[donhamrick]

FROM DON HAMRICK (pro se civil plaintiff in Hamrick v. President Bush, et al, U.S. District Court/DC)
American Common Defence Review (blog)
http://americancommondefencereview.blogspot.com/

After 4 years of being jerked around the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in what began as a simple judicial review of a final agency action denial by the U.S. Coast Guard in 2002 that escalated into a RICO Act case alleging the United States Governmet of racketeering an unlawful and an unconstitutional protection scheme over the Second Amendment I finally called it quits with the federal courts in Washington, DC because the judicial bias and corruption is insurmountable.

I filed my motion to dismiss without prejudice and the Assistant U.S. Attorney Dennis Barghaan of Alexandria, Virginia conceded my right to dismiss my own case.

I have prepared a new and updated Civil RICO Act Complaint, 3 volumes, each at 1-inch thick (2,100 pages total, double-sided printing making for 1,050 sheets of paper for thickness of all 3 volumes) to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock), Northern Division (Batesville) on September 11, 2006.

The timing is part coincidental with the judicial events in Washington, DC and partly timed of symbolic publicity for September 11 - the want of a handgun in the cockpits of commerical airliners as all part of the racketeering allegations of government racketeering activities over the Second Amendment.

I spent about $400 on specialty law books on the RICO Act to be more proficient with my case than I have been these last 4 years. Right off the bat I learned from these law books that I am acting as a "private attorney general" (so says the U.S. Supreme Court in case law). Morever, I have the perfect standing to sue: Stigmatic Harm among other causes for standing.

I will be trying new tactics this time. I have the 3 stringient requirements for Mandamus relied in the bag! I have 4 years of memorandums in support of motion to dismiss from the government attorneys to which I have rebutted very nicely in my Civil RICO Act Complaint.

And by the grace of coincidence the American Bar Association on August 7th issued their recommend on "Civil Gideon" the right of civil litigants to court appointed attorneys. I have filed my motion as a civil plaintiff with a very complex civil RICO Act case to have a court appointed attorney profficient with the RICO Act and Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Remember! The U.S. Supreme Court case from 1939, United States v. Miller had its origin in the U.S. District Court for the WESTERN Division of Arkansas. Now here is my case for the Second Amendment in the U.S. District Court for the EASTERN District of Arkansas.

My case is a GOLD MINE for publicity for the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, KeepAndBearArms.com, etc. etc. But because I am litigating for National Open Carry in intrastate and interstate travel all those gun rights advocacy groups ignored my case.

Monday will mark a new beginning in the fight for gun rights Whether Wayne LaPierre, Robert Dowlut, Allen Gottlieb and gang like it or not!

My case as about "actual freedom" under the Second, Fifth, Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendmens and under the "Common Defence" clause of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution from a U.S. merchant seaman's perspectie where I can us federal laws and regulations to my advantage.

The NRA's agenda for National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry is "bull********" (so says Alan Korwin, www.gunlaws.com)

Four years of litigating the Second Amendment on my own using my wages earned aboard ships at sea.

This time I downloaded the needed titles from the U.S. Attorney's Manual, especially on RICO, which helped me structure my Civil RICO Act Complaint.

This will be a whole new ballgame of a Second Amendment case.

[Blackwater OPS]

The surprise will be a damaging ruling against the 2nd amendment.

[rssslvr]

this guy again

[donhamrick]

Originally Posted by Blackwater OPS

The surprise will be a damaging ruling against the 2nd amendment.

You don't know ******** about my case!

[Shane916]

Originally Posted by donhamrick

You don't know ******** about my case!

I don't Any way to sum it up in a brief right to the point paragraph ?

[donhamrick]

Originally Posted by rssslvr

this guy again

The day will come. I will win my case.

Yeah! This guy again! What do you expect when the government violates your rights? Just let them do it without any resistance at all?


Edited for language and rude comments

[blkA4alb]

Originally Posted by donhamrick

You are one sorry excuse for a human being.

You're not moving up at all in my book. Boy you sure know how to gain some respect.

[rssslvr]

Originally Posted by donhamrick

The day will come. I will win my case.

Yeah! This guy again! What do you expect when the government violates your rights? Just let them do it without any resistance at all?

Don I really hope that day does come but I just don't see that happening.I don't think you stand much of a chance.Who knows I could be wrong but I don't think I am.


Quote edited to remove language and rude comments.

[BigMac]

Hey I respect your effort. I dont respect personal attacks. Don't stoop to them and loose credibility.

[rssslvr]

[QUOTE=donhamrick]

My case is a GOLD MINE for publicity for the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, KeepAndBearArms.com, etc. etc. But because I am litigating for National Open Carry in intrastate and interstate travel all those gun rights advocacy groups ignored my case. [QUOTE]


They have ignored it because they know you probably won't win

[donhamrick]

Originally Posted by blkA4alb

You're not moving up at all in my book. Boy you sure know how to gain some respect.

Yeah. I know. I am one intolerant individual when it comes to people denigrating others.

I have been criminally interrogated by the U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued a Bar Notice prohibiting me from visiting any DOT, FAA, or U.S. Coast Guard headquarters building in Washington DC just because I criticized th U.S. Coast Guard in an article I posted on the Internet exercising First Amendment rights pursuing Second Amendment rights. I am on a Government watchlist because of my litigious activities in the federal courts in Washington, DC.

I have placed myself at risk of getting arrested by the feds and in every confrontation with the feds they cannot touch me because everything I do is within the law and within my Bill of Rights.

Anyone who cannot or refuse to respect another person for what he is doing in the name of freedom and the Bill of Rights does not deserve respect in return. Moving up in your book does not interest me in the least.
You will treat the people on this board with civility and respect or you will be a fading memory.

[ArmedWolf]

Time for some popcorn and a fun night of reading

[rssslvr]

It's the same as the last time you posted this stuff here.People tell you what you don't want to hear and you start talking trash.If you don't want to hear the truth about what people think then don't post it

[hoffmang]

Popcorn and a wink to the fact that there is an interesting 2A challenge update thread right there at the back button..

*Chomp, Chomp*

-Gene

[donhamrick]

Originally Posted by ArmedWolf

Time for some popcorn and a fun night of reading

Don't hog the popcorn!

[anotherted]

Originally Posted by donhamrick

The day will come. I will win my case. And to all you pessimistic smartass jackoffs bad-mouthing my efforts I will shove your insults back in your faces!

Yeah! This guy again! What do you expect when the government violates your rights? Just let them do it without any resistance at all?

You are one sorry excuse for a human being.

And soon the world will be MINE!!!.......all MIIIIIIIIINE!!! MUUUUHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

[donhamrick]

Originally Posted by rssslvr

It's the same as the last time you posted this stuff here.People tell you what you don't want to hear and you start talking trash.If you don't want to hear the truth about what people think then don't post it

Nope! That is no what is going on.

People are criticizing something that they are complete ignorant about.

That is an intolerable abuse of free speech. There's a proverbial saying: I you don't want people to know you are ignorant on a subject then keep your mouth shut.

[donhamrick]

Originally Posted by anotherted

And soon the world will be MINE!!!.......all MIIIIIIIIINE!!! MUUUUHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

Too funny!!

[rssslvr]

Originally Posted by donhamrick

Nope! That is no what is going on.

People are criticizing something that they are complete ignorant about.

That is an intolerable abuse of free speech. There's a proverbial saying: I you don't want people to know you are ignorant on a subject then keep your mouth shut.

So it's not the same as last time?

[ohsmily]

Originally Posted by donhamrick

Yeah. I know. I am one intolerant individual when it comes to people denigrating others.

Um, you "denigrated" others in response to their comments. I guess you should practice what you preach.

By the way, I am clerking for a judge at the San Diego County Superior Court and CAN'T STAND reading motions and other court documents that have been drafted by parties who are representing themselves pro se. Hire a dang attorney. In our particular department, the judge does what he can to help people who are representing themselves, but there is only so much he can do without prejudicing the other party and thoroughly wasting the court's time. The motions are deficient nearly 100% of the time, and I write recommendations to the judge accordingly. Get an attorney.

I am glad to hear you FINALLY did SOME of the research you need to do for your RICO claim...so, what were you doing for the last 4 years before you did this research? wasting your time? yes. So now you have done some legal research...do some more, and then hire an attorney. Let me ask you, 'how many of the judges you have come across have implored you to hire an attorney?'....did you think they were kidding?

If you don't have the money to hire an attorney full time to represent you, then at least pay them for some face time and to advise you on some of the points of your case.

Anyway.


Quote edited for language.

[ohsmily]

Originally Posted by anotherted

And soon the world will be MINE!!!.......all MIIIIIIIIINE!!! MUUUUHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

I got a kick out that....

[donhamrick]

Originally Posted by rssslvr

So it's not the same as last time?

No. It is not the same as last time.

My case started out in 2002 as a simple case of judicial review of a final agency action denial (U.S. Coast Guard denying my application for National Open Carry Handgun endorsement on my Merchant Mariner's Document, (ID Card resulting my mandatory small arms training as a pre-requisite for employment aboard a U.S. Government ammunition).

But because the U.S. District Court/DC and the Assistant U.S. Attorneys of the U.S. Department of Justice opposed my case at every step of the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. My case evolved into a RICO Act case in Round 2. (2003 to the present) until I discovered 28 U.S.C. 1402(a)(1) that said I should have filed my case in Arkansas because I am a resident of Arkansas. So I filed my motion to dismiss my case without prejudice and the Govt Defense Counsel had to concede to my right to dismiss my case.

Now, I have taken evidence from these past 4 years and used them as evidence of racketeering activities in my Civil RICO Act Complaint giving my a 3-volume complaint, each volume is 1-inch thick, double sided printing.

Not the same as last time! But a far more serious version of it.

[rssslvr]

Originally Posted by donhamrick

No. It is not the same as last time.

My case started out in 2002 as a simple case of judicial review of a final agency action denial (U.S. Coast Guard denying my application for National Open Carry Handgun endorsement on my Merchant Mariner's Document, (ID Card resulting my mandatory small arms training as a pre-requisite for employment aboard a U.S. Government ammunition).

But because the U.S. District Court/DC and the Assistant U.S. Attorneys of the U.S. Department of Justice opposed my case at every step of the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. My case evolved into a RICO Act case in Round 2. (2003 to the present) until I discovered 28 U.S.C. 1402(a)(1) that said I should have filed my case in Arkansas because I am a resident of Arkansas. So I filed my motion to dismiss my case without prejudice and the Govt Defense Counsel had to concede to my right to dismiss my case.

Now, I have taken evidence from these past 4 years and used them as evidence of racketeering activities in my Civil RICO Act Complaint giving my a 3-volume complaint, each volume is 1-inch thick, double sided printing.

Not the same as last time! But a far more serious version of it.

I meant same as last time as in people not telling you what you wanted to hear and you getting all pissy.

[donhamrick]

Originally Posted by ohsmily

Um, you "denigrated" others in response to their comments. I guess you should practice what you preach.

By the way, I am clerking for a judge at the San Diego County Superior Court and CAN'T STAND reading motions and other court documents that have been drafted by parties who are representing themselves pro se. Hire a dang attorney. In our particular department, the judge does what he can to help people who are representing themselves, but there is only so much he can do without prejudicing the other party and thoroughly wasting the court's time. The motions are deficient nearly 100% of the time, and I write recommendations to the judge accordingly. Get an attorney.

I am glad to hear you FINALLY did SOME of the research you need to do for your RICO claim...so, what were you doing for the last 4 years before you did this research? wasting your time? yes. So now you have done some legal research...do some more, and then hire an attorney. Let me ask you, 'how many of the judges you have come across have implored you to hire an attorney?'....did you think they were kidding?

If you don't have the money to hire an attorney full time to represent you, then at least pay them for some face time and to advise you on some of the points of your case.

Anyway.

http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/...ds/06A112A.pdf

I have already filed for a "Civil Gideon" Motion for a Court Appointed Attorney proficient with RICO and with Second Amendment jurisprudence and Constitutional Law.

I wll not answer the rest of your questions due to the manner in which you asked them.

[Joe]

thank you for trying to protect/further our rights as gun owners.

i am curious though, what is so special about 9/11 (besides the world trade center anniversary)? are you getting a ruling in your case or are you just filing a new case?

[Blackwater OPS]

Originally Posted by donhamrick

You don't know ******** about my case!

Not so. I read all about it the last time you posted. Your case will be dismissed at best, and will lose at worst. If it does, it harms the 2nd amendment. Even if you had a valid case, which I am not convinced you do, without a paid, top notch, dedicated laywer representing you, you will have very little chance of winning.

[donhamrick]

Originally Posted by Joe

thank you for trying to protect/further our rights as gun owners.

i am curious though, what is so special about 9/11 (besides the world trade center anniversary)? are you getting a ruling in your case or are you just filing a new case?

I am withdrawing my case from Washington DC and re-filing an updated and more expansive Civil RICO Act case in Arkansas. Primarily the September 11 date is coincidental to KINKOS production of my complaint not being ready any sooner than this weekend. Nevertheless, the correlation to my RICO Act case is that the GOVERNMENT did not allow guns in the cockpits which would have averted the terrorist attacks. Hence my claim that the Second Amndment is a vital function of the "Common Defence" clause of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

[Kestryll]

Once.
Just once.
donhamrick we expect the members of this forum to treat others with courtesy and respect and to post in a civil and courteous manner. If you can not do this then we have a problem. Please keep your posts to the details of the case and leave the rude comments, foul language and insult out.

Thank you and good luck with your case.

[donhamrick]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

Once.
Just once.
donhamrick we expect the members of this forum to treat others with courtesy and respect and to post in a civil and courteous manner. If you can not do this then we have a problem. Please keep your posts to the details of the case and leave the rude comments, foul language and insult out.

Thank you and good luck with your case.

YEAH, JUST ONCE!!!

Can you not see in the thread that I am civil and polite to those that are civil and polite to "me?"

If you cannot see that then this is a one-sided board.

[hoffmang]

Sigh...

Don - All the very best and very brightest Second Amendment lawyers and scholars have made the point for you in a pending case that has a real chance of changing the laws. You should read and steal liberally from - http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_pleadings.htm

Don - Are you familiar with the issue of standing incorporation by the 14th Amendment? That's why the case linked above is in the District of Columbia...

(I know I should just be quiet... but...)

-Gene

[donhamrick]

Originally Posted by Blackwater OPS

Not so. I read all about it the last time you posted. Your case will be dismissed at best, and will lose at worst. If it does, it harms the 2nd amendment. Even if you had a valid case, which I am not convinced you do, without a paid, top notch, dedicated laywer representing you, you will have very little chance of winning.

Okay. I have said my piece. And you have said yours. You haven't changed your opinion. And I haven't changed mine. Nothing more can be said on this point.

Next topic!

[Kestryll]

Originally Posted by donhamrick

YEAH, JUST ONCE!!!

Can you not see in the thread that I am civil and polite to those that are civil and polite to "me?"

If you cannot see that then this is a one-sided board.

I have edited your use of foul language and and rude comments out of this thread. I was the one who did it so yes, I have seen how civil and polite you have or have not been.
If you find the restrictions of courtesy, civility and respect to be too much of a burden say the word and you won't have to worry about it anymore.

[donhamrick]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

Sigh...

Don - All the very best and very brightest Second Amendment lawyers and scholars have made the point for you in a pending case that has a real chance of changing the laws. You should read and steal liberally from - http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_pleadings.htm

Don - Are you familiar with the issue of standing incorporation by the 14th Amendment? That's why the case linked above is in the District of Columbia...

(I know I should just be quiet... but...)

-Gene

I am waaayyyyy ahead of you! Got it on my laptop. I have been following that case from the beginning. And the Silveira case, and the Seegars case. And Bach v. Pataki (govnr of NY).

I even keep my eye open for new cases like this one:
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/sup...Utah090806.pdf

[Blackwater OPS]

I'm glad you know of the Silveira case in particular, because it should show you exactly the sort of harm a case with little chance of victory can do to the second amendment.

[rssslvr]

Don without an attorney you should not go further with your case.It will do more damage to our 2A rights if you do lose

[donhamrick]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

I have edited your use of foul language and and rude comments out of this thread. I was the one who did it so yes, I have seen how civil and polite you have or have not been.
If you find the restrictions of courtesy, civility and respect to be too much of a burden say the word and you won't have to worry about it anymore.

And the following with a nautical flavor because I am a merchant seaman who gets beaten on by the written word quite frequently!

[Kestryll]

Cute.
Amusing.
And to be honest probably the most humorous way I've been blasted in a long time.

Were I a bully I would simply delete your thread, ban you outright, knock over yor bicycle and take your lunch money.

Instead I am letting you know that some of your posts have been over the line, have been edited and pointing out where the problems were.

You are right in one regard, this is a one sided board. We are on the side of the Second Amendment. Whether your case is valid or not, whether it will be thrown out or not is up to a Judge so I can not speak to that. Since for good or ill it can affect the Second Amendment battle I have chosen to leave this thread open. As long as it progresses in a civil manner it's fine.

Now, I think we need to discuss that lunch money.....

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

Now, I think we need to discuss that lunch money.....

Kestryll FTW

[donhamrick]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

Cute.
Amusing.
And to be honest probably the most humorous way I've been blasted in a long time.

Were I a bully I would simply delete your thread, ban you outright, knock over yor bicycle and take your lunch money.

Instead I am letting you know that some of your posts have been over the line, have been edited and pointing out where the problems were.

You are right in one regard, this is a one sided board. We are on the side of the Second Amendment. Whether your case is valid or not, whether it will be thrown out or not is up to a Judge so I can not speak to that. Since for good or ill it can affect the Second Amendment battle I have chosen to leave this thread open. As long as it progresses in a civil manner it's fine.

Now, I think we need to discuss that lunch money.....

No harm. No foul. Let the debate begin!

[donhamrick]

Originally Posted by Blackwater OPS

I'm glad you know of the Silveira case in particular, because it should show you exactly the sort of harm a case with little chance of victory can do to the second amendment.

My case was in the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 03-145) right aong side the Silveira case (No. 03-51).

Just compare the two dockets and you will see how the U.S. Supreme Court biased against the unrepresented civil plaintiff.

Hence the reason why I am using the RICO Act!

The evidence