations. When transmitting such draft legislation or regulation to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), the agency must certify that (i) it has reviewed such draft legislation or regulation in light of this section, and (ii) either the draft legislation or regulation meets the applicable standards provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, or it is unreasonable to require the particular piece of draft legislation or regulation to meet one or more of those standards. Where the standards are not met, the agency certification must include an explanation of the reasons for the departure from the standards. Recommendations and cost-benefit analyses under subsection (d) of this section shall be included in the agency certification required by this subsection.

(d) One-Way Fee Provisions. Each agency shall review, and shall perform a cost-benefit analysis on, all provisions of any legislation or regulation that the agency proposes which provide for an award for attorney’s fees in favor of only one class of parties, including those statutes which require the Government to pay a prevailing private party’s attorney’s fees. The agency shall recommend against enactment of the fee shifting provisions of such legislation if the costs significantly outweigh the benefits, or if the legislation does not define the fees and costs covered by the statute or detail when an award of fees and costs would be appropriate. Such agency recommendations shall be presented to OMB through the Circular A – 19 legislative coordination and clearance process and included in the agency certification required under subsection (c) of this section.

Sec. 3. Principles to Promote Just and Efficient Administrative Adjudications. In order to promote just and efficient resolution of disputes, an agency that adjudicates administrative claims shall, to the extent reasonable and practicable, and when not in conflict with other sections of this order, implement the recommendations of the Administrative Conference of the United States, entitled “Case Management as a Tool for Improving Agency Adjudication,” as contained in 1 C.F.R. 305.86 – 7 (1991).

Sec. 4. Coordination by the Department of Justice.

(a) The Attorney General shall coordinate efforts by Federal agencies to implement sections 1 and 3 of this order.

(b) To implement the principles and purposes announced by this order, the Attorney General is authorized to issue guidelines implementing sections 1 and 3 of this order for the Department of Justice. Such guidelines shall serve as models for internal guidelines which may be issued by other agencies pursuant to this order.

Sec. 5. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) The term “agency” shall be defined as that term is defined in section 451 of title 28, United States Code, except that it shall exclude all departments and establishments in the legislative or judicial branches of the United States.

(b) The term “litigation counsel” shall be defined as the trial counsel or the office in which such trial counsel is employed, such as the United States Attorney’s Office for the district in which the litigation is pending or a litigating division of the Department of Justice. Special Assistant United States Attorneys are included within this definition. Those agencies authorized by law to represent themselves in court without assistance from the Department of Justice are also included in this definition, as are private counsel hired by any Federal agency to conduct litigation on behalf of the agency or the United States.

Sec. 6. No Private Rights Created. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch in resolving disputes, conducting litigation in a reasonable and just manner, and reviewing legislation and regulations. This order shall not be construed as creating any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person. This order shall not be construed to create any right to judicial review involving the compliance or noncompliance of the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person with this order. Nothing in this order shall be construed to obligate the United States to accept a particular settlement or resolution of a dispute, to alter its standards for accepting settlements, to forego seeking a consent decree or other relief, or to alter any existing delegation of settlement or litigating authority.

Sec. 7. Scope.

(a) No Applicability to Criminal Matters or Proceedings in Foreign Courts. This order is applicable to civil matters only. It is not intended to affect criminal matters, including enforcement of criminal fines or judgments of forfeiture. This order does not apply to litigation brought by or against the United States in foreign courts or tribunals.

(b) Application of Notice Provision. Notice pursuant to subsection (a) of section 1 is not required (i) in any action to seize or forfeit assets subject to forfeiture or in any action to seize property; (ii) in any bankruptcy, insolvency, conservatorship, receivership, or liquidation proceeding; (iii) when the assets that are the subject of the action or that would satisfy the judgment are subject to flight, dissipation, or destruction; (iv) when the defendant is subject to flight; (v) when, as determined by litigation counsel, exigent circumstances make providing such notice impracticable or such notice would otherwise defeat the purpose of the litigation, such as in actions seeking temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctive relief; or (vi) in those limited classes of cases where the Attorney General determines that providing such notice would defeat the purpose of the litigation.

(c) Application of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Core Disclosure Provisions. Subsections (c) and (d)(1) of section 1 of this order shall not apply (i) to any action to seize or forfeit assets subject to forfeiture, or (ii) to any debt collection case (including any action for civil penalties or taxes) involving an amount in controversy less than $100,000.

(d) Additional Guidance as to Scope. The Attorney General shall have the authority to issue further guidance as to the scope of this order, except section 2, consistent with the purposes of this order.

Sec. 8. Conflicts with Other Rules. Nothing in this order shall be construed to require litigation counsel or any agency to act in a manner contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, State or Federal law, other applicable rules of practice or procedure, or court order.

Sec. 9. Privileged Information. Nothing in this order shall compel or authorize the disclosure of privileged information, sensitive law enforcement information, information affecting national security, or information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law.

Sec. 10. Effective Date. This order shall become effective 90 days after the date of signature. This order shall not apply to litigation commenced prior to the effective date.

George Bush

The White House,

October 23, 1991.

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 2:13 p.m., October 23, 1991]


Note: This Executive order was published in the Federal Register on October 1991


For my fellow Legal-eze friends continue reading continue reading this section –

Otherwise, skip to the The Bankers Manifesto of 1892

The Common Law is the Will of Mankind Issuing from the Life of the People

The United States Department of Justice

Evaluation of Civil Division ADR Program

Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530

NOV 15 1994

Honorable Thomasina Rogers
Chair, Administrative Conference of the United States
2120 L Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20037-1568

Dear Ms. Rogers:

I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Department of Justice to the Administrative Conference’s request for a description of the Department’s efforts to implement the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990.

Although the Department of Justice has interpreted Administrative Dispute Resolution Act to apply to administrative proceedings in which agencies engage, the Department’s actions implement the Act have been integrated with efforts to foster use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in litigation in conformity with the Executive Order on Civil Justice Reform, Executive Order No. 12778, 56 Fed. Reg. 55195 (Oct. 25, 1991), and the Civil Justice Reform Act, Title I, Pub. L. No. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5089 (1990). Accordingly, my review of ADR within the Department extends to its incorporation in litigation as well.

The Department of Justice has consistently endorsed alternative dispute resolution. Predating the Act, Attorney General Order No. 1109-85, issued on October 4, 1985 and codified at 28 C.F.R. § 50.20, provides that “[t]he Department recognizes and supports the general goals of court- annexed arbitrations, which are to reduce the time and expenses required to dispose of civil litigation.” An example of early implementation is the policy adopted in June, 1986, by the Commercial Litigation Branch of Civil Division, encouraging use of mini-trials in its cases.

During hearings on the legislation ultimately passed as the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, William P. Barr, then Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, testified that the Department believed it essential to develop alternatives to “full-scale litigation of disputes involving the government.” Statement to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Jan. 31, 1990, at 2; see also Statement to the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Sept. 19, 1989, at 1: “[t]he Department has encouraged, and continues to support, the use of ADR techniques in those cases where ADR can reduce the time and expense devoted to litigation.”

On May 22, 1992, Attorney General Order No. 1591-92, codified at 28 C.F.R. § 14.6, integrated administrative dispute resolution into adjudication of claims brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. This order, applicable Government-wide, provided that agency personnel should be trained in dispute resolution techniques and skills and authorized the use of any alternative dispute resolution technique or process in the adjudication of appropriate claims. It also increased the authority of several agencies to compromise tort claims under the authority granted by § 8 of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act.

In August, 1992, “Guidance on the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution for Litigation in the Federal Courts” was issued, encouraging its use and providing practice guidance for practitioners throughout the Government. More than 3,500 copies were initially distributed to Department components, U.S. attorney offices, other agencies, and the private bar. Additional guidance concerning ADR was included in Attorney General Order No. 1658-93, 58 Fed. Reg. 6015 (Jan. 25, 1993), which implemented Civil Justice Reform initiatives contained in Executive Order No. 12778

The Department supported changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement § 6 of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, now codified in 48 C.F.R. § 33.204. See 56 Fed.Reg. 67417 (Dec. 30, 1991). The Department of Justice is also a signatory to the Alternative Disputes Resolution Pledge taken by Federal agencies in conjunction with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy on May 16, 1994. Jamie S. Gorelick, the Deputy Attorney General, expressed the Department’s commitment to ADR both at the ADR Pledge Signing Ceremony for Government Procurement officials and at the July 20, 1994, kickoff of the Interagency Pilot Project for Sharing Neutrals. Attorney General Janet Reno has also voiced strong support in her public statements for using alternatives to litigation to improve the results gained in resolving disputes and to reduce the costs and delays associated with litigation.

The Department has signalled its strong support for ADR in several initiatives just undertaken. These are detailed in the discussion below of current initiatives.

Management of Alternative Dispute Resolution

In accordance with the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, the Assistant Attorney General, civil Division, was designated by the Attorney General to serve as the Department’s Dispute Resolution Specialist. On August 23, 1991, Stuart M. Gerson, then Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, wrote to the Department components and asked their assistance in implementing the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. In response, the major components and many of the smaller offices within the Department designated a Dispute Resolution Specialist.

An Ad Hoc Committee was formed to implement Executive Order No. 12778. A subcommittee on Alternative Dispute Resolution was formed as part of this effort and met regularly to consider both ADR initiatives in litigation and implementation of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. The Department chartered a Civil Justice Working Group in 1993 comprised of representatives from all of the civil litigating and policy components. An ADR Sub-Group, formed as part of the Working Group, has recommended Department-wide policies, several of which are reflected in the discussion of current initiatives.

As the agency’s Dispute Resolution Specialist, I have maintained liaison with the Administrative Conference of the United States through my Special Counsel and with Government-wide Civil Justice Reform efforts through my Senior Counsel for Policy.

Components are free to design their own internal steering committees or other ADR management tools. Civil Division, for example, formed a committee of ADR specialists in 1993 to be a centralized source of ADR information within their branches.

Training in Alternative Dispute Resolution

During the initial phase of implementing Executive Order 12778 and the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, a questionnaire was sent to the Component Dispute Resolution Specialists in November, 1991, seeking information on the disputes in which the components routinely engage and an assessment of how ADR might be used. A similar request for information about court-annexed ADR went to U.S. Attorneys from the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys in July, 1991. These questionnaires helped in the process of tailoring later training efforts.

Training of Component Dispute Resolution Specialists followed in January, 1992. The Department was assisted in this training by the Administrative Conference of the United States. A follow-up seminar for the Component Specialists was offered in May, 1992.

The office of Legal Education (OLE), an element of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, has played a leading role in ADR training. In February, 1992, OLE presented a program on Civil Justice Reform and implementation of Executive Order 12778, discussed above. This nationwide broadcast was OLE’s first nationwide telecommunications training. An Alternative Dispute Resolution Seminar, where ADR is the exclusive subject, is offered twice a year by the Legal Education Institute (whose primary target is agency counsel) and once a year in the Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute (whose primary target is assistant U.S. attorneys). ADR is also taught in the Negotiations Skills Course, offered three times a year, and the Federal Administrative Process Course, offered two to three times a year. About 110 students completed the ADR course in 1994; 120 students each completed the Negotiations Skills Course and the Federal Administrative Process Course in 1993-1994. ADR is also a subject in these courses: the Civil Chiefs Course, offered for assistant U.S. attorneys twice a year and the Civil Practice Seminar, offered three times a year.

Justice components have offered a variety of other training opportunities which are discussed below in the survey of Justice components. Department of Justice employees have also participated in programs sponsored by the Administrative Conference of the United States and other organizations outside the Department.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Neutrals

In 1993, the Department was canvassed for persons qualified to serve as ADR neutrals. Thirty Department of Justice employees responded to this one-time call. All reported some experience in ADR. Most have had considerable experience in mediation, facilitation, or conciliation. Many have experience in arbitration. The intent in assembling this roster of neutrals was to provide the Department with a list of qualified neutrals for use in dispute resolution and to identify points of contact for consultation concerning ADR processes and internal training. While several of these employees have been employed for the latter purpose, they have not been used for the former. The Department hopes to make these employees available for use in the Interagency Pilot Project for Sharing Neutrals. Other employees have indicated an interest in being trained as ADR neutrals.

Survey of Department of Justice Components

The Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Tax Division have experience in ADR and have used it in litigation. In addition to the policies listed above that apply across the Department and to the Government generally, for example, the Tax Division issued a directive in July, 1991, encouraging ADR use in tax cases where appropriate.

These litigating divisions have trained in ADR. The Civil Division, for example, provided comprehensive training for its attorneys in two rounds of seminars: two sessions offered in April and May, 1992 and four sessions between October, 1992, and January, 1993, attended by about 300 employees. Two other courses were offered in 1993 for about 60 managers. Most recently, the Civil Division sponsored an ADR seminar in June, 1994. The Environment and Natural Resources Division sponsored a five-hour ADR training course for about 140 attorneys in November, 1993, and a day-long negotiation skills course in January, 1994, for 25 attorneys. Several sections within the Environment and Natural Resources Division have also sponsored .informal seminars for attorneys to discuss application of ADR techniques in their cases. Tax Division provided instruction for all its attorneys following publication of Executive Order 12778.

Information concerning use of ADR by litigating divisions is mostly anecdotal at present (although the Department is considering initiatives to gather data more systematically). In March, 1991, the Civil Division integrated ADR into its case management system which captures data about cases retained for handling in Washington or which are jointly handled with United States Attorneys. While reportable ADR events include judge-supervised settlement conferences, other settlement activities such as party-to-party negotiations are excluded. The hours devoted to ADR show steadily increasing commitment to ADR in appropriate circumstances although they represent only a small percentage of our overall litigation efforts:

ADR Proposals Total ADR Hours
FY 1991 19 994
FY 1992 44 1,039
FY 1993 73 2,232
FY 1994 56 3,305

Mediation comprised 25 percent of the instances in which ADR was actually used and not just proposed. Arbitration was used six percent of the time. These statistics likely underreport the prevalence of ADR since the case management system relies on time reporting by individual attorneys.

Within the Civil Rights Division, the Coordination and Review, Voting, Public Access, Special Litigation, and Housing and Employment Sections either implement special programs that provide suitable alternatives to litigation or are experimenting with ADR techniques.

The Coordination and Review Section investigates complaints under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), alleging discrimination by State and local governments. Resolution through ADR is encouraged by both the ADA and by regulation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12212; 28 C.F.R. § 35.176. Shortly after the ADA became effective, the Coordination and Review Section staff was trained for two days in negotiation, conciliation, mediation, and persuasion. The Section has expedited and resolved claims through a modified mediation process. Because formal offers of settlement and ADR precede full investigation of complaints and conciliation must fail before litigation begins, ADR has resulted in 22 settlements before completion of a full investigation and resolution of about 100 other cases without formal settlement agreements.

The Public Access Section has awarded two grants to explore use of mediation as an alternative to investigation and litigation of complaints made under the ADA. Under one pilot grant, mediators at community mediation centers in five cities have been trained and will mediate some 200 cases to be referred out of the Department by the Public Access Section. Under another grant, the Key Bridge Foundation for Education and Research will train about 90 mediators in five other cities to whom approximately 675 other ADA disputes will be referred. As with the Community Board Program grant, the mediators will deal directly with the disputing parties. The Key Bridge Foundation will also publish a guide for consumers of mediation services in the ADA context and a guide for mediators who wish to mediate ADA disputes.

The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA, et seq., also encourages ADR, requiring “informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion” before litigation to correct unlawful conditions of confinement or institutionalization. 42 U.S.C. 1997b(2)(B). The Special Litigation Section therefore seeks alternatives to litigation, particularly consent decrees, in every case.

Administrative processes affecting all of the litigating divisions (which include the Antitrust and Criminal Divisions) and most of the Department’s other offices, boards, and divisions concern personnel and procurement matters common to all Federal agencies. ADR has not been used in any great degree in the adjudication of these matters. One reason is that the Department engages in relatively few disputes of this nature. During one fiscal year, for example, the Justice Management Division, which supports most offices, boards and divisions, handled 11 pre-award contract bid protests, two contract claims, 19 equal employment opportunity complaints, and 6 grievances under agency procedures.

One recent innovation applicable to all components of the Department is the Attorney General’s Comprehensive Program for Prevention of Sexual Harassment, announced April 25, 1994. This program requires each component to appoint contact persons to assist in the informal resolution of sexual harassment complaints. This process, which does not supplant normal EEO procedures and is similar to pre-complaint counseling in EEO cases, offers a novel way for complainants to make complaints and have them resolved quickly and effectively.

Some of the Department’s offices, boards, and divisions engage in unique activities in which ADR is being examined for applicability or has already been incorporated.

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) deals with disputes in contract and grant disagreements, audit resolution, Public Safety Officer Benefit Death and Disability claims, and civil rights complaints, as well as personnel issues. Recent and continuing growth in size and responsibility has led OJP to start formulating an ADR policy which was not warranted by the few disputes seen in earlier times. Efforts are focused on EEO and labor and employee relations. For example, OJP’s Partnership Council (a Labor-Management forum), is looking into the adoption of an ADR system and is discussing the need and options for implementation.

The Community Relations Service, a unique component in the Department, has, since 1964, provided conciliation and mediation services to prevent and resolve community wide conflicts arising out of discriminatory practices based on race, color, or national origin. These services are provided through the 15 CRS regional and field offices throughout the country. CRS also has responsibility for providing humanitarian services to Cubans, Haitians, and unaccompanied minors of these and other entrant groups emigrating to the US. In a unique combination of these missions, CRS is providing conflict resolution services in the Cuban and Haitian camps in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in Panama. Earlier this year, CRS also successfully mediated a dispute between the Black Coaches Association and the National Collegiate Athletic Association concerning expansion of opportunities for education, employment and NCAA governance for African-Americans and other ethnic minorities.

Each of the major bureaus and services within the Department, (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Marshals Service, and Bureau of Prisons) manages its own administrative services. ADR has not been used extensively by these bureaus or services but it has their increasing attention.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has incorporated ADR in the enforcement provisions of an agreement to settle class discrimination claims brought by African-American FBI agents. The parties agreed that material and willful breaches of the agreement will be addressed by a mandatory ADR mechanism prior to seeking judicial relief. The ADR process has three phrases: informal discussion; mediation by a three-member panel; and issuance of findings and recommendations. The parties agreed to split the costs of ADR procedure subject to a couple of clear exceptions. Although there has been no necessity for recourse to this ADR process, it represents a novel integration of administrative dispute resolution within the framework of litigation.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service has started a pilot project in its Western Region to introduce ADR into its EEO process. Its principal feature will be diversion of EEO disputes to a conciliation process overseen by 36 EEO Conciliators who are senior management officials and who have already undergone training in conciliation and mediation techniques.

ADR is included in current reorganization plans of the Marshals Service. Under consideration is establishment of a “peer review group” to resolve EEO disputes at the counseling stage, a “Complaints Review Board” to facilitate settlement of formal complaints of discrimination, and a “Partnership Council” to resolve labor disputes. The Service already utilizes a Grievance Adjudicator who informally attempts to resolve employee grievances. The Service has plans to train EEO investigators in mediation, train an ADR coordinator for contract disputes, and integrate ADR training in programs at the Marshals Service Training Academy.

In the Drug Enforcement Administration, the EEO Section is considering implementing a formal mediation program and a fact-finding conference program to respond to increasing numbers of EEO complaints. The EEO Section intends to test these methods in early 1995. ADR techniques are also being considered for implementation by the Office of Procurement in connection with contract disputes and preaward bid protests and by the Office of the Controller in connection with employee claims, disputes involving accounts receivable, and disputes involving overpayment of compensation.

The Bureau of Prisons, which has considerable involvement in construction contracting, has entered into nine “partnering agreements” with contractors which have been an effective means of reducing project delays. While cost savings are difficult to estimate, contracting personnel and project managers report satisfaction with the process. In one instance of the neutral-sharing initiative, the Bureau is joining a consortium of agencies in Dallas-Fort Worth which is assembling a pool of personnel who will be trained as mediators and used in local disputes.

CURRENT ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE INITIATIVES1

1 The initiatives discussed here should not be included in your report to Congress until the Attorney General has had the opportunity to take final action on them.

The Civil Justice Working Group has recommended to the Attorney General that actions be taken to promote the significantly increased use of alternative dispute resolution in all the components of the Department and among its client agencies. The Attorney General is now considering whether to:

  • Issue an Attorney General Order requiring litigating components to make broader use of alternative dispute resolution techniques in appropriate civil cases and providing for related training and record keeping. The order would require each litigating component to identify classes of cases suitable for ADR, describe the component’s internal procedures for approving the use of ADR, establish an ADR training requirement and keep statistics documenting its use of ADR.
  • Appoint a career attorney at the Senior Executive Service level to exercise full-time responsibility in promoting and monitoring the Department’s use of ADR. This high-ranking official would be responsible for implementing the Attorney General’s order, monitoring the compliance of the components, and assisting in developing additional Department-wide policies and practices regarding the use of ADR.
  • Create an earmarked ADR Expense Fund to finance the costs associated with the Department’s use of ADR professionals. Current Department and Government contracting procedures make it quite difficult for attorneys to obligate their components to pay for the services of ADR neutrals. Creating a fund modelled on the Expert Witness Fund would remove a current barrier to the use of ADR by ensuring the ready availability of funds to pay for the services of ADR neutrals in appropriate cases.
  • Co-Sponsor with the Administrative Conference of the United States and the National Performance Review (NPR) a government-wide conference series on ADR. These conferences would encourage agencies to make greater use of ADR as an alternative to referring cases to the Department for litigation, thereby effectuating a major goal of the NPR and the intent of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Act.

These proposals are guided by the following principles: that programs be structured in a way that benefits not only the system as a whole, but also improves the ability of individual litigants to obtain access to civil justice; that quality assurance be developed so that ADR techniques are not only theoretically sound, but actually produce just and cost-efficient results in actual disputes; and that use of ADR be encouraged, not by forcing disputants and their attorneys into mandatory programs, but by educating the attorneys and the public why it is in their interest to use ADR in appropriate cases. Guided by these same principles, senior Department officials will work to overcome resistance to ADR in the Department and systematically encourage its appropriate use to resolve disputes with the Government. As the “nation’s litigator” and the representative for virtually every Governmental agency in the Federal courts, the Department of Justice believes it should play a leadership role in expanding the appropriate use of ADR — not only to urge others to use ADR, but to set an example through the way in which it works to resolve disputes in which the Department is involved as a party or in a representative capacity. In doing so, the Department hopes to set an example for the entire legal profession in evaluating the appropriate use of ADR techniques in litigation.

While several of these proposals address the use of alternative dispute resolution in civil litigation, we are mindful of our obligations and our opportunities under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. The proposal to appoint a career Senior Executive to promote and monitor ADR will be a key component of future efforts to implement the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. This Senior Counsel for Alternative Dispute Resolution will become the Department’s first full-time Dispute Resolution Specialist. We expect that this action will provide continuity, credibility, and comprehensiveness for our ADR effort.

Reporting to either the Deputy Attorney General or the Associate Attorney General, the Senior Counsel for ADR will assist components in making greater use of ADR and designing and executing related training, record keeping, program evaluation, and reporting functions. The Senior Counsel will also represent the Department in government-wide ADR activities, including programs and projects with the Administrative Conference of the United States, the Office of Management and Budget, the National Performance Review, and the Federal courts. One of the Senior Counsel’s chores will be to work with each Component in revitalizing its administrative dispute resolution efforts and ensure that persons identified as Component Dispute Resolution Specialists serve actively in that role which has not been the case in most instances to date.

Creation of an ADR Expense Fund with simplified procedures will promote ADR by addressing concerns that existing procedures that rely on general operating funds are cumbersome and lead some supervisors to hesitate authorizing ADR. The proposal to cosponsor conferences with the Administrative Conference and the National Performance Review will also signal the Department’s renewed commitment to ADR.

Negotiated Rulemaking

Negotiated rulemaking has not been used by the Department of Justice although Justice attorneys have assisted other agencies in their rulemaking efforts. Most regulations promulgated by the Department do not easily lend themselves to negotiated rulemaking owing to their subject matter or scope.

In lieu of formal negotiated rulemaking procedures, however, the Drug Enforcement Administration has institutionalized the “focus group” concept in its regulatory program (21 C.F.R. Part 1300 et seq.). The concept encompasses a broad range of activities to insure communication about matters of mutual concern and interest to DEA and the registrant population. DEA sponsors biannual working committee meetings for national associations representing manufacturer, distributor, practitioner, pharmacy, and mid-level practitioner registrant groups. A subject at one meeting, for example, involved registrant concerns about quick and efficient delivery of medications to long-term care patients and DEA’s concern that the risk of diversion of controlled substances be contained. As a result of these discussions, DEA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the regulations to permit the transmission of prescriptions for controlled substances via facsimile.

Conclusion

The Department of Justice takes seriously its obligation to join with other agencies in facilitating the access of citizens to the processes of government. The Department appreciates the opportunity to contribute to the Administrative Conference’s report to Congress.

Sincerely,
Signature of Frand W. Hunger
Frank W. Hunger
Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Division
Updated: December 2010

Use of APA Formal Procedures In Civil Money Penalty Proceedings

Since 1972, the Administrative Conference has been encouraging the use of administratively imposed civil money penalties as an enforcement tool. In Recommendation 72-6, the Conference recommended Congress provide for such remedies, to be imposed after a hearing (usually presided over by an administrative law judge) pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act’s provisions in sections 554, 556 and 557, which govern formal adjudications. Congress has followed that recommendation in hundreds of contexts over the past 20 years, and administrative civil money penalties have become a frequent enforcement mechanism.

Congress has, however, in several recent environmental statutes, authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to impose civil money penalties without a formal Administrative Procedure Act (APA)hearing, without an ALJ, and without de nova judicial review. The Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Coast Guard have been granted similar authority. The amounts of potential liability under these statutory provisions vary from maximums of $5,000 up to as high as $125,000. The issue is whether this trend is a good one.

The Administrative Conference has made a number of recommendations that relate to this topic. In its first recommendation on this subject, Recommendation 72-6, “Civil money penalties as sanctions”, the Conference recommended that systems for administrative imposition of civil money penalties should provide for adjudications on the record after a formal hearing pursuant to the APA. It reiterated that position in Recommendation 79-3, “Agency Assessment and Mitigation of Civil Money Penalties.”

In Recommendation 92-7, “ the Federal Administrative Judiciary,” the Conference considered the issue from a different perspective. In that recommendation, the Conference addressed the proliferation of non-ALJ adjudicators in agency proceedings, and encouraged Congress to return to a more consistent use of Administrative law judge (ALJs) in the types of cases for which their use is most appropriate, so the uniformity of process and decision-maker characteristics that the APA envisioned could be reestablished. In proposals that presumed the implementation of recommended changes in the ALJ selection process and mode of performance review, the Conference suggested a set of guidelines that Congress should use in determining when ALJs should be required as presiding officers.1

Among the types of cases cited by Recommendation 92-7 in which Congress should consider requiring ALJ hearings are those involving the “imposition of sanctions with substantial economic effect.” While this is but one factor Congress is urged to take into account, it would appear to weigh strongly in favor of APA-ALJ proceedings in civil money penalty cases of the type at issue here. While the economic impact of a civil money penalty will vary depending on the respondent’s resources, it can reasonably be assumed that a penalty of $25,000 would be substantial to most respondents, and even smaller penalty amounts might be substantial in many situations.

The interest in uniformity also weighs very much in favor of using APA-ALJ hearings in civil money penalty cases. Most administratively imposed civil money penalty statutes do in fact require APA-ALJ hearings. There does not appear to be anything particularly unusual about the cases engendered by the programs under study that would warrant a different type of hearing. As a matter of good policy, anyone facing a civil money penalty imposed by a federal administrative agency with judicial review on the record of the administrative proceedings should have available the opportunity to have his or her case heard by an ALJ in a formal APA hearing. Where penalties would be small, it is of course less likely that such an opportunity would be taken; where they are large, such an opportunity becomes that much more important.

While neither an APA hearing nor an ALJ as presider may be constitutionally required, there may well be situations where due process would require something very much like an APA-ALJ hearing. An advantage of uniformly requiring the opportunity for ALJ hearings in civil money penalty proceedings is that it alleviates the uncertainty that arises from trying to apply the standards of Mathews v. Eldridge2 in a variety of contexts.  That case, which requires a balancing of three, different interests in determining what process is due in a particular situation, provides no clear guideposts. Its requirements can only be determined definitively on post-hoc review. In contrast, the validity of the APA’s formal adjudication process is well-established.

The Conference is therefore recommending that, in all cases involving administratively imposed civil money penalties, the opportunity for a formal adjudication pursuant to the APA’s provisions, 5 U.S.C. 554, 556-558, be available to parties.3

Recognizing the current existence of civil money penalty programs where the hearing officers are not protected by the APA’s separation-of-functions provisions in section 554(d), the Conference is recommending agencies with such programs provide for this important protection by regulation. Agencies should ensure that non-ALJ presiding officers and presiding officers in non-APA hearings will not report to, be evaluated by, or consult with prosecuting or investigating officials.4

Although the Conference originally recommended use of administrative hearings in civil money penalty cases because of the comparative cumbersomeness and expense of federal district court trials, concerns have been raised that APA-ALJ hearings can also be too slow, expensive and cumbersome, and that some cases should therefore not be required to be adjudicated under the APA. This concern, which extends beyond civil money penalty cases, can, however, be addressed within the ambit of the APA.

The APA provides flexibility with respect to procedures used in formal proceedings. Although 5 U.S.C. 554, 556-558 contain certain basic requirements (such as proper notice, opportunity to present evidence and rebuttal, at least limited cross-examination, and the chance to submit proposed findings or exceptions), the APA leaves to agency discretion or other statutory provision such issues as the scope of discovery, the existence of time limits, and many evidentiary issues. Agencies should take advantage of such flexibility to issue rules that would encourage expeditious resolutions in ALJ proceedings.5 For example, agencies could authorize (or require) limitations on discovery or the number of pages filed, or could set deadlines for the various stages of the proceeding, including the amount of time to issue a decision. They could also encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution in appropriate cases.6 Thus, the uniformity provided by the APA does not and should not limit agency or ALJ flexibility in handling civil penalty cases expeditiously and fairly.

Recommendation

1. Congress should provide that the Administrative Procedure Act’s formal adjudication provisions (5 U.S.C. 554, 556-558) are available to parties whenever money penalties may be imposed by administrative agencies.

2. Agencies should ensure in their regulations that non-administrative law judge presiding officers in civil money penalty adjudication proceedings not covered by the APA’s formal adjudication provisions are protected from undue influence. Specifically, such officers should not report to, be evaluated by, or consult on an ex parte basis with, prosecuting or investigative officials.7

Citations:

58 FR 45409 (August 30, 1993)

__ FR _____ (2011)

1993 ACUS 1


1 Non-ALJs can, of course, be used by agencies for adjudications not stipulated by Congress to be within the coverage of sections 554, 556 and 557 (“non-APA adjudications”), or in APA adjudications where Congress has specially designated a presiding board or non-ALJ adjudicator. See 5 U.S.C. 556(b). Recommendation 92-7 was intended to address both types of congressional actions.

2  424 U.S. 319 (1976).

3 The recommendation that the opportunity for a hearing be afforded is intended to retain flexibility for resolving the case prior to an ALJ hearing, through settlement, alternative dispute resolution processes, or other processes agreed upon by the parties.

4 As reflected in Recommendation 92-7, “The Federal Administrative Judiciary,” the Conference also recognizes that there may be infrequent situations where Congress may wish to specially designate presiding officers with technical or other specialized expertise for APA formal adjudications in civil money penalty programs. See section 556(b) of title 5. In these situations, the APA mandates a separation of functions.

5 See, e.g., Recommendation 86-7, “Case Management as a Tool for Improving Agency Adjudication,” 1 CFR 305.86-7 (1992).

6 See Public Law No. 101-552, the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, which amends the APA to provide authorization to use alternative dispute resolution processes. See also Recommendation 86- 3, “Agencies’ Use of Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution,” 1 CFR 305.86-3 (1992).

7 Recommendation 2 is intended to assure that separation-of-functions protections are included within existing programs. These very important protections would be required by Congress in future programs by Recommendation 1, which urges that all of the APA’s adjudication safeguards be made available in new civil money penalty programs. It is unlikely that Congress would consider a civil money penalty adjudication proposal for which it would not be in the public interest to make available the full range of APA safeguards. However, should that unlikely event occur, it is strongly urged that Congress assure that at least separation-of-functions protections of the type described in Recommendation 2 be incorporated in any such program

http://www.justice.gov/olp/adr/b01adr07.html

Executive Order 12988
Civil Justice Reform
61 Fed. Reg. 4729

Contents

  1. Guidelines to Promote Just and Efficient Government Civil Litigation
  2. Government Pro Bono and Volunteer Service
  3. Principles to Enact Legislation and Promulgate Regulations Which Do Not Unduly Burden the Federal Court System
  4. Principles to Promote Just and Efficient Administrative Adjudications
  5. Coordination by the Department of Justice
  6. Definitions
  7. No Private Rights Created
  8. Scope
  9. Conflicts with Other Rules
  10. Privileged Information
  11. Effective Date
  12. Revocation

B. Executive Order 12988
Civil Justice Reform
61 Fed. Reg. 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996)

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and in order to improve access to justice for all persons who wish to avail themselves of court and administrative adjudicatory tribunals to resolve disputes, to facilitate the just and efficient resolution of civil claims involving the United States Government, to encourage the filing of only meritorious civil claims, to improve legislative and regulatory drafting to reduce needless litigation, to promote fair and prompt adjudication before administrative tribunals, and to provide a model for similar reforms of litigation practices in the private sector and in various states, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. Guidelines to Promote Just and Efficient Government Civil Litigation. To promote the just and efficient resolution of civil claims, those Federal agencies and litigation counsel that conduct or otherwise participate in civil litigation on behalf of the United States Government in Federal court shall respect and adhere to the following guidelines during the conduct of such litigation:

(a) Pre-filing Notice of a Complaint. No litigation counsel shall file a complaint initiating civil litigation without first making a reasonable effort to notify all disputants about the nature of the dispute and to attempt to achieve a settlement, or confirming that the referring agency that previously handled the dispute has made a reasonable effort to notify the disputants and to achieve a settlement or has used its conciliation processes.

(b) Settlement Conferences. As soon as practicable after ascertaining the nature of a dispute in litigation, and throughout the litigation, litigation counsel shall evaluate settlement possibilities and make reasonable efforts to settle the litigation. Such efforts shall include offering to participate in a settlement conference or moving the court for a conference pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in an attempt to resolve the dispute without additional civil litigation.

(c) Alternative Methods of Resolving the Dispute in Litigation. Litigation counsel shall make reasonable attempts to resolve a dispute expeditiously and properly before proceeding to trial.

(1) Whenever feasible, claims should be resolved through informal discussions, negotiations, and settlements rather than through utilization of any formal court proceeding. Where the benefits of Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) may be derived, and after consultation with the agency referring the matter, litigation counsel should suggest the use of an appropriate ADR technique to the parties.

(2) It is appropriate to use ADR techniques or processes to resolve claims of or against the United States or its agencies, after litigation counsel determines that the use of a particular technique is warranted in the context of a particular claim or claims, and that such use will materially contribute to the prompt, fair, and efficient resolution of the claims.

(3) To facilitate broader and effective use of informal and formal ADR methods, litigation counsel should be trained in ADR techniques.

(d) Discovery. To the extent practical, litigation counsel shall make every reasonable effort to streamline and expedite discovery in cases under counsel’s supervision and control.

(1) Review of Proposed Document Requests. Each agency within the executive branch shall establish a coordinated procedure for the conduct and review of document discovery undertaken in litigation directly by that agency when that agency is litigation counsel. The procedure shall include, but is not necessarily limited to, review by a senior lawyer prior to service or filing of the request in litigation to determine that the request is not cumulative or duplicative, unreasonable, oppressive, unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the requirements of the litigation, the amount in controversy, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and whether the documents can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

(2) Discovery Motions. Before petitioning a court to resolve a discovery motion or petitioning a court to impose sanctions for discovery abuses, litigation counsel shall attempt to resolve the dispute with opposing counsel. If litigation counsel makes a discovery motion concerning the dispute, he or she shall represent in that motion that any attempt at resolution was unsuccessful or impracticable under the circumstances.

(e) Sanctions. Litigation counsel shall take steps to seek sanctions against opposing counsel and opposing parties where appropriate.

(1) Litigation counsel shall evaluate filings made by opposing parties and, where appropriate, shall petition the court to impose sanctions against those responsible for abusive practices.

(2) Prior to filing a motion for sanctions, litigation counsel shall submit the motion for review to the sanctions officer, or his or her designee, within the litigation counsel’s agency. Such officer or designee shall be a senior supervising attorney within the agency, and shall be licensed to practice law before a State court, courts of the District of Columbia, or courts of any territory or Commonwealth of the United States. The sanctions officer or designee shall also review motions for sanctions that are filed against litigation counsel, the United States, its agencies, or its officers.

(f) Improved Use of Litigation Resources. Litigation counsel shall employ efficient case management techniques and shall make reasonable efforts to expedite civil litigation in cases under that counsel’s supervision and control. This includes but is not limited to:

(1) making reasonable efforts to negotiate with other parties about, and stipulate to, facts that are not in dispute;

(2) reviewing and revising pleadings and other filings to ensure that they are accurate and that they reflect a narrowing of issues, if any, that has resulted from discovery;

(3) requesting early trial dates where practicable;

(4) moving for summary judgment in every case where the movant would be likely to prevail, or where the motion is likely to narrow the issues to be tried; and

(5) reviewing and revising pleadings and other filings to ensure that unmeritorious threshold defenses and jurisdictional arguments, resulting in unnecessary delay, are not raised.

2. Government Pro Bono and Volunteer Service. All Federal agencies should develop appropriate programs to encourage and facilitate pro bono legal and other volunteer service by government employees to be performed on their own time, including attorneys, as permitted by statute, regulation, or other rule or guideline.

3. Principles to Enact Legislation and Promulgate Regulations Which Do Not Unduly Burden the Federal Court System.

(a) General Duty to Review Legislation and Regulations. Within current budgetary constraints and existing executive branch coordination mechanisms and procedures established in OMB Circular A-19 and Executive Order No. 12866, each agency promulgating new regulations, reviewing existing regulations, developing legislative proposals concerning regulations, and developing new legislation shall adhere to the following requirements:

(1) The agency’s proposed legislation and regulations shall be reviewed by the agency to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity;

(2) The agency’s proposed legislation and regulations shall be written to minimize litigation; and

(3) The agency’s proposed legislation and regulations shall provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and shall promote simplification and burden reduction.

(b) Specific Issues for Review. In conducting the reviews required by subsection (a), each agency formulating proposed legislation and regulations shall make every reasonable effort to ensure:

(1) that the legislation, as appropriate–

(A) specifies whether all causes of action arising under the law are subject to statutes of limitations;

(B) specifies in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, to be given to the law;

(C) specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law, if any, including all provisions repealed, circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified;

(D) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct;

(E) specifies whether private arbitration and other forms of private dispute resolution are appropriate under enforcement and relief provisions; subject to constitutional requirements;

(F) specifies whether the provisions of the law are severable if one or more of them is found to be unconstitutional;

(G) specifies in clear language the retroactive effect, if any, to be given to the law;

(H) specifies in clear language the applicable burdens of proof;

(I) specifies in clear language whether it grants private parties a right to sue and, if so, the relief available and the conditions and terms for authorized awards of attorney’s fees, if any;

(J) specifies whether State courts have jurisdiction under the law and, if so, whether and under what conditions an action would be removable to Federal court;

(K) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court and, if so, describes those proceedings and requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies;

(L) sets forth the standards governing the assertion of personal jurisdiction, if any;

(M) defines key statutory terms, either explicitly or by reference to other statutes that explicitly define those terms;

(N) specifies whether the legislation applies to the Federal Government or its agencies;

(O) specifies whether the legislation applies to States, territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and of the Northern Mariana Islands;

(P) specifies what remedies are available such as money damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees; and

(Q) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of legislation set forth by the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and after consultation with affected agencies, that are determined to be in accordance with the purposes of this order.

(2) that the regulation, as appropriate–

(A) specifies in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation;

(B) specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or regulation, if any, including all provisions repealed, circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified;

(C) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;

(D) specifies in clear language the retroactive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation;

(E) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court and, if so, describes those proceedings and requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies;

(F) defines key terms, either explicitly or by reference to other regulations or statutes that explicitly define those items; and

(G) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of regulations set forth by the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the Director of OMB and after consultation with affected agencies, that are determined to be in accordance with the purposes of this order.

(c) Agency Review. The agencies shall review such draft legislation or regulation to determine that either the draft legislation or regulation meets the applicable standards provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, or it is unreasonable to require the particular piece of draft legislation or regulation to meet one or more of those standards.

4. Principles to Promote Just and Efficient Administrative Adjudications.

(a) Implementation of Administrative Conference Recommendations. In order to promote just and efficient resolution of disputes, an agency that adjudicates administrative claims shall, to the extent reasonable and practicable, and when not in conflict with other sections of this order, implement the recommendations of the Administrative Conference of the United States, entitled “Case Management as a Tool for Improving Agency Adjudication,” as contained in 1 C.F.R. 305.86-7 (1991).

(b) Improvements in Administrative Adjudication. All Federal agencies should review their administrative adjudicatory processes and develop specific procedures to reduce delay in decision-making, to facilitate self-representation where appropriate, to expand non-lawyer counseling and representation where appropriate, and to invest maximum discretion in fact finding officers to encourage appropriate settlement of claims as early as possible.

(c) Bias. All Federal agencies should review their administrative adjudicatory processes to identify any type of bias on the part of the decision-makers that results in an injustice to persons who appear before administrative adjudicatory tribunals; regularly train all fact-finders, administrative law judges, and other decision-makers to eliminate such bias; and establish appropriate mechanisms to receive and resolve complaints of such bias from persons who appear before administrative adjudicatory tribunals.

(d) Public Education. All Federal agencies should develop effective and simple methods, including the use of electronic technology, to educate the public about its claims/benefits policies and procedures.

5. Coordination by the Department of Justice.

(a) The Attorney General shall coordinate efforts by Federal agencies to implement sections 1, 2 and 4 of this order.

(b) To implement the principles and purposes announced by this order, the Attorney General is authorized to issue guidelines implementing sections 1 and 4 of this order for the Department of Justice. Such guidelines shall serve as models for internal guidelines that may be issued by other agencies pursuant to this order.

6. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) The term “agency” shall be defined as that term is defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code.

(b) The term “litigation counsel” shall be defined as the trial counsel or the office in which such trial counsel is employed, such as the United States Attorney’s Office for the district in which the litigation is pending or a litigating division of the Department of Justice. Special Assistant United States Attorneys are included within this definition. Those agencies authorized by law to represent themselves in court without assistance from the Department of Justice are also included in this definition, as are private counsel hired by any Federal agency to conduct litigation on behalf of the agency or the United States.

7. No Private Rights Created. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch in resolving disputes, conducting litigation in a reasonable and just manner, and reviewing legislation and regulations. This order shall not be construed as creating any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person. This order shall not be construed to create any right to judicial review involving the compliance or noncompliance of the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person with this order. Nothing in this order shall be construed to obligate the United States to accept a particular settlement or resolution of a dispute, to alter its standards for accepting settlements, to forego seeking a consent decree or other relief, or to alter any existing delegation of settlement or litigating authority.

8. Scope.

(a) No Applicability to Criminal Matters or Proceedings in Foreign Courts. This order is applicable to civil matters only. It is not intended to affect criminal matters, including enforcement of criminal fines or judgments of criminal forfeiture. This order does not apply to litigation brought by or against the United States in foreign courts or tribunals.

(b) Application of Notice Provision. Notice pursuant to subsection (a) of section 1 is not required (1) in any action to seize or forfeit assets subject to forfeiture or in any action to seize property; (2) in any bankruptcy, insolvency, conservatorship, receivership, or liquidation proceeding; (3) when the assets that are the subject of the action or that would satisfy the judgment are subject to flight, dissipation, or destruction; (4) when the defendant is subject to flight; (5) when, as determined by litigation counsel, exigent circumstances make providing such notice impracticable or such notice would otherwise defeat the purpose of the litigation, such as in actions seeking temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctive relief; or (6) in those limited classes of cases where the Attorney General determines that providing such notice would defeat the purpose of the litigation.

(c) Additional Guidance as to Scope. The Attorney General shall have the authority to issue further guidance as to the scope of this order, except section 3, consistent with the purposes of this order.

9. Conflicts with Other Rules. Nothing in this order shall be construed to require litigation counsel or any agency to act in a manner contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, State or Federal law, other applicable rules of practice or procedure, or court order.

10. Privileged Information. Nothing in this order shall compel or authorize the disclosure of privileged information, sensitive law enforcement information, information affecting national security, or information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law.

11. Effective Date. This order shall become effective 90 days after the date of signature. This order shall not apply to litigation commenced prior to the effective date.

12. Revocation. Executive Order No. 12778 is hereby revoked.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

February 5, 1996.

http://www1.eeoc.gov//eeoc/litigation/manual/3-1-b_eo-civil_justice_order.cfm?renderforprint=1

—–

The Bankers Manifesto of 1892

 Here you will find the original proposed Bill –

NESARA – A Proposed Bill

https://lisaleaks.com/2013/01/11/nesara-a-proposed-bill-2/

 

Change is on the Horizon Part 3 of 3 The Farmer Claims Program

Good info after the first few minutes and most of the way through, much of which is already documented above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOPIgNB-hGY