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?

Rainey should have fined Citgo at least $8,070,000 for violating CAA.

Civil Judicial Penalties and Administrative Penalties 

Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA), the civil judicial penalties that can be sought for most violations will increase from $32,500 per day per violation to $37,500 per day per violation.  Administrative penalties for violations under these statutes will also increase.  For example, the $11,000 per day per violation limit (up to a total of $157,500) that can be assessed for certain violations of the CWA and SDWA will increase to $16,000 per day per violation (up to a total of $177,500).  The $270,000 limit on total administrative penalties that can be assessed for certain violations of the CAA will increase to $290,000. See EPA Increases Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts for 2009 …

$32,500 x12= $390,000×10= $3,900,000×2= $7,800,000 + $270,000 = $8,070,000 (Pre-2009 assessment)

Based upon the Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts before the 2009 increase by the EPA, Civil Judicial Penalties and Administrative Penalties assessed against Citgo should have been at least $8,070,000 plus interest, not merely $2 million.

Restitution is not included in the above penalties assessed.

Citgo’s 10-year continuing, willful, malicious violations of the Clean Air Act are subject to compensatory and punitive damages to be determined by an impartial jury panel.

Under Crime Victims’ Rights Act, the crime victims are entitled to:

• The right to full and timely restitution as provided by law.
• The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.

Rainey should have been constitutionally disqualified for violating the CVRA, and the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments to the United States Constitution, i.e., the crime victims’ right to access the courts for redress of grievances, the due process, and the criminal/civil jury trial respectively.

Rainey’s deferred restitution ruling on February 5, 2014 violated Rule 32(h): 1) without giving the parties reasonable notice that it was contemplating such a departure, i.e., $0 restitution; 2) without specifying any ground on which the court was contemplating such a departure. It also violated Rule 32(i)(4)(B): 1) without addressing the victims of the crime who were present at sentencing; 2) without permitting the victims to be reasonably heard. * The Committee Note to Rule 32(i)(4)(B) adds that “[a]bsent unusual circumstances, any victim who is present should be allowed a reasonable opportunity to speak directly to the judge.”

Instead of allowing the victims who were present a reasonable opportunity to speak directly to him, Rainey simply “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.” Rainey’s conduct not only violated Rule 32(i)(4)(B) but also demonstrated his cowardice, and cold feet. He was feeling guilty of what he had determined to do in 90 days, i.e., $0 restitution. If he had predetermined to give nothing to the victims in the first place, why torture them with false hopes and delayed the announcement of the bad news for seven years after the jury’s conviction on June 27, 2007? 

Rainey’s $0 restitution was arbitrary, unreasonable, unconscionable and contrary to a statute, i.e., CVRA, and the Constitution. Thus, his MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER USA V. CITGO of 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 60(B) purposes, even if the court had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip., 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1995). See [PDF] 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN ….

 

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?

On February 5, 2014, Rainey violated Rule 32(h)(i)(4)(B) of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

On February 5, 2014, Rainey violated Rule 32(h)(i)(4)(B) of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, among others. See [PDF] Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure – U.S. Courts.

On February 5, 2014, Judge John Delay Rainey deferred ruling on victim restitution and a remedial order, and would issue a written order on both issues within 90 days, according to the DOJ.

This deferred action violated Rule 32(h): 1) without giving the parties reasonable notice that it was contemplating such a departure, i.e., $0 restitution; 2) without specifying any ground on which the court was contemplating such a departure.

This deferred action also violated Rule 32(i)(4)(B): 1) without addressing the victims of the crime who were present at sentencing; 2) without permitting the victims to be reasonably heard. * The Committee Note to Rule 32(i)(4)(B) adds that “[a]bsent unusual circumstances, any victim who is present should be allowed a reasonable opportunity to speak directly to the judge.”

Instead of allowing the victims who were present a reasonable opportunity to speak directly to him, Rainey simply “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.” Rainey’s conduct not only violated Rule 32(i)(4)(B) but also demonstrated his cowardice, and cold feet. He was feeling guilty of what he had determined to do in 90 days, i.e., $0 restitution. If you had predetermined to give nothing to the victims in the first place, John, why did you have to torture them with anxiety, false hopes and delayed the announcement of the deplorable bad news for seven years after the jury’s conviction on June 27, 2007? Don’t you remember all the victims’ illnesses resulting from breathing the cancer-causing benzene and being exposed to the toxic pollutants between 1994 and 2003 you cited in your purported ORDER dated 4/30/2014?

Let me copy a portion here to strike your conscience, if any:

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 …

 

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?

Rainey’s 4/30/14 Order is VOID for violating Crime Victims’ Rights Act & the Constitution!

CONTROLLING CASE LAW

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). Here, Rainey violated the statute, Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and the victims’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, making his Order VOID ab initio.

I. Rainey violated Crime Victims’ Rights Act

18 U.S.C. § 3771, Crime victims’ rights, provides in pertinent part:

(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.

YOUNG                                                               OLD

MALE                                                                        FEMALE

 

The young, the old, the men and the women living in the Citgo neighborhood have been forced to breathe toxic air and suffer through various smoke and toxic pollutants-related illnesses since Citgo started its Corpus Christi Refinery. 

 

Grandma, I’ve finally graduated from college and got a good job now. I’ll try to move you away from the dirty air here as soon as possible!    

 

(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.

 

(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!

The victims’ right to full and timely restitution should relate back to the date of Jury conviction of Citgo’s crimes in June 2007.

(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.

(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..

 David: Thanks for the bribe! Skipper

Citgo: Thanks for the bribe!  I will deny Plaintiffs any restitution without calculating any amount you owe them.  John

Take it easy, your honor. We will certainly bribe your way out!

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

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

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 Act.

* Rainey’s 4/30/14 Order is plainly contrary to the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, subsection (a)(6) & (7), among others, and Rainey’s held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the Order VOID ab initio.

II. Rainey violated the Victims’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution

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.

* Rainey’s 4/30/14 Order is also plainly contrary to the Victims’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Rainey’s again held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the Order VOID ab initio.

III. The 4/30/14 Order is a piece of waste paper, an absolute nullity.

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).

 Besides sleeping on my constitutional rights and those of the Citgo crime victims, you have been sleeping in lots of waste paper resulting from your VOID Orders/Judgments at the expense of taxpayers, including me. For your information, I had over $1 million tax carry-forward, which was wiped out at my Chapter 7 Petition on 11/25/1996. Thus, I was one of the taxpayers who paid you salary.  Got that, Mr. Rainey? 

Betraying me and the Citgo crime victims may not be a capital crime, but betraying and warring against the Constitution you swore to uphold is an act of treason, remember? Let me refer you to 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason, which states in pertinent part: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Mr. Rainey: You and Ms. Janis Graham Jack, having repeatedly warred against the Constitution you swore to uphold, are guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason, but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

$10,000? That’s 10,000 pieces of these! Or 100 pieces of these! I am sure both of you can afford it, can’t you, Mr. Rainey?

 

IV. Citgo’s intentional, inexcusable behavior is subject to punitive damages.

Even if compensatory damages are nominal, substantial Punitive Damages are available.

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

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

Aug 4, 2014 … 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.”

“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 for their rights. Such intentional, inexcusable behavior subjects Citgo to punitive damages.

V. Conclusion

Rainey’s 4/30/14 Order, being plainly contrary to the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and the U.S.A. Constitution, Rainey’s court is held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the Order VOID ab initio.

Citgo’s crime victims and DOJ should consider filing A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS based on VOID Order, which has no statute of limitations. Please consult: PREPARE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITHOUT A LAWYER Posted on July 16, 2014. Furthermore, I suggest that the attorneys research and cite more federal case law to support the PETITION and that Citgo’s crime victims and their family members can also seek damages for their mental pain and suffering or loss of consortium, in the event of death.

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.