The defendants have the right to a speedy trial; the victims have the right to “proceedings free from unreasonable delay.” Normally it is detrimental to the defendants when the trial is prolonged. However, in USA v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, because of Rainey’s bias, prejudice, discrimination against the low-income, minority crime victims, and partiality, favoritism for the Multi-Billion Dollar Company, the seven-year delay of sentencing, the total denial of restituion for the victims, the violations of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments to the United States Constitution, among others, make the proceedings invalid and all the ORDERS/JUDGMENTS rendered in connection with the case VOID ab initio.
I urge the victims’ counsel and the Government to file a joint or separate PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS to have the Fifth Circuit compel Rainey to vacate all the VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS. Then, file another PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT pursuant to Rule 1-041(E)(2) of Rules Enabling Act, which provides that Plaintiff “may move for reinstatement of the case,” and, “[u]pon good cause shown, the court shall reinstate the case.” Please refer to: PREPARE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITHOUT A LAWYER Posted on July 16, 2014.
“If a court’s decision is plainly contrary to a statute or the constitution, the court will be held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the judgment void for Rule 60(B) purposes, even if the court had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip., 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1995). See [PDF] 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN …. Since he violated the victims’ statutory and constitutional rights, his rulings are all void, null, and without any legal force.
He had presided over the Citgo case without power or jurisdiction since August 9, 2006 when the Government filed its original ten count indictment against CITGO Petroleum Corporation, et al. He has wasted enormous judicial resources and tax payers’ money and is liable civilly and criminally. If I were one of the victims, I would sue him for violations of the victims’ civil rights under Bivens action instead of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents :: 403 U.S ….
TO BE CONTINUED.
Paul Chen
MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments 