The Violations of Clean Air Act by Citgo and Those of Clean Water Act by Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox & ARPI

ARPI (Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc.) in 1983 destroyed 5 acres of wetlands and 20 acres of fresh-water lake without performing the mitigation program required by Clean Water Act. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), ACOE (Army Corps of Engineers) and the other regulatory agencies simply closed their eyes without taking any criminal or civil actions. The violations are ongoing because Anita L. Koop, et al. have never complied with the regulations. I filed a 60-Day Notices to Sue on June 14, 2007. See 60-DAY NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE (Complete Text) Posted on April 23, 2012. However, after 60 days of the notice, I did not file the civil action in the Federal District Court in that two agencies never returned the CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS. Since the violations are ongoing, there is no statute of limitations.

5 acres of such wetlands were filled up with the dirt dredged to form the

canals in Sunilandings Phase I without creating another 5 acres of wetlands.

 A 20-acre fresh water lake was filled with the dirt dredged to construct the

canals without creating another 20 acres of lake required by the Clean Water Act.

Likewise, I suggest that the DOJ and the Crime Victims’ attorneys probe into Citgo’s continuing Clean Air Act violations in addition to filing a PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS to vacate the VOID Order rendered by Rainey on April 30, 2014 for violating the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and the victims’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

 

 

The crimes committed by Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox & the non-existent Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc.

This is just an advance notice.

To be completed soon.

JUDGES JOHN D. RAINEY AND JUERGEN “SKIPPER” KOETTER: MY APOLOGIES FOR THE MERCILESS ATTACKS ON YOUR MISCONDUCT!

For damages inflicted on you, if any, you have to go to the fraudsters: Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox & their legally and factually non-existent Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc., who are the real perpetrators of all the crimes against me. 

This couple, Queen of Fraudsters and King of Foxes, are the foxiest, greediest, and the most deceitful criminals on earth!

 

You are unlucky to have been assigned my cases unless you are really in conspiracy with them, as suspected by some friends of mine!

 

It is said that a certain judge even bragged of being in their pockets. Was it you, Mr. Rainey, or you, Mr. Koetter?

 

Did they bribe you two or you did them favors because you are closely related or associated? Tell the truth, nothing but the truth!

  

 

 

All of my attacks are justifiable and reasonable based upon your injustice, unfairness, inequality, deliberate indifference, and reckless disregard for my legal and equitable rights in handling my causes of action.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

I AM FED UP, JOHN D. RAINEY. “SO ARE WE,” SAY CITGO’S CRIME VICTIMS!

 

160 × 115 – facebook.com

 

Rainey has never complied with the statutes requiring him to perform mandatory duties except 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). On 4/14/05 I filed a MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. He approved it on 2/13/06, after 10 months’ delay.

From then on until today, he has never complied with Section 1915(d), which provides in pertinent part: “The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.” In other words, none of the defendants in Civil Actions: 6:05-mc-00002 and V-06-78, 6:09-mc-11 Chen v. Cox, & 610-cv-00056 Chen v. Rainey have ever been served with Summons and my Complaints. As a result, none of the defendants have been before the court and the issues of controversy have never been presented before the court for adjudication. Thus, John D. Rainey and Janis Graham Jack have had neither subject matter jurisdiction nor personal jurisdiction over the above cases, and they both have committed treason. Under the Supreme Law of the Land, whenever a judge acts when the judge does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, the judge is engaged in an act of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5L.Ed 257 (1821).

Without subject matter jurisdiction, all the orders or judgments are VOID ab initio, and all my causes of action are subject to reinstatement under Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2), which provides that Plaintiff “may move for reinstatement of the case,” and, “upon good cause shown, the court shall reinstate the case.”

In the Order of 1/15/2008, Rainey stated in pertinent part: “The court will not reinstate Plaintiff’s complaints — regarding this matter.”

All the Orders and/or Judgments rendered in 6:05-mc-00002 and V-06-78, 6:09-mc-11 Chen v. Cox, & 610-cv-00056 are VOID ab initio for violating 28 USC Section 1915(d) and Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2), which make it a mandatory duty for Rainey to reinstate those cases. Despite my repeated requests for reinstatement of the Complaints, he denied them without giving any reason. Thus, my causes of action have been equitably tolled.

When I sued him on August 31, 2010, and asked him to recuse or disqualify himself, he refused and continued rendering VOID Orders. See PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE SIX COMPLAINTS Posted on April 22, 2012. On July 24, 2010, I was forced to sue him again, and he could not but assign the case to Janis Graham Jack, who conspired with him by giving me 2 minutes at her lunch break and throwing me out of the courtroom, which she usurped in complete absence of jurisdiction. PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE SIX COMPLAINTS FILED IN V-06-78 Posted on April 17, 2012.

My two TRO Motions were sent to Chief Judge Hayden Head on July 30, 2010, but were transferred to him on August 10, 2009. He sat on my emergency motions for 11.5 months, and on July 12, 2010, without having the Clerk serve process pursuant to 28 USC Section 1915(d), he issued a void MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as follows (See CHEN v. COX No. V-09-11. – Leagle.com | Leagle):

1. Plaintiff’s requests to proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. Nos. 1 & 16) are GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to return the $350 “borrowed check” to Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for a Court-Appointed Attorney (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Have All the Documents in this Case Sealed (Dkt. No. 11) is DENIED.

4. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED.

5. Plaintiff’s Motion Objecting to South Port Alto MUD Petition (Dkt. No. 9) is DENIED.

6. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Removal of Civil Rights Cases from the State Court to the District Court Pursuant to § 1443 (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED.

7. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion Suggesting Voluntary Recusal of Judges under Special Circumstances (Dkt No. 13) is DENIED.

8. Plaintiff is ORDERED file a concise complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 within 15 days after the date of this Order.³

9. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, or any other order of the Court, this action shall be dismissed.

VOID ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS

The above rulings are in complete absence of jurisdiction and are VOID ab initio. A void judgment has been termed mere waste paper, an absolute nullity; and all acts performed under it are also nullities. Again, it has been said to be in law no judgment at all, having no force or effect, conferring no rights, and binding nobody. It is good nowhere and bad everywhere, and neither lapse of time nor judicial action can impart validity. Commander v. Bryan, 123 S.W.2d 1008, (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth, 1938, n.w.h.); 34 Tex.Jur., Sec. 262, page 177; Maury v. Turner, 244 S.W. 809, (Tex.Com.App., 1922). Also, a void judgment has been defined as “one which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at anytime and at any place directly or collaterally.” Black’s Law Dictionary; Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., 80 S.W.2d 1087, (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland, 1935, writ ref.); Gentry v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 379 S.W.2d 114, 119, (Tex.Civ.App., Houston, 1964, writ ref., n.r.e., 386 S.W.2d 758).

If a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the judgment is void. Pifer v. Pifer, 31 N.C. App. 486, 229 S.E.2d 700, 702 (1976).

A judgment entered by a court which lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void. Marshall v. Marshall, 240 Neb. 322, 482 N.W.2d 1 (1992). Also, it is the longstanding rule that such a void judgment may be attacked at any time in any proceeding. Id. ; Drennen v. Drennen, 229 Neb. 204, 426 N.W.2d 252 (1988); Lammers Land & Cattle Co. v. Hans, 213 Neb. 243, 328 N.W.2d 759 (1983).

A judgment issued from a proceeding that violates a citizen’s right to due process is void. State v. Rehbein, 235 Neb. 536, 455 N.W.2d 821 (1990); State v. Von Dorn, 234 Neb. 93, 449 N.W.2d 530 (1989); State v. Ewert, 194 Neb. 203, 230 N.W.2d 609 (1975); In re Application of Maher, North v. Dorrance, 144 Neb. 484, 13 N.W.2d 653 (1944); In re Betts, 36 Neb. 282, 54 N.W. 524 (1893). A void judgment may be set aside at any time and in any proceeding. VonSeggern v. Willman, 244 Neb. 565, 508 N.W.2d 261 (1993); Marshall v. Marshall, 240 Neb. 322, 482 N.W.2d 1 (1992); State v. Ewert,; Ehlers v. Grove, 147 Neb. 704, 24 N.W.2d 866 (1946); Hayes County v. Wileman, 82 Neb. 669, 118 N.W. 478 (1908). ‘A void judgment may be attacked at any time in any proceeding.’”

Orders or “[j]udgments entered contrary to due process are void.” Neylan v. Vorwald, 121 Wis.2d 481, 488, 360

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 1-060(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). In my cases, Rainey violated 28 USC Section 1915(d), Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2) and my Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, making his Orders and Judgments VOID.

RECUSAL AND/OR DISQUALIFICATION

The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).

Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).

The above case law applicable to my cases should apply to USA v. Citgo, et al., too.

Rainey slept on the crime victims’ rights for seven long years after the jury’s conviction of Citgo. This is in violation of their right to speedy trial, Due Process and Equal Protection under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, making his purported MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER rendered on April 30, 2014 VOID ab initio.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

Can any judge in the world beat JOHN D. RAINEY by: 1) sitting on any TRO Motion for over 11.5 months?

 Your duty is the administration of justice.

Do you consider undue delay fair and just to the crime victims?

Time is of the essence, isn’t it, Mr. Rainey?

Can any judge in the world beat JOHN D. RAINEY by:

1) sitting on any TRO Motion for over 11.5 months without any action;

 How can you sit on my two TRO Motions for 11.5 months without any motion?

2) sleeping on the crime victims’ rights without sentencing for 7 years after the jury’s guilty verdict;

Are these Venezuela Bolivares that your law clerk is sleeping on for you,

Mr. Rainey? 

Oh, you have dollars for your clerk to sleep on while you sleep on litigants’ rights!

3) denying the victims’ right to restitution without a bench or jury trial because it’s too burdensome?

 Which of these gavels do you use most often, the honorable John D. Rainey?

 

 

 

 

 I have never lost my appetite for money and power, I must admit!

That is why Mr. Chen’s TRO Motions, the sentencing after the jury verdict, and the restitution for the 800 designated crime victims are of no importance! 

None of the above! I like this one:

Sorry, Corpus Christi low-income families and Mexican Americans, you can never outbid Citgo. Why waste your time asking jurors to decide how much you are owed? It might take another seven years. By then, those who have cancer may have died. Why bother? 

Long story short. Not to mention the bid price, can you afford to send me a Christmas gift like this?

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

REPLY TO CITGO’S CRIME VICTIMS’ INQUIRIES RE: RAINEY’S RESTITUTION ORDER IS VOID; IT MUST BE VACATED!

Please GOOGLE judge juergen “skipper” koetter’s corruption photos to get about 50 LINKS to this BLOG!   Dripping water can pierce through rocks. Rest assured that sooner or later, truth will prevail!

Deuteronomy 16:19 — You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.

Mr. Rainey: Even if you are blindfolded, you can still feel the stacks of banknotes and hear the jingling of millions of gold coins!

RE: RAINEY’S RESTITUTION ORDER IS VOID; IT MUST BE VACATED!

REPLY TO CITGO’S CRIME VICTIMS’ INQUIRIES:

MANDAMUS under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 may be time-barred, but a VOID Order or Judgment must be set aside. This statute says an appeal must be made within 14 days to the Court of Appeals following the denial. This is a vague statement so can you define the circumstances under which this is law? I know Void orders would be unaffected but from what I read, Void judgments are matter of court opinion. So far no one has agreed that what they did in your case represents an actual VOID judgment or at least it was never declared Void by anyone. So the catch all thing in this statute is if justice has not been done.

“I think your attacks are the only way that is effective, but I doubt Rainey will suffer much from the attacks. He just ignores them.” 

18 U.S.C. § 3771: 14 days’ limitation is applicable to this Crime Victims’ Rights Act only.

The following case law should supersede the 14 days’ limitation of 18 U.S.C. § 3771: 

Rainey’s violations are against the victims’ right to due process protected by the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. As a result, the restitution order is VOID ab initio. It must be vacated.  “Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 278.” Please refer to: Void Orders: Fraud Upon the Court, No Jurisdiction/No Authority, No Due Process, No Res Judicata, No Laches, No Appeal Necessary Posted on June 15, 2012.

“Void judgment is one rendered by court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in manner inconsistent with due process,” U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5.

The requirements of due process not only include notice, but also include an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way, and judicial review. Grannis v. Ordean, 234U.S. 385, 394 (1914).

Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh, 91US503,23 LEd 398.

Evans v Corporate Services, 207 Ill.App.3d 297, 565 N.E.2d 724 (2nd Dist. 1990) (“a void judgment, order or decree may be attacked at any time or in any court, either directly or collaterally.”)

Oak Park Nat. Bank v Peoples Gas Light & Coke Col, 46 Ill.App.2d 385, 197 N.E.2d 73, 77 (1st Dist. 1964) (“that judgment is void and may be attacked at any time in the same or any other court, by the parties or by any other person who is affected thereby.”).

My federal case is crystal clear. Please read my Open Letter to Judge John D. Rainey and Judge Janis Graham Jack of Texas, Addressing and Suing Them as Private Citizens Posted on June 10, 2012. I count on Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2) and 28 USC Section 1915(d) and emphasize the word SHALL, which means it’s mandatory for the judge to comply with the specific statutes.

My state court cases center on Koetter’s six VOID Orders/Judgments, which are undeniable.

He just colluded with Plaintiffs’ attorney Randall W. Hill, who lied under oath, committed perjury and fraud on the court.

 

My attacks are not entirely ignored. Take a look at the 150+ persons tagged. Read JUDGE JUERGEN (SKIPPER) KOETTER: My readers were wrong! So was I! Posted on July 15, 2014, and PUBLIC ADMONITION by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, (See 1) Victoria AdvocateHYPERLINK “http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2013/sep/26/judge_admonished_jrp_092713_220865/” | Judicial HYPERLINK “http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2013/sep/26/judge_admonished_jrp_092713_220865/”

conduct board reprimands judge; 2) PUBLIC ADMONITION of HONORABLE JUERGEN (SKIPPER) KOETTER; 3) [PDF] “HYPERLINK “http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tx/Hon_Juergen_Koetter_Public_Admonition.pdf”Skipper

HYPERLINK “http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tx/Hon_Juergen_Koetter_Public_Admonition.pdf”” HYPERLINK “http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tx/Hon_Juergen_Koetter_Public_Admonition.pdf”Koetter).

Job 13:9 Would it turn out well if He examined you? Could you deceive Him as you might deceive a mortal? Mr. Rainey: Could you? The Citgo crime victims might have been deceived by you, could you deceive Him and your conscience?

Job 4:8 As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it. Don’t you believe that you who plowed evil and you who sowed trouble would reap it, John?

The truth is between your stories and

my stories. The judge is supposed to be neutral!

 

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

John D. Rainey violated Crime Victims’ Rights Act: The victims’ right to full and timely restitution was denied!

Rainey’s violations are against the victims’ right to due process protected by the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. As a result, the restitution order is VOID ab initio. It must be vacated.

The requirements of due process not only include notice, but also include an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way, and judicial review. Grannis v. Ordean, 234U.S. 385, 394 (1914).

Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh, 91US503,23 LEd 398.

The crime victims’ right to restitution was denied without any hearing because Rainey thought it was too troublesome.

He had the right to delay sentencing for seven years without explanation, but the restitution recipients could not have a day in court to have a fair, just, meaningful hearing?

Crime Victims’ Rights Act

18 U.S.C. § 3771. Crime victims’ rights

(a) RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS.–A crime victim has the following rights:

(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused: The victims have the right to be reasonably protected from Citgo’s air pollution.

 Why didn’t Rainey live with the victims’ family for a week to have personal experience in breathing the toxic air?

(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.

(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding. Denial of restitution without a bench or jury trial violated the victims’ right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, 

(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding: Rainey’s statement that the jury would “unduly delay the sentencing process,” and the need for a speedy ruling “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims” denied the victims the right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving sentencing, which includes restitution.

(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.

(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law: Rainey’s seven years’ delay after the jury’s guilty verdict to announce the sentencing and $0 restitution violated the victims’  right to full and timely restitution!   

(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. Seven years’ delay does violate “the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay,” doesn’t it? 

(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy: The untimely sentencing and denial of restitution without a factual finding or a jury trial is unfair, unjust, inequitable.  

Rainey’s statement that the jury would “unduly delay the sentencing process,” and the need for a speedy ruling “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims” is in contravention of this rule.

 

RESISTANCE!                                                  CORRUPTION!

Each crime victim is an underdog fighting tooth and nail against repression, unfairness, and injustice!

(b) RIGHTS AFFORDED.–In any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a). Before making a determination described in subsection (a)(3), the court shall make every effort to permit the fullest attendance possible by the victim and shall consider reasonable alternatives to the exclusion of the victim from the criminal proceeding. The reasons for any decision denying relief under this chapter shall be clearly stated on the record.

Rainey did not comply with these mandatory duties to  ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a). 

The above violations are against the victims’ right to due process protected by the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. As a result, the restitution order is VOID ab initio.

MANDAMUS under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 may be time-barred, but a VOID Order or Judgment must be set aside. See “Void judgment is one rendered by court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in manner inconsistent with due process,” U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5; “Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 278.” Please refer to: Void Orders: Fraud Upon the Court, No Jurisdiction/No Authority, No Due Process, No Res Judicata, No Laches, No Appeal Necessary Posted on June 15, 2012.

Mr. Rainey: The more I think about this case, the more I suspect that you might have been playing cards with the Citgo executives just as Koetter did with Roberts and other attorneys! The difference is that this case involved $1.8 billion while Koetter merely received $5,000 bribe, reward, gift in the guise of campaign contribution!

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

John D. Rainey rendered unlawful, irrational, inhuman orders, risking being thrown behind BARS! Why?

A question for Citgo executives: I have never seen so many gold bars in my life. How many bars can $1.8 billion buy? I don’t mean bars of soap or bars offering drinks! I mean gold bars that could entice the corrupt judge John D. Rainey to render unlawful, irrational, inhuman orders risking being thrown behind BARS!

    

If there had been no bribery, how could you have known in 2010 that instead of $2 billion, the fine was going to be $2 million plus $45,000 for the migratory birds (not the resident birds) to be announced in February 2014? And didn’t you know that the victims (resident human beings) injured by you and your corporation were going to get $0 of restitution owed them, no matter how serious their health conditions were? And what about those who died or are going to slowly die of cancer, e.g., Connie Gonzalez: breast cancer; her husband: prostate cancer and heart problems; Thelma Morgan: pneumonia; her husband died of colon cancer, Diana Bazan died of breast cancer on December 29, 1999, among others. See Oil giant Citgo gets off easy in criminal case | Center for …; Corpus Christi: Hillcrest Residents Exposed to Benzene. © Steve Lerner 2007
Steve Lerner is Research Director at Commonweal, a non-profit located in northern California that focuses on environmental health issues. Posted: 24 July 2007.

Mr. Rainey:  Have you ever read these two articles? You heard the crime victims’ testimonies under oath, but did you listen? You must be a blind, deaf, cold-blooded, stony-hearted, murder-minded judge to have denied the restitution owed them by the criminals who profited $1 billion in the ten-year period.

The migratory birds must be blind to have flown into the polluted air space to get killed. They could have taken different routes for their migration needs. It was not all Citgo’s fault. Yet, they were awarded $45,000. What for, Mr. Rainey?

  

The 800 crime victims are low-income, minority residents. They cannot afford to move.

It is not unreasonable to demand that the polluters help them relocate to a non-polluted area. But sitting on the bench, Rainey had the power, failed to protect their interests, turned them down, and let them down.

I urge personal injuries attorneys to represent these victims, particularly those who died or are dying of cancer and other toxic air-related diseases, to have justice served!

****************************************************************************

Are human lives less valuable than those migratory birds that flew through the polluted air voluntarily?

The 800 designated residents/crime victims breathed the toxic chemicals in the air produced by Citgo involuntarily!

Exodus 23:8: GOD’S WORD® Translation Never take a bribe, because bribes blind those who can see and deny justice to those who are in the right.

“Take all the robes of all the good judges that have ever lived on the face of the earth, and they would not be large enough to cover the iniquity of one corrupt judge.”

Henry Ward Beecher quotes (Liberal US Congregational minister, 1813–1887)

John D. Rainey, Janis Graham Jack, and Juergen Skipper Koetter fit the bill! I can swear under oath!

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

John D. Rainey is subject to Judicial Council’s investigation for violating Rule 52(a) (1) & 58(a) & CANON 3 (A)(1)(4) &(5)!

Rainey also violated the Crime Victims Rights Act. See the paragraph on Crime Victims Rights Act below.

Rainey replaced the jury as a fact finder without finding any fact about the degree of Citgo’s reprehensibility and the appropriate amount the victims are owed. The jury convicted Citgo of criminal and civil violations of the Clean Air Act seven years ago. Rainey, as a fact finder, unduly delayed the sentencing until February 2014, and failed to perform factual findings on Citgo’s degree of reprehensibility, which would entitle the victims to both compensatory and punitive damages. Even if the compensatory damages are nominal, the punitive damages would be substantial in view of the degree of Citgo’s reprehensibility. It is groundless and irresponsible to state that the jury would “unduly delay the sentencing process,” and the need for a speedy ruling “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims.” It is a reversible error to draw conclusions of law in denying the victims any restitution without any findings of fact after seven long years’ delay.

Furthermore, Rainey’s letter addressing the issue of restitution was in violation of Rule 52(a) (1) & 58(a) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule.

Rule 52(a) (1) In General. In an action tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately. The findings and conclusions may be stated on the record after the close of the evidence or may appear in an opinion or a memorandum of decision filed by the court. Judgment must be entered under Rule 58.

Rule 58(a) provides in pertinent part: Every judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a separate document.

Rainey’s 4/30/2014 letter did not find the special facts about the degree of Citgo’s reprehensibility and the appropriate amount of restitution Citgo’s victims were owed. It merely stated its purported conclusions of law that having a jury panel figure out an appropriate dollar amount would “unduly delay the sentencing process,” and that the need for a speedy ruling “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims” without any findings of fact.

Rainey’s seven long years’ delayed ruling certainly violated CANON 3 (A)(5), which provides: “A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.”

Rainey’s lack of factual findings also violated CANON 3 (A)(1) & (4): (1) A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism. (4) A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law.

Rainey’s violations of Rule 52(a) (1) & 58(a) make the letter VOID ab initio. His violations of CANON 3 (A)(1)(4) & (5) subject him to the investigation of JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. Rule 3.1 Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 authorizes complaints against United States circuit, district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges who have “engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of business of the courts.”

Based on the grounds stated above, I suggest that Plaintiffs’ attorneys and those of DOJ and EPA file an appeal, or, if too late, file a PETITION FOR MANDAMUS to vacate Rainey’s VOID Orders/Judgments. See PREPARE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITHOUT A LAWYER posted on July 16, 2014.

I’m guilty; I admit violating Rule 52(a)(1), 58(a); CANON 3 (A)(1)(4) & (5)!

Additionally, on April 30, 2014, you violated the Crime Victims Rights Act, by depriving the 800 eligible crime victims of the restitution they deserved, and by unduly delaying rendering your VOID Order for seven years after the jury’s guilty verdict in June 2007. Why did you have to torture them by forcing them to submit voluminous legal papers, testify under oath,  and  nervously wait for nothing for seven long years? Why did you stage impressive performances in the courtroom by getting the prosecutors, the victim specialists and the federal and state investigators to testify to pacify the victims at the expense of taxpayers’ money?

I bet all your court hearings were merely a façade, a deceptive appearance. You hid your evil intent behind a false front of legality.

“Texas state investigators testified at the trial that they traced emissions that caused burning eyes, sore throat, difficulty breathing and other acute health effects back to the tanks on several occasions. The emissions from the tanks were detected in Oak Park and Hillcrest in the form of strong gaseous type odors.” “CITGO’s illegal and careless operation of two massive tanks without emission controls exposed residents – the company’s neighbors – in the Oak Park and Hillcrest communities of Corpus Christi to unacceptable health impacts from toxic chemical emissions,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Robert G. Dreher of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “I am grateful to the prosecutors, the victim specialists and the federal and state investigators for fighting tirelessly for justice for these residents who deserve to breathe clean air and to be protected under the nation’s Clean Air Act.”

“Citgo executives have known since 2012 what the maximum sentence would be.” See Citgo’s petty cash drawer must be hurting after judge …. This is ex parte communication forbidden by law. That was exactly why Judge Skipper Koetter was publicly admonished. See 1) JUDGE JUERGEN (SKIPPER) KOETTER: My readers were wrong! So was I! Posted on July 15, 2014; 2) Victoria Advocate | Judicial conduct board reprimands judge; 3) PUBLIC ADMONITION of HONORABLE JUERGEN (SKIPPER) KOETTER; 4) “Skipper” Koetter.

Exodus 23:8: GOD’S WORD® Translation
Never take a bribe, because bribes blind those who can see and deny justice to those who are in the right.

There must have been bribery involved in this $2 billion robbery hidden in the courtroom drama. If you have any inside information on BRIBERY and CORRUPTION, illegal bribes or illegal kickbacks in particular, please don’t hesitate to take advantage of the Whistleblower Reward. You have the potential of collecting 10% to 30% of the monetary sanctions including disgorged funds. For further information, please visit International Illegal Bribery Schemes and International Whistleblower Reward Information   Posted on January 30, 2013; Olympus Has Fallen: The Whistleblower Strikes Back — This article introduces: Whistleblower Security, a 24/7 whistleblower hotline, and a complimentary copy of eBook for downloading.

Why did you keep the crime victims in the dark, John?

 

Your seven months’ YEARS’ delay in sentencing the criminal corporation, Citgo, and your denial of restitution owed to the crime victims constituted a mockery of justice, the dishonorable John D. Rainey!

 

Mr. Rainey: For seven years, we waited for the restitution promised by the Crime Victims Rights Act.

You have been performing shell game scam with cups and we all ended up losing everything!

We’re tired of your broken promises!

We want facts!                                    We want jurors to find facts!

 

Tell us the truth!   No more lies!   We want facts!

 

 

 

Stop fraud!                                   Stop fraud!

 

 

 

 

 

Luke 12:2 There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.

Psalm 101:  A deceitful person will not sit in my house; a liar will not remain in my presence.

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

Rainey usurped jury’s role! Citgo’s behavior is as reprehensible as that of Actos maker!

Actos Lawsuit Results in Landmark $9 Billion Punitive Damages Verdict!

Comparing these two cases, you will see how callous, arbitrary, and unreasonable Rainey’s denial of restitution to the crime victims is!

Can you imagine for the same crime the migratory birds are awarded $45,000 and the 800 victims’ loss of health, lives and property values are worth $0?

Court records show that Citgo became the subject of a criminal environmental investigation by the Department of Justice and the federal grand jury in early 2003. A Texas jury found the company guilty in June 2007 of knowingly allowing the cancer-causing-carcinogen benzene, as well as other toxic fumes, into the air in the city of Corpus Christi, Texas, for about a decade.

 

David Wilma, the former EPA criminal investigator, said that the typical corporate case takes between two to three-and-a-half years, compared to two months for small businesses.

On April 14, 2011, Rainey granted Citgo’s motions to strike certain victims’ testimonies taken from nearby residents and environmental officials as part of the pre-sentencing process.

Almost four years after the June 2007 jury conviction of Citgo for both civil and criminal violations of the Clean Air Act, residents of the Refinery Row communities of Dona Park, Hillcrest and Oak Park, together with local environmental groups, in January 2011, drafted a petition calling on Rainey either to sentence the company or say publicly why the process was taking so long. However, Rainey did not take any action until February 2014.

For 10 years, from the 1994 to 2003, the victimized Citgo neighbors were breathing toxic chemicals like the cancer-causing benzene. The DOJ and EPA wanted Citgo to pay the maximum $2 billion in fines, including $30 million for relocation, medical expenses, and restitution for the 800+ victims, similar to the $20 billion fund that BP set aside in 2010 for the victims of its massive spill. However, Rainey fined the company $2 million, and another $45,000 for harming the migratory birds.

Then, on April 30, 2014, afraid of facing the victims, Rainey rendered his order in writing instead of announcing it in open court.  Against his conscience, he awarded them nothing. He could and should have had a jury panel figure out an appropriate dollar amount. Instead, he arbitrarily ruled that doing so would “unduly delay the sentencing process.” The need for a speedy ruling “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims,” he wrote. Speedy ruling? Is seven years’ delay a “speedy ruling?” Seven long years’ ruling certainly violated CANON 3 (A)(5), which provides: “A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.” The synonyms for promptly are: expeditiously, hastily, instantly, quickly, rapidly, speedily, swiftly, pronto, at once. Do you know the meanings of speedy and promptly?   In contrast, the Actos case took more than 12 weeks of trial, and a Louisiana jury a few hours to return a verdict, awarding $1.5 million in compensatory damages and an additional $9 billion in punitive damages for the plaintiffs. In Citgo’s case, Rainey’s seven years’ delay is unforgivable, not to mention usurping the jury right or duty to award compensatory damages for the actual harms done to the victims and punitive damages to deter Citgo and other environmental violators.

I accuse Citgo of behaving as reprehensibly as the makers of Actos in that they both knowingly violated the relevant laws.

“The makers of the diabetes drug Actos withheld information from consumers and the medical community about the risk of users developing bladder cancer. They actively tried to hide the drug’s links to bladder cancer and successfully did so for several years. The drug makers tried to keep the public unaware.”

“Citgo learned within months after the two tanks went into operation that the upstream oil water separators did not work.” “Citgo’s neighboring residents were exposed to harmful chemicals from Citgo’s Corpus Christi, Texas, refinery from 1994 to 2003.”

Compared with the jury verdict of Actos, awarding $1.5 million compensatory damages and $9 billion punitive damages to the victims,  Rainey was erroneous in stating that the requirement to pay a penalty in excess of the maximum fine is illegal, impermissible.  

Though more than 800 of the neighboring residents had been classified as crime victims, eligible for financial reward under the Crime Victims Rights Act, after seven years’ waiting, Rainey’s April 30, 2014 ruling deprived them of any restitution they deserved. 

Do you call your denial of their legitimate rights legal, permissible, Mr. Rainey?

A proposed $44 million contribution to seven community service projects set as a condition of probation for the companies was ruled impermissible by Rainey because it exceeded the statutory maximum fine of $2.09 million. What about punitive damages to deter future violations?

“CITGO learned within months after the two tanks went into operation that the upstream oil water separators did not work.”  “Citgo knowingly disregarded safety. Consequently, the tanks emitted benzene, a known cancer-causing carcinogen, into the air, at the serious health risk of the poor residents, who cannot afford to move or hire an attorney to fight fore their rights.

Isaiah 1:17 New Living Translation: Learn to do good. Seek justice. Help the oppressed. Defend the cause of orphans. Fight for the rights of widows.

**************************************************************************

I have no health insurance!

I expected to have paid $200,000 owed the hospital

out of Citgo’s restitution!

                                                                          My dad died of colon cancer

                                                                          because of Citgo’s air pollution, 

                                                                          do you know?   

           Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

William Butler Yeats

I am falling deeper in debt, doc!

Without restitution, how can I collect medical expenses and lost wages?

 

Actos Lawsuit Results in Landmark $9 Billion Punitive …

www.aboutlawsuits.com/actos-lawsuit-landmark-punitive–damage-verdic…

by Austin Kirk – Apr 8, 2014 – A Louisiana jury has handed down a landmark $9 billion Actos bladder … $1.5 million in compensatory damages and an additional $9 billion in … by Actos and that the company did due dillegence in providing bladder cancer warnings. … after the jury determined that both Actos and the plaintiff’s history as a …

Following more than 12 weeks of trial, it took a Louisiana jury only a few hours to return a verdict in the first federal case involving the development of bladder cancer from side effects of Actos, awarding $1.5 million in compensatory damages and an additional $9 billion in punitive damages against Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly.

The landmark jury award, which may be the largest ever in a pharmaceutical product liability lawsuit, came in a case brought by Terrance Allen, who alleged that the makers of the diabetes drug Actos withheld information from consumers and the medical community about the risk of users developing bladder cancer.

Testimony and evidence was presented during the trial that suggested that Takeda Pharmaceuticals actively tried to hide the drug’s links to bladder cancer and successfully did so for several years. The trial included internal memos and communications, as well as scientific studies that Allen’s attorneys argued the drug maker tried to keep the public unaware.

Plaintiffs Awarded $9 Billion in Punitive Damages in Actos Litigation …

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/08/prweb12066744.htm

4 days ago … Plaintiffs Awarded $9 Billion in Punitive Damages in Actos Litigation Argue Settlement is Fair, Parker Waichman LLP Comments.

The jury in the Actos bellwether trial found for the plaintiffs indicating that the plaintiffs were due $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $9 billion in punitive damages. The plaintiffs have also indicated that said there is a significant amount of evidence supporting the jury’s finding of inexcusable behavior, which included Takeda’s not complying with a 2002 litigation hold to preserve evidence, wrote the National Law Journal. The judge found that Takeda acted in bad faith by destroying evidence that revealed it was aware of Actos’ potential health risks.

Plaintiffs: $9B Verdict Against Drugmakers is Fair | National …

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/…/Plaintiffs-9B-Verdict–Against–Drugmake…

Jul 28, 2014 – Plaintiffs who won $9 billion in punitive damages in the first federal bellwether trial over diabetes drug Actos said the verdict should be upheld …

 

The plaintiffs said there is much evidence to support the jury’s finding of reprehensible behavior, and that deterrence of future bad behavior should warrant upholding the award.

 

**************************************************************************

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks to Citgo and Rainey, we are now homeless!

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen