Rainey Misapplied the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA) Instead of Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA)

The intentional misapplication of VWPA instead of MVRA essentially deprived Citgo’s crime victims of the “right to full and timely restitution as provided in law” under the CVRA.

Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A

U.S. v. Visinaiz, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1314 (D. Utah 2004):

This case focused on the issue of lost income awards in homicide cases under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) and the possible effect of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), on the MVRA. The court also noted that the passage of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) reinforced its decision to award lost income, and that legislative history endorsed an “expansive definition of restitution.” Furthermore, the intention of the “right to full and timely restitution as provided in law” under the CVRA “means that existing restitution laws will be more effective.” 

In re W.R. Huff Asset Management Co., LLC, 409 F.3d 555, 558–64 (2d Cir. 2005) 

This case seems to have been the first appellate decision involving an action brought under the CVRA. A group of victims filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, and demanded that a settlement agreement in a forfeiture action involving a large, complex securities fraud be vacated. The government entered into a proposed settlement agreement and set up a $715 million victim compensation fund. To participate in the fund, victims had to give up separate civil actions. Two groups of victims were against the proposed settlement in that the compensation fund would be inadequate and that their right to “full and timely restitution” under § 3771(a)(6) would be breached. Victims also argued that the government did not adequately consult with them before entering into the settlement agreement pursuant to § 3771(a)(5), and that they were not “treated with fairness,” under § 3771(a)(8).

Finding that in view of the complexity of the case and thousands of potential victims, the settlement was considered a reasonable compromise envisioned by § 3771(d)(2) to avoid “unduly complicat[ing] or prolong[ing] the proceedings,” the district court ruled for the settlement agreement. 

The Appellate Court held that “a district court’s determination under the CVRA should be reviewed for abuse of discretion,” that the relevant law was the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, which specifically allows for less than full restitution in a case with so many victims as to “make restitution impracticable” and complex issues that could “complicate or prolong the sentencing process.”  

The court also held that the CVRA requires the district court to provide victims with an opportunity to be heard concerning a proposed settlement agreement, and that it provided the victims with a full opportunity to do so in this case. 

The court further held that “the district court in no way treated the victims unfairly or without ‘respect for [their] dignity and privacy,’ 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8), but rather considered the factors of numerosity of victims, the uncertainty of recovery, and the prospect of unduly prolonging the sentencing proceedings, which Congress has required the court to consider when adopting the settlement. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(2), which provides in pertinent part: In a case where the court finds that the number of crime victims makes it impracticable to accord all of the crime victims the rights described in subsection (a), the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings. 

The court finally denied the petition for mandamus.

Comparing the above two cases with Rainey’s $0 restitution in USA v. CITGO makes it clear that Rainey abused discretion, misused his judicial power, and deprived the 800+ crime victims of their “right to full and timely restitution as provided in law” under the CVRA. They could have been allowed for less than full restitution but not to the total denial of any restitution.  Rainey misinterpreted 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(2); “the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings” means he must fashion or think of a reasonable procedure to give the victims full and timely restitution that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings.” It does not give him the authority to strip the 800+ victims of the full restitution owed them by the criminal entity, i.e., CITGO. 

* fashion = contrive = form or make (something) in a skillful or clever way = form or think of (a plan, method, etc.) See www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fashion.

In response to Section 3771(d)(2) of the CVRA, which provides that in cases involving a large number of victims, “the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings,” the court noted “victims’ rights under the CVRA begin well before a conviction; thus, the status of ‘victim’ may be based on allegations rather than proof.” See U.S. v. Saltsman, No. 07-CR-641 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2007). This is a sensible, well-reasoned, well-thought-out answer to Section 3771(d)(2)’s requirement that “the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure” in light of the lapse of time.

Restitution in the criminal arena refers to an affirmative performance by the defendant that benefits either the victim of the crime or the general public. If a victim can be identified, a judge will order the defendant to make restitution to the victim. See TheFreeDictionary. It would be tolerable if the restitution were less than full, but $0 restitution made to the crime victims is irrational, preposterous, off-the-wall!

In reviewing Rainey’s MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER of 4/30/2014, relevant case law, and statutes, I have found numerous flaws in his so-called OPINION, which was a cover your ass design to avoid taking real responsibility for his undue seven-year delay and unprecedented $0 restitution. Both are undoubtedly record-breaking in the history of litigation, be it western or eastern! He deserves to be listed in Guinness World Records for his ultimate record-breaking facts & achievements, albeit disgraceful, reprehensible, and impeachable.

“Much like restitution for medical expenses, the Court would be required to determine issues of fact related to exposure, proximate cause, potential alternative causes, and accurate computation of loss for each item described above, effectively turning each request for restitution into a separate tort case. Moreover, despite the Court’s request to at least identify the type of evidence upon which they would rely to show causation and proof of loss, neither the Government nor the victims making these restitution requests have identified what evidence they would offer to support these requests. The Court finds that the “complication and prolongation of the sentencing process resulting from the fashioning of an order of restitution” for the miscellaneous restitution requests set forth above “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims,” and that the “magnitude of expected future harm can[not] be reasonably estimated.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(1)(B)(ii); U.S.S.G. § 8B1.2(b). Accordingly, the Government’s request for a trust fund to cover restitution requests made by victims other than the Community Members is DENIED. 

“On February 5, 2014, the Court sentenced CITGO to a fine of $2,045,000.00—the maximum fine allowed by law—and further stated that because of the complex issues involved with restitution, the Court would issue a written decision on the issue of restitution within 90 days. That decision is set forth herein.” See 06-563 – USA v. CITGO Petroleum Corporation et al.

Rainey unreasonably demanded causation and proof of loss and ignored the mandatory duty that “the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings,” that “the CITGO crime victims’ rights under the CVRA begin well before the June 27, 2007 conviction, i.e., between 1994 and 2003, that victims’ memories may have faded, evidence lost,  people died, etc., and that “the status of ‘victim’ may be based on allegations rather than proof,” a reasonable procedure fashioned in U.S. v. Saltsman. Furthermore, postponing the issue of restitution for 90 days by issuing a written decision without reasonably hearing the victims in person violated CVRA. “The CVRA gives victims the right to speak directly to the judge at sentencing.” The phrase “to be reasonably heard” is ambiguous, but the legislative history “makes it clear that the CVRA created a right to be heard in person.” “The court concluded that a victim’s right to speak is mandatory, and is not subject to the discretion of the court unless such a large number of victims are involved that the court’s ability to function effectively would be threatened.” U.S. v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1343–45 (D. Utah 2005). When a large number of victims are involved, isn’t it reasonable to have some representatives exercise the right to be heard in person by attending the 4/30/2014 rendition of restitution order? Why shut them out completely to hide in the chambers? Shame, cowardice, guilt?

He acted in ways considered unethical and violated his obligations of impartial conduct as a judicial officer. His judicial misconduct includes “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts; using the judge’s office to obtain special treatment for his favorite defendants, e.g., Citgo, Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox, among others. In 2008 some friends of mine, seeing Rainey’s undue delay and no service of process under 28 U.S.C. §1915(d), insisted on my subscribing to ancestry.com to investigate the relationship between the couple of fraud and the corrupt John Delay Rainey. I will certainly do so when I am ready to file a PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS to request that the 5^th Circuit compel him to vacate all the VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS rendered in my civil actions.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

* Click Images for judge skipper koetter’s corruption, and you will see 12 photos. Click any one of them,  wait awhile, and it will take you to 70+ images linking to my BLOG. Have these given you sleepless nights, Skipper and John?

Comparing John Delay Rainey’s Citgo $0 restitution order with the jury awards in similar cases

Let’s compare  Rainey’s Citgo $0 restitution with some jury awards and how other judges handle similar cases:

* Rainey’s law has been very successful in denying the crime victims access to the court for redress of grievances under the 1st Amendment, the due process and equal protection right under the 5th Amendment, the speedy criminal jury trial right under the 6th Amendment, the civil jury trial right under the 7th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Rule 38. Right to a Jury Trial; Demand of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. His handling of Citgo’s case exactly followed RAINEY’S LAW: NO.1 DELAY 2. IGNORE MANDATORY DUTIES 3. ABUSE DISCRETION 4. DENY RELIEF OR RESTITUTION, and also successfully denied the crime victims (a)(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay under Crime Victims’ Rights Act.  In all my Motions, I always put JURY DEMAND at the beginning and the end; however, as he has never given me a day in court, a jury trial has always been a pie in the sky!

* Unless his VOID Orders/Judgments in Citgo’s case and mine are vacated, I will never stop accusing him of abuse/misuse of judicial power, trespassing, usurpation, conspiracy, corruption, treason, RICO violations, among others.

* If Citgo’s restitution issue had been tried by jury, the result would have been completely different.

People do not care much about poverty; they care about inequality. — Confucius

The crime victims do not care how much the restitution they are entitled to; they do care about whether they are treated timely, justly, fairly, equally, impartially, and non-discriminatorily.

 Mr. Rainey: You can run, but you cannot hide from the pain and suffering you have inflicted on Citgo’s crime victims! Besides cancer and other illnesses resulting from breathing cancer-causing benzene, here are some former Hillcrest residents reduced to homelessness, thanks to your $0 restitution ORDER!

 

 

 

 1. Siemens: $1.6 billion in penalties (bribery)

“In November 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice and German prosecutors opened an investigation into bribery by Munich-based Siemens, Europe’s largest engineering company. Siemens and three of its subsidiaries pleaded guilty in December 2008 to charges of violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act from 1998 to 2007.

“Siemens paid $1.6 billion in penalties, admitting it had paid bribes to companies in Argentina, Bangladesh, Iraq and Venezuela.

2. Koch: $296 million compensatory damages + $20 million in fines and penalties

* “In 1999, a Texas jury imposed a $296 million verdict on a Koch pipeline unit — the largest compensatory damages judgment in a wrongful death case against a corporation in U.S. history. The jury found that the company’s negligence had led to a butane pipeline rupture that fueled an explosion that killed two teenagers.” See Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Secret Iran Sales; Did OAI, and the Other Olympus Subsidiaries Violate the Anti-bribery Provisions of the FCPA & 15 U.S.C. § 78m? Posted on December 28, 2012 .

* Koch’s refinery unit in Corpus Christi pleaded guilty in 2001 to a federal felony charge of lying to regulators and paid $20 million in fines and penalties.” See Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Secret Iran Sales — Those who have inside information on Citgo’s environment and bribery violations must read this article.

3. Actos: $1.5 million compensatory damages + $9 billion punitive damages 

“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.” — Actos Lawsuit Results in Landmark $9 Billion Punitive Damages Verdict!‘

4. BP: $20 billion trust fund (This is contrary to Rainey’s denial of establishing a trust fund administered by a special master.) See 4/30/2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER USA V. CITGO.

BP started by accepting designation as “the responsible party” under the Oil Pollution Act. Once it did, BP was obliged to establish a claims process for legitimate claims. This it did through the GCCF, to which all existing claims were transmitted. The documents establish a $20 billion fund that is held beyond the control of BP in an irrevocable trust with patently independent and experienced trustees having been named. The appointment of a seasoned and trusted administrator was made, in an effort to inspire confidence by payment of early emergency claims, and he was required to be accessible and active in informing claimants and offering transparency in performance. All the foregoing steps were designed to inculcate trust and encourage claimants to forgo the tort system for claims as a final resolution. See BP Oil Spill: Compensation, Agency Costs, and Restitution, P. 1350.

5. Citgo:  $2 million and $45,000 fines + $0 restitution for the crime victims

* Citgo’s ten years’ willful and deliberate violations of the environmental law by emitting the cancer-causing benzene and forcing the victims to breathe the toxic air are not only liable for substantial compensatory damages but also punitive damages in view of the injuries and pains inflicted on the victims.

* If the two teenagers in Koch’s case could cause $296 million jury verdict and $20 million in fines and penalties, Rainey’s decision of $2 million and $45,000 fines + $0 restitution was arbitrary, unreasonable, unconscionable and contrary to the statute, i.e., Crime Victims’ Rights Act 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and the 1st, 5th, 6th & 7th Amendments to the Constitution. Thus, his MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER USA V. CITGO rendered on 4/30/2014 was VOID ab initio. “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).  See  [PDF] 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN ….

I believe discrimination still exists in society and we must fight it in every form. —  Andrew Cuomo

Discrimination has a lot of layers that make it tough for minorities to get a leg up. — Bill Gates

 

No change can come if those who are impacted the most by discrimination are not willing to stand up for themselves. — Zainab Salbi 

 

 

 

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

* Click Images for judge skipper koetter’s corruption, and you will see 12 photos. Click any one of them,  wait awhile, and it will take you to 70+ images linking to my BLOG. Have these given you sleepless nights, Skipper and John?

JOHN D. RAINEY: YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY DENIED OUR CONSTITUITIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY!

WE THE PEOPLE are protected by The Bill of Rights and the other amendments to the United States Constitution.

Mr. Rainey: You are supposed to follow the rules!

But you have made your own rules again and again!

Luke 18:25 – For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

I would say: It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a corrupt judge like Rainey to enter into the kingdom of God.

You applied the wrong laws to the facts. We have the right to challenge your erroneous rulings and have them VOIDED.

Like Pres. Obama, you said: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God.” — You didn’t do equal right to the poor, particularly us, the crime victims, and to the rich, Citgo and other big businesses, did you?

It does not require a man of wisdom to tell right from wrong, just from unjust, fair from unfair.

Your callous, arbitrary and unreasonable handling of my Civil Actions: 6:05-mc-02 and V-06-78, two TRO Motions and other Petitions in 6:09-mc-11 and that of 06-563 – USA v. CITGO Petroleum Corporation et al can be attacked at any time in any proceedings because all your orders are VOID ab initio and [There is no time limit within which to file a motion to vacate a void order or judgment. 735 ILCS 5/2-1401(f); People v. Wade, 116 Ill.2d 1, 506 N.E.2d 954 (1987) (“A void judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally.”); In re Marriage of Macino, 236 Ill.App.3d 886 (1992) (“if the order is void, it may be attacked at any time in any proceeding, “).] See JUDGES JOHN D. RAINEY AND JANIS GRAHAM JACK: A GREAT BODY OF CASE LAW CLEARLY SHOWS YOUR POWER AND DUTY TO VACATE THE VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS YOU RENDERED ILLEGALLY.

 Cancer and other illnesses have been rampant in the Citgo neighborhood for years!

My brother and I were lucky enough to have an early “medical screening”, and the doctor detected tumors in our lungs before they spread! Why did you refuse to have Citgo pay for our $250 annual screening expenses, Judge Rainey? Why?

 My wife has died of breast cancer!

It is true that there may be a variety of risk factors; it is also true that she was exposed to Citgo’s toxic fumes between 1994 and 2003. How can you rule out the long-term effects of the Cancer-producing Benzene and other toxic pollutants on Citgo’s neighboring residents like us, Judge Rainey?

Your callous, arbitrary and unreasonable handling of my Civil Actions: 6:05-mc-02 and V-06-78, two TRO Motions and other Petitions in 6:09-mc-11 and that of 06-563 – USA v. CITGO Petroleum Corporation et al can be attacked at any time in any proceedings because all your orders are VOID ab initio and [There is no time limit within which to file a motion to vacate a void order or judgment. 735 ILCS 5/2-1401(f); People v. Wade, 116 Ill.2d 1, 506 N.E.2d 954 (1987) (“A void judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally.”); In re Marriage of Macino, 236 Ill.App.3d 886 (1992) (“if the order is void, it may be attacked at any time in any proceeding, “).] See JUDGES JOHN D. RAINEY AND JANIS GRAHAM JACK: A GREAT BODY OF CASE LAW CLEARLY SHOWS YOUR POWER AND DUTY TO VACATE THE VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS YOU RENDERED ILLEGALLY.

Mr. Rainey: On April 30, 2014, you cunningly banged the gavel for the $1.8 billion bucks, didn’t you?

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

 

* Click Images for judge skipper koetter’s corruption, and you will see 12 photos. Click any one of them,  wait awhile, and it will take you to 82 images linking to my BLOG. Have these given you sleepless nights, Skipper and John?

Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly, John!

A Message From God: A Few Words of Advice to John D. Rainey, My Prodigal Son New International Version Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly. New Living Translation Look beneath the surface so you can judge correctly. ◄ John 7:24 ►     We are all cancer patients! I lost my wife to lung cancer. My son lost his mom!  Thelma Morgan sitting by her husband’s death bed! ********************************************************************************** “Even though they discovered the problem two months after installing, they knowingly disregarded safety and as a result emitted benzene, a known carcinogen, into the air, at the serious health risk of those in the community.” See Judge rules Citgo Petroleum owes victims nothing after 10 years of criminal pollution. This is intentional violation of the Clean Air Act. The victims are entitled to not only compensatory damages but also punitive damages to punish and deter the criminals for their reprehensible behavior. After the  jury’s conviction on June 27, 2007, the low income minorities have waited for seven years with an expectation of being made whole for their economic and non-economic losses.  Instead, “after a lengthy legal battle, nearby residents finally found out how much restitution they were to receive … NOTHING. Nada. Zip.” From January 1994 to May 2003, the 800+ Citgo’s pollution crime victims breathed benzene  See Benzene poisoning: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia, and were exposed to other toxic pollutants. Many developed “cancer of the brain, nose, colon, throat, prostate, breast, ovaries, and thyroid, as well as chronic lymphoma; various “heart problems,” including heart attacks, heart disease, and irregular heartbeat; chronic sinus infections and sinusitis; respiratory issues, including COPD, lung infections, asthma, bronchitis, upper respiratory infections, emphysema, pneumonia, and collapsed lung; general “stomach problems,” as well as gastroenteritis, severe diarrhea, and a flesh-eating bacterial infection leading to a hole in the abdomen; various mental health issues, including nervous breakdown, general “mental disorders”, anxiety, depression, stress, memory problems, and blackouts; lung, liver, kidney, thyroid, and eye “problems”; and nearly two dozen other health issues, including sclerma, epilepsy, chronic migraines, high blood pressure, fibromyalgia, diabetes, earaches, cysts in the breast and brain, kidney stones, hair loss, neuropathy, shingles, muscle spasms, brain tumor, cataracts, liver disease, anemia, tremors, chronic laryngitis, vocal cord “pallets”, and the inability to have children. See MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER USA V. CITGO 4/30/2014: [PDF] 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN … Rainey Violated the Judicial Process Article III of the Constitution of the United States guarantees that every person accused of wrongdoing has the right to a fair trial before a competent judge and a jury of one’s peers. Citgo, having corporate personhood in the United States, is recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. It can sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons. Having been accused of air pollution, it had the right to a fair trial before a competent judge and a jury of one’s peers. Unfortunately, a fair trial was only fair to the defendant but unfair to the crime victims. And the case was before an incompetent judge, though it was before an impartial jury. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution provide additional protections for those accused of a crime. These include: A guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. Rainey violated this guarantee to the crime victims, and deprived them of lives, liberty, or property without the due process of law.   In the MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER of 06-563 – USA v. CITGO Petroleum Corporation et al, despite his violations of Crime Victims Act and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, he unlawfully rendered a VOID Order seven years after the jury’s conviction of Citgo’s air pollution crimes. Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. In my cases, Rainey slept on my two TRO Motions for 11.5 months and denied all my July 12, 2010 without ever giving me a day in court, not to mention the denial of my demand for a jury trial. In his MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, his law clerk tried to help him cover up his crimes in violating 28 U.S. Code § 1915(d), and Rule 1-041(E)(2) of Rules Enabling Act with a lot of irrelevant arguments. Document 18 :: Chen v. Cox et al :: 6:2009mc00011 :: Texas … The courts only try actual cases and controversies — a party must show that it has been harmed in order to bring suit in court. Since 4/18/2005, I have filed six complaints in Civil Actions: 6:05-mc-02 and V-06-78, two TRO Motions and other Petitions in 6:09-mc-11. Rainey was assigned the cases, but he never had the Clerk serve process pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1915(d), and denied my petitions for reinstatement under Rule 1-041(E)(2) of Rules Enabling Act. Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and justices serve no fixed term — they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate. By design, this insulates them from the temporary passions of the public, and allows them to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns. Rainey’s misconduct is ripe for the House impeachment by the Senate conviction. He was allowed to apply the law with only justice in mind; however, his interpretation of “JUSTICE IS BLIND” is that it turned a blind eye to the rights of the poor and non-whites. The right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury. — The criminal trial was in compliance with this guarantee. However, Rainey unlawfully overturned the guilty verdict by awarding $0 restitution to the crime victims, who showed at least the above-listed illnesses resulting from breathing the toxic air since 1994 when Citgo installed the two tanks without covers, and knowingly concealed the environmental violations for ten years. The above post is partly derived from The Judicial Process The Judicial Branch | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov › Our Government.   TO BE CONTINUED. Paul Chen   * Click Images for judge skipper koetter’s corruption, and you will see 12 photos. Click any one of them,  wait awhile, and it will take you to 82 images linking to my BLOG. Have these given you sleepless nights, Skipper and John?

CITGO’S CRIME VICTIMS DEMONSTRATED SEVERAL TYPES OF CANCER, AMONG OTHER ILLNESSES.

John D. Rainey DENIED even $80,900.00 in restitution ($250 per year) for “necessary medical screening”!!!

 

Thank you all for being behind us, but the judge who has the power to help us turned us down, let us down, and gavel us down!

“The Community Members and other individuals submitting victim impact statements have identified the following illnesses and other medical conditions from which they claim they have suffered (or currently suffer) as a result of CITGO’s crimes: several types of cancer, including cancer of the brain, nose, colon, throat, prostate, breast, ovaries, and thyroid, as well as chronic lymphoma; various “heart problems,” including heart attacks, heart disease, and irregular heartbeat; chronic sinus infections and sinusitis; respiratory issues, including COPD, lung infections, asthma, bronchitis, upper respiratory infections, emphysema, pneumonia, and collapsed lung; general “stomach problems,” as well as gastroenteritis, severe diarrhea, and a flesh-eating bacterial infection leading to a hole in the abdomen; various mental health issues, including nervous breakdown, general “mental disorders”, anxiety, depression, stress, memory problems, and blackouts; lung, liver, kidney, thyroid, and eye “problems”; and nearly two dozen other health issues, including sclerma, epilepsy, chronic migraines, high blood pressure, fibromyalgia, diabetes, earaches, cysts in the breast and brain, kidney stones, hair loss, neuropathy, shingles, muscle spasms, brain tumor, cataracts, liver disease, anemia, tremors, chronic laryngitis, vocal cord “pallets”, and the inability to have children.”

Determining whether these or any other illnesses the 800+ victims may develop 5, 10, 20, or even 30 years from now were proximately caused by exposure to Tanks 116 and 117 would require that the Court examine medical records; hear testimony by experts regarding chemical exposure, causation, and loss calculations; and allow CITGO to cross-examine each individual seeking a payout to determine whether emissions from Tanks 116 and 117 between January 1994 and May 2003 caused the loss—effectively turning each request for a payout into a mini personal injury case.

This “could easily extend the sentencing phase longer than any trial and would require complex—and to some inevitable extent, speculative—calculation.” BP Products, 610 F. Supp. at 700–01.

As such, the Court finds that the “magnitude of expected future harm can[not] be reasonably estimated” and that the “complication and prolongation of the sentencing process resulting from the fashioning of an order of restitution” for future medical expenses “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(1)(B)(ii); U.S.S.G. §8B1.2(b). The Community Members’ request for a remedial order directing CITGO to create a trust fund in the amount of $11,000,000.00 to cover future medical expenses is therefore DENIED. Quoted from Rainey’s 4/30/2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER.

The Community Members first ask for $80,900.00 in restitution for “necessary medical screening”, explaining that they were exposed to what the Government has called a “chemical cocktail” from Tanks 116 and 117 and therefore need to monitor their health. According to the Case 2:06-cr-00563 Document 962 Filed in TXSD on 04/30/14 Page 7 of 20 Community Members, annual medical screening is necessary to allay their fears that they may suffer from cancer or other diseases because CITGO placed them criminally at risk, and the fact that the identity of the chemicals to which they were exposed is unknown further exacerbates this need.

Restitution is permissible for “necessary medical and related professional services” where a criminal offense results in “bodily injury to a victim”. 18 U.S.C. § 3663(b)(2)(A). Assuming the short-term health effects suffered by the Community Members and other similarly-situated victims constitute “bodily injury” under the statute, before ordering restitution for medical monitoring, the Court must determine whether medical monitoring is necessary for each person making such a request, as well as the cost of such screening.

The Parties have had ample time to present such evidence to the Court, and to allow them even more time to do so would unduly delay the sentencing process. The Court further finds that the “complication and prolongation of the sentencing process resulting from the fashioning of an order of restitution” for medical monitoring “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(1)(B)(ii). The Community Members’ request for $80,900.00 in restitution for “necessary medical screening” is therefore DENIED.

Despite their testimonies under oath in open court, you denied every request for restitution they deserve. How could you even turn down their minimum request for annual medical checkup and/or screening for $250.00?

Your denial is inexcusable in that it was John D. Rainey, who slept on these crime victims’ rights by delaying the sentencing for seven years after the jury’s guilty verdict rendered on June 27, 2007.

If you cannot handle a case like this, how can you handle class actions involving thousands of victims?

According to your argument, in all class actions, the Courts would find that the “complication and prolongation of the sentencing process resulting from the fashioning of an order of restitution” for compensatory and punitive damages “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims.”

As a federal judge, your ignorance, ineptness, incompetence, maliciousness, insensitivity, and deliberate indifference to the crime victims’ rights have made you the laughingstock of the whole world! 

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

* Click Images for judge skipper koetter’s corruption, and you will see 12 photos. Click any one of them,  wait awhile, and it will take you to 82 images linking to my BLOG. Have these given you sleepless nights, Skipper and John?

JOHN D. RAINEY: Why did you delete your image from the photobucket?

At http://media.photobucket.com, I found: “Sorry. This person moved or deleted this image.” Why did you delete your image, Mr. Rainey?

 

 Mr. Rainey: You can run, but you cannot hide from the pain and suffering you have inflicted on Citgo’s crime victims! They developed many types of cancer and other illnesses resulting from breathing Citgo’s cancer-causing benzene, and you knew it before deciding to give them nothing for restitution, didn’t you?

 

On May 14, 1990, you had to take the following oath before performing the duties of your office: “I, John D. Rainey, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a federal district court judge under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

You spoke with a forked tongue, promising to be neutral, detached, disinterested, non-partisan, impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nondiscriminatory you would never deliver. Your judicial and non-judicial misconduct demonstrated your violation of the OATH OF OFFICE. Thus, you have repeatedly warred against the Constitution and laws of the United States, and engaged in acts of treason.

What would the Rainey ancestors think of you? They would roll over in their graves, wouldn’t they?

God has given you one face, and you make yourself another. — William Shakespeare   The face you make yourself is the mirror of your mind, and your eyes reveal the secrets of your heart in silence. Is that why you moved or deleted your photo from the photobucket?

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. — Plato   So you are afraid of the light, John!

Since you are afraid of showing your real face, I have to provide the world with another John D. Rainey, who looks young and handsome!

 He resembles you before you became wicked, doesn’t he?

 

 

 

Do you have red eyes?

 

Or green eyes now?

 

A man is known by the company he keeps.

Birds of a feather flock together.

Let’s see who your company is. a vicious woman

 

“It is false to say that you are a vicious man, Mr. Rainey; you are not a vicious man, you are vice itself.”
“It is false to say that you are a vicious woman, Ms. Jack; you are not a vicious woman, you are vice itself.” — Marcus Aurelius (Roman emperor, best known for his Meditations on Stoic philosophy, AD 121-180)

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

* Click Images for judge skipper koetter’s corruption, and you will see 12 photos. Click any one of them,  wait awhile, and it will take you to 82 images linking to my BLOG. Have these given you sleepless nights, Skipper and John?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

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

Mr. Rainey: Too big to punish? Shame on you and pity for the crime victims!

Excerpts from Priscila Mosqueda‘s heartbreaking posts.

John D. Rainey is rotten, vicious, heartless, soulless, merciless, ruthless! Let the court of public opinion be the judge!

I have been the victim of heartless malice. — Taylor Caldwell
People can be so heartless and dirty. — Jim Goad
The American people have not become heartless. — Joe Biden But some judges like John D. Rainey and Janis Graham Jack are malicious, heartless and dirty. That’s an undeniable fact!

He is a ruthless judge and one must be ruthless to cope with him. Criminally, let’s try to have him jailed for crimes done, and pay for compensatory and punitive damages civilly! I assure you that he cannot enjoy judicial immunity for acts done in violation of the litigants’ constitutional rights.

Oil giant Citgo gets off easy in criminal case

Priscila Mosqueda | Center for Public Integrity

http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/priscila-mosqueda

Residents of Corpus Christi, Texas, who say they were sickened by emissions from the Citgo refinery decry a judge’s denial of restitution.

Oil Giant Citgo Gets Slap On the Wrist for 10 Years of Illegal Operations

Priscila Mosqueda, Center for Public Integrity | May 16, 2014 10:02 am |

Rainey rejected the residents’ and the government’s requests for restitution, which would have included funding for annual cancer screenings and other diseases linked to chemical exposure. The Justice Department also had asked that Citgo set up one trust fund to cover property buyouts and relocation costs and another for victims’ future medical expenses, attorney’s fees and other administrative costs, at a total cost of $55 million.

In an April 30 statement that baffled many, Rainey wrote that victims would be better off receiving nothing from Citgo than waiting for the court to determine what they are owed. That echoed his earlier decision to fine Citgo only $2 million for four violations of the Clean Air Act, a fraction of the potential penalty. 

What was your logic in saying that victims would be better off receiving nothing from Citgo than waiting for the court to determine what they are owed? It was OK for you to sit on their rights for seven years after the jury found Citgo guilty of criminal and civil violations of environmental law in 2007. Why is it not permissible to have a jury panel decide how much the crime victims are owed? I believe none of them would object to waiting for a year or two as long as justice is served. 

The Justice Department had argued that the Corpus Christi refinery made $1 billion as a direct result of illegally operating the tanks. It wanted to fine the company using a provision that allows punishment of twice the “gross, pecuniary gain” realized by violating the law, which would have allowed for a fine of up to $2 billion. But Rainey—after nearly seven years of delays in sentencing—ruled that empaneling a jury to determine Citgo’s exact profits would “unduly prolong” the sentencing process.

The Justice Department offered evidence during the sentencing hearing that Citgo made $150 billion in profits during the 10 years its Corpus Christi refinery was violating the law. The 165,000-barrel-per-day refinery stands in stark contrast to the low-income, mostly minority neighborhoods in its shadow. People simply can’t afford to move out—most of the homes there are appraised at $30,000 to $40,000 and residents say to move even a few miles away from the refinery would cost them upwards of $100,000.

Corrupt Judge Rainey: You let Citgo get away with its 10-year $150 billion profits; you make a mockery of the American justice system! How much did they give you as a reward, gift, or bribe? You have unjustly enriched them so much that they can afford to show their gratitude in a great variety of ways.

 This is a small portion available to reward you for ruling in favor of our Oil Company.

More in storage at a Swiss bank, your honor:

   

Gonzalez’s husband worked at Citgo for 20 years; for a time she took him lunch every day and sometimes dropped him off or picked him up from work. Gonzalez developed breast cancer—she’s now in remission—and has nerve damage in her feet that makes her feel as though she’s constantly walking on rocks. Her husband has prostate cancer and heart problems; the couple traces their conditions to the refinery’s emissions. Before Gonzalez found out she had breast cancer, she says, a blood test revealed she had benzene in her blood.

“Never does anything escape from the plant,” Gonzalez says. “And yet everybody has allergies and people are dying of cancer.”

“Rainey wrote that victims would be better off receiving nothing from Citgo than waiting for the court to determine what they are owed.” When contrite words are expected of him, such a cold-blooded, inhuman statement is disgusting, offensive, repugnant!

You could have written in your VOID Orders: Paul Chen, you would be better off receiving nothing from your defendants than waiting for me to determine what they are owed. It might take more than a decade! And you are absolutely right, the disHonorable John D. Rainey!

But no less stubborn and persistent than your dishonor, I am willing to wait. It’s not over until I say it’s over! I’ll see you in court, but not in Janis Graham Jack’s court, which you assigned with an improper purpose for collusion with her!

 

Please click Priscila Mosqueda for further details!

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen