FEMA Employees Lynched for
Looting in New Orleans
Thu Sep 22, 2005 22:01
64.140.158.29
"There are growing rumors in military and civilian circles here
that FEMA personnel have been involved in shipping large amounts
of emergency food rations, allegedly for resale, out of the area
in official trucks at the height of the recovery efforts."
FEMA Employees Lynched for Looting in New Orleans
September 17, 2005
by Joel Carlin
FKK
New Orleans- The badly mangled bodies of three FEMA workers were discovered two days ago, hanging from a tree inside the courtyard of a French Quarter apartment. The bodies, found by U.S. Military Police units engaged in searching for survivors, bore crudely written placards that read, "FEMA THIEF-DIE," "RACIST PIG," and "FEMA LOOTER BITCH."
The bodies were, in the words of an Army officer, "shockingly mutilated' and one of the victims had their tongue torn out while another had both hands cut off.
They were identified by plastic name tags as: Martine Smallworth, 38, of Clearwater, Florida, LeRoy Dufarge, 45, also of Clearwater, and Janu Radzek, 29, from Coral Gables, Florida.
Found with the badly decomposing and mutilated bodies were expensive leather luggage, apparently looted from Saks Fifth Avenue's New Orleans store and containing very expensive women's clothing, jewelry, several boxes of Davidoff cigars, three Rolex watches and nearly $3 thousand in small bills.
A so-called manifesto was also found, tied to the feet of one of the victims that called for violence against President Bush and the former head of FEMA, Brown.
Because of what was termed its "inflammatory nature" of this document, its contents were not released .
Apartment house residents claimed that they had "heard and seen nothing" although it appeared that the three had been killed where they were found.
There are growing rumors in military and civilian circles here that FEMA personnel have been involved in shipping large amounts of emergency food rations, allegedly for resale, out of the area in official trucks at the height of the recovery efforts.
Comment: It appears from various reputable sources that FEMA is the Bush Administration's great cash cow and my, how the Republicans in charge are milking it, and the taxpayers. This money is unaccounted for and think of all the BMWs and new summer homes all of this money is now buying. This helps the economy, after all. And the Blessed Karl Rove has been put in absolute charge of billions of dollars of "relief money." That is tantamount of setting the fox to guard the henhouse. Documents, now being evaluated, show that the corruption stemming from last year's hurricanes in Florida was widespread, extensive and very pervasive. Top Republican politicians connected to the Bush Administrations in Washington and Florida are specifically named. Ed
http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a1846.htm
paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com
===================
Legal Entity – Legal existence. An entity other than a natural person, who has sufficient existence in legal contemplation that it can function legally, be sued or sue and make decisions through agents as in case of corporations. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th ed. Page 804
In addition, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, a state agency, is not suable because it is not a legal entity. See Fischer v. Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973). A proper defendant is the officer in charge of a state agency, sued in his or her official capacity for injunctive relief, see Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27, 112 S. Ct. 358, 362- 63, 116 L. Ed.2d 301 (1991), or in his or her individual capacity for monetary damages, see id. at 31, 112 S. Ct. at 365. Furthermore, “SCI Coal Township Institution” and the probation and parole offices named in the complaint, as divisions or subdivisions of state agencies or municipalities, do not appear to be suable entities.
Actions may be brought only by legal entities and against legal entities. Ivanhoe Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. v. Most Worshipful Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M., 126 Colo. 515, 251 P.2d 1085 (1952).
There must be some ascertainable persons, natural or artificial, to whom judgments are awarded and against whom they may be enforced. Ivanhoe Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. v. Most Worshipful Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M., 126 Colo. 515, 251 P.2d 1085 (1952).
Section (b) must be viewed as either creating an entity or permitting existing ones to sue. Section (b) of this rule must be held either to create an artificial entity of a partnership or unincorporated association or to permit existing entities to bring suit in an artificial name. Ivanhoe Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. v. Most Worshipful Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M., 126 Colo. 515, 251 P.2d 1085 (1952).
If this rule is held to be one creating a legal entity capable of suing or being sued, it is performing a legislative, rather than a judicial function, and the rule would therefore, be beyond the power of the court. Ivanhoe Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. v. Most Worshipful Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M., 126 Colo. 515, 251 P.2d 1085 (1952).
If an existing entity is permitted to sue under a common or artificial name, then, upon challenge by defendant, the plaintiff must disclose the identity of the parties so doing; and if defendant seeks affirmative relief in excess of the property or rights owned, held, possessed, or exercised by the partnership or unincorporated association itself, then the ascertained legal entities must be properly served with process and be made parties to the action. Ivanhoe Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. v. Most Worshipful Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M., 126 Colo. 515, 251 P.2d 1085 (1952).
Status of an unincorporated association to sue must be founded on more than a bold allegation, and to sue as an unincorporated association in name only is insufficient. Hidden Lake Dev. Co. v. District Court, 183 Colo. 168, 515 P.2d 632 (1973).
Actions may be brought only by and against legal entities. Actions may be brought only by legal entities and against legal entities. There must be some ascertainable persons, natural or artificial, to whom judgments are awarded and against whom they may be enforced. Barker v. District Court, 199 Colo. 416, 609 P.2d 628 (1980).
There is no exception to naming requirement. The rules of civil procedure make no exception in "in rem" actions, as distinguished from "in personam" actions, to the requirement that defendants be named if their names are known or be designated as "unknown" when such is the case. Barker v. District Court, 199 Colo. 416, 609 P.2d 628 (1980).
Naming of defendants insufficient. The designations, "owner" and "operator", in the caption of the case, without naming them, when those persons were known to the district attorney, are not in compliance with the requirements of the rules of civil procedure that a party defendant shall be named unless his name is unknown. Barker v. District Court, 199 Colo. 416, 609 P.2d 628 (1980).
This relates to both civil and criminal cases.
Rule 10. Form and Quality of Pleadings, Motions and Other Documents
Rule text
(a) Caption; Names of Parties. Every pleading, motion, E-filed document under C.R.C.P. 121 (1-26), or any other document filed with the court (hereinafter "document") in both civil and criminal cases shall contain a caption setting forth the name of the court, the title of the action, the case number, if known to the person signing it, the name of the document in accordance with Rule 7(a), and the other applicable information in the format specified by paragraph (d) and the captions illustrated by paragraph (e) or (f) of this rule. In the complaint initiating a lawsuit, the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties to the action. In all other documents, it is sufficient to set forth the name of the first-named party on each side of the lawsuit with an appropriate indication that there are also other parties (such as "et al."). A party whose name is not known shall be designated by any name and the words "whose true name is unknown". In an action in rem, unknown parties shall be designated as "all unknown persons who claim any interest in the subject matter of this action".
I have challenged the jurisdiction of the court several times, it is the duty of the plaintiff and not the court to prove jurisdiction.
Plaintiff has the burden to prove jurisdiction. Reynolds v. State Board for Community Colleges, 937 P.2d 774 (Colo. App. 1996).
A plaintiff has the burden of proving that the trial court has jurisdiction to hear the case. Pfenninger v. Exempla, Inc., 12 P.3d 830 (Colo. App. 2000).
The question of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of an action, and that, too, without an assignment of error on the subject. Peaker v. Southeastern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist., 174 Colo. 210, 483 P.2d 232 (1971).
Where a court does not have jurisdiction, the remedy is not change of venue but rather dismissal of the action. Larrick v. District Court, 177 Colo. 237, 493 P.2d 647 (1972).
This rule provides that every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. National Advertising Co. v. Sayers, 144 Colo. 356, 356 P.2d 483 (1960); Elk-Rifle Water Co. v. Templeton, 173 Colo. 438, 484 P.2d 1211 (1971).
People of state should not be named as party when individual is party in interest. People ex rel. Garrison v. Lamm, 622 P.2d 87 (Colo. App. 1980).
So all these judges have lost subject matter jurisdiction when they refuse for the plaintiff to prove jurisdictin.
FEMA Employees Lynched for Looting in New Orleans
September 17, 2005
by Joel Carlin
FKK
New Orleans- The badly mangled bodies of three FEMA workers were discovered two days ago, hanging from a tree inside the courtyard of a French Quarter apartment. The bodies, found by U.S. Military Police units engaged in searching for survivors, bore crudely written placards that read, "FEMA THIEF-DIE," "RACIST PIG," and "FEMA LOOTER BITCH."
The bodies were, in the words of an Army officer, "shockingly mutilated' and one of the victims had their tongue torn out while another had both hands cut off.
They were identified by plastic name tags as: Martine Smallworth, 38, of Clearwater, Florida, LeRoy Dufarge, 45, also of Clearwater, and Janu Radzek, 29, from Coral Gables, Florida.
Found with the badly decomposing and mutilated bodies were expensive leather luggage, apparently looted from Saks Fifth Avenue's New Orleans store and containing very expensive women's clothing, jewelry, several boxes of Davidoff cigars, three Rolex watches and nearly $3 thousand in small bills.
A so-called manifesto was also found, tied to the feet of one of the victims that called for violence against President Bush and the former head of FEMA, Brown.
Because of what was termed its "inflammatory nature" of this document, its contents were not released .
Apartment house residents claimed that they had "heard and seen nothing" although it appeared that the three had been killed where they were found.
There are growing rumors in military and civilian circles here that FEMA personnel have been involved in shipping large amounts of emergency food rations, allegedly for resale, out of the area in official trucks at the height of the recovery efforts.
Comment: It appears from various reputable sources that FEMA is the Bush Administration's great cash cow and my, how the Republicans in charge are milking it, and the taxpayers. This money is unaccounted for and think of all the BMWs and new summer homes all of this money is now buying. This helps the economy, after all. And the Blessed Karl Rove has been put in absolute charge of billions of dollars of "relief money." That is tantamount of setting the fox to guard the henhouse. Documents, now being evaluated, show that the corruption stemming from last year's hurricanes in Florida was widespread, extensive and very pervasive. Top Republican politicians connected to the Bush Administrations in Washington and Florida are specifically named. Ed
http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a1846.htm
paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com
===================
Legal Entity – Legal existence. An entity other than a natural person, who has sufficient existence in legal contemplation that it can function legally, be sued or sue and make decisions through agents as in case of corporations. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th ed. Page 804
In addition, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, a state agency, is not suable because it is not a legal entity. See Fischer v. Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973). A proper defendant is the officer in charge of a state agency, sued in his or her official capacity for injunctive relief, see Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27, 112 S. Ct. 358, 362- 63, 116 L. Ed.2d 301 (1991), or in his or her individual capacity for monetary damages, see id. at 31, 112 S. Ct. at 365. Furthermore, “SCI Coal Township Institution” and the probation and parole offices named in the complaint, as divisions or subdivisions of state agencies or municipalities, do not appear to be suable entities.
Actions may be brought only by legal entities and against legal entities. Ivanhoe Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. v. Most Worshipful Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M., 126 Colo. 515, 251 P.2d 1085 (1952).
There must be some ascertainable persons, natural or artificial, to whom judgments are awarded and against whom they may be enforced. Ivanhoe Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. v. Most Worshipful Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M., 126 Colo. 515, 251 P.2d 1085 (1952).
Section (b) must be viewed as either creating an entity or permitting existing ones to sue. Section (b) of this rule must be held either to create an artificial entity of a partnership or unincorporated association or to permit existing entities to bring suit in an artificial name. Ivanhoe Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. v. Most Worshipful Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M., 126 Colo. 515, 251 P.2d 1085 (1952).
If this rule is held to be one creating a legal entity capable of suing or being sued, it is performing a legislative, rather than a judicial function, and the rule would therefore, be beyond the power of the court. Ivanhoe Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. v. Most Worshipful Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M., 126 Colo. 515, 251 P.2d 1085 (1952).
If an existing entity is permitted to sue under a common or artificial name, then, upon challenge by defendant, the plaintiff must disclose the identity of the parties so doing; and if defendant seeks affirmative relief in excess of the property or rights owned, held, possessed, or exercised by the partnership or unincorporated association itself, then the ascertained legal entities must be properly served with process and be made parties to the action. Ivanhoe Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. v. Most Worshipful Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M., 126 Colo. 515, 251 P.2d 1085 (1952).
Status of an unincorporated association to sue must be founded on more than a bold allegation, and to sue as an unincorporated association in name only is insufficient. Hidden Lake Dev. Co. v. District Court, 183 Colo. 168, 515 P.2d 632 (1973).
Actions may be brought only by and against legal entities. Actions may be brought only by legal entities and against legal entities. There must be some ascertainable persons, natural or artificial, to whom judgments are awarded and against whom they may be enforced. Barker v. District Court, 199 Colo. 416, 609 P.2d 628 (1980).
There is no exception to naming requirement. The rules of civil procedure make no exception in "in rem" actions, as distinguished from "in personam" actions, to the requirement that defendants be named if their names are known or be designated as "unknown" when such is the case. Barker v. District Court, 199 Colo. 416, 609 P.2d 628 (1980).
Naming of defendants insufficient. The designations, "owner" and "operator", in the caption of the case, without naming them, when those persons were known to the district attorney, are not in compliance with the requirements of the rules of civil procedure that a party defendant shall be named unless his name is unknown. Barker v. District Court, 199 Colo. 416, 609 P.2d 628 (1980).
This relates to both civil and criminal cases.
Rule 10. Form and Quality of Pleadings, Motions and Other Documents
Rule text
(a) Caption; Names of Parties. Every pleading, motion, E-filed document under C.R.C.P. 121 (1-26), or any other document filed with the court (hereinafter "document") in both civil and criminal cases shall contain a caption setting forth the name of the court, the title of the action, the case number, if known to the person signing it, the name of the document in accordance with Rule 7(a), and the other applicable information in the format specified by paragraph (d) and the captions illustrated by paragraph (e) or (f) of this rule. In the complaint initiating a lawsuit, the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties to the action. In all other documents, it is sufficient to set forth the name of the first-named party on each side of the lawsuit with an appropriate indication that there are also other parties (such as "et al."). A party whose name is not known shall be designated by any name and the words "whose true name is unknown". In an action in rem, unknown parties shall be designated as "all unknown persons who claim any interest in the subject matter of this action".
I have challenged the jurisdiction of the court several times, it is the duty of the plaintiff and not the court to prove jurisdiction.
Plaintiff has the burden to prove jurisdiction. Reynolds v. State Board for Community Colleges, 937 P.2d 774 (Colo. App. 1996).
A plaintiff has the burden of proving that the trial court has jurisdiction to hear the case. Pfenninger v. Exempla, Inc., 12 P.3d 830 (Colo. App. 2000).
The question of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of an action, and that, too, without an assignment of error on the subject. Peaker v. Southeastern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist., 174 Colo. 210, 483 P.2d 232 (1971).
Where a court does not have jurisdiction, the remedy is not change of venue but rather dismissal of the action. Larrick v. District Court, 177 Colo. 237, 493 P.2d 647 (1972).
This rule provides that every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. National Advertising Co. v. Sayers, 144 Colo. 356, 356 P.2d 483 (1960); Elk-Rifle Water Co. v. Templeton, 173 Colo. 438, 484 P.2d 1211 (1971).
People of state should not be named as party when individual is party in interest. People ex rel. Garrison v. Lamm, 622 P.2d 87 (Colo. App. 1980).
So all these judges have lost subject matter jurisdiction when they refuse for the plaintiff to prove jurisdictin.
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
