FFL facing revocation sets up website

See also "Discussion Board: Thoughts on Mass v. EPA"
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/04/discussion_boar_3.html

NEWS REPORTS HERE:

Supreme Court Rejects Bush in Global Warming Debate

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=sci_tech&id=5177181

"The Supreme Court's decision, in Massachusetts v. EPA, repudiates the Bush administration's do-nothing policy on global warming," said David Doniger, Natural Resources Defense Council's attorney in the case.

Court Rules Against EPA

http://www.tothecenter.com/news.php?readmore=1453

"Massachusetts v. EPA, 05-1120, was filed in order to [FORCE THE FEDERAL AGENCY] to limit emissions from new cars and trucks by 12 states and 13 environmental groups, including California and Massachusetts."

GOLDSTEIN v. VAN DE KAMP, (9th Cir., No. 06-55537 Mar. 28, 2007)

http://blogs.enotes.com/decision-blog/2007-03/big-prosecutorial-immunity-decision/

[elected Los Angeles County District Attorney John Van De Kamp and his Chief Deputy District Attorney Curt Livesay] are NOT entitled to absolute immunity from suit based on allegations that they FAILED TO DEVELOP POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, AND FAILED TO ADEQUATELY TRAIN AND SUPERVISE THEIR SUBORDINATES, TO FULFILL THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION of ensuring that information regarding jailhouse informants was shared among prosecutors in their office. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972). For the reasons discussed in this opinion, we hold that they are not, and we therefore affirm the opinion of the district court."

". . . we hold that the district court correctly determined that Goldstein's allegations against Van De Kamp and Livesay describe CONDUCT IN FURTHERANCE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RATHER THAN PROSECUTORIAL FUNCTION. Van De Kamp and Livesay have therefore failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the allegations against them are so "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process" that absolute immunity is warranted. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED."

HAMRICK COMENTARY:

Applying Massachusetts v EPA from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Goldstein case from the 9th Circuit can we now "FORCE" BATFE, US COAST GUARD, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, through civil litigation TO DEVELOP POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, AND TO ADEQUATELY TRAIN AND SUPERVISE THEIR SUBORDINATES, TO FULFILL THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION in regard to our Second Amendment rights under PARKER, EMERSON, and under the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AUGUST 24, 2004 MEMORANDUM OPINION ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV! I am, however, a U.S. merchant seaman with a civil RICO Act case for Second Amendment against the United States (and recently added the United Nations as lead defendant) languishing in the federal courts for the last 4 years, 8 months because I don't back down from a fight.

Because my case is pushing for the right to [openly] keep and bear arms in intrastate and interstate travel, a.k.a., National Open Carry Handgun, my case is ignored by the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation.

As a U.S. merchant seaman I have "concrete interests" in the Second Amendment right to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate and interestate travel, and in international travel as a seaman under maritime law in regard to my right to self-defense against pirates in piracy waters "without meeting all the normal standards for redressability and immediacy."

My "procedural right" under 33 C.F.R. § 1.05–60 Negotiated Rulemaking provides my Secon Amendment case with standing because there is the distinct possibility that my requested relief will prompt the injujry-causing party (the U.S. Coast Guard) to reconsider the decision that allegedly harmed the litigant (me).

The U.S. District Court denied my Motion to enter into "Negotiated Rulemaking" with the U.S. Coast Guard and 40 other agencies of the U.S. Government in lieu of Motion to Dismiss under the Special Procedures clause of Rule 16(c)(9) & (12) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The above brand new U.S. Supreme Court case on Standing provides me with more ammunition to fight the corrupt judicial system.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/

http://blogs.enotes.com/decision-blog/

The two blogs above are my means of catching useful opinions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeals which provide me with new arguments to apply to my Second Amendment case. In this manner I have less need of an attorney in the practical sense but I still need an attorney in the political sense just to impress the apparently corrupt judge. But even with this honed procedure my Motions are still denied. Even so, I collect these denials as evidence of judicial bias and misconduct.