Open Letter to Senator Marco Rubio - Orlando Florida.

"April 14, 2011

Senator Marco Rubio

201 South Orange Avenue
Suite 350 
Orlando, FL 32801

Dear Senator Marco Rubio

I write to ask the Senate Judiciary Committee fulfill the expectations found in the CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT MANUAL  updated January 6, 2011 .  The SUMMARY  page contains the quote below : 

“Congress’s oversight role is even more significant—and more demanding—than when Woodrow Wilson wrote in his classicCongressional Government (1885): “Quite as important as lawmaking is vigilant oversight of administration.” Today’s lawmakers and congressional aides, as well as commentators and scholars, recognize that Congress’s work, ideally, should not end when it passes legislation. Oversight is an integral way to make sure that the laws work and are being administered in an effective, efficient, and economical manner. In light of this destination, oversight can be viewed as one of Congress’s principal responsibilities as it grapples with the complexities of the 21^st century. ”

 I have sought, for years, to have 18 USC 3332 and conduct mandated in the U.S. Attorney Criminal Resource Manual 158  enforced.  I have evidence that I believe a Special Grand Jury would find sufficient for criminal indictments of corruption by officers of the court in the 11^th U.S. Circuit.  I filed a PETITION FOR RELIEF IN THE NARURE OF MANDAMUS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF  ( 08-21366 United States District of Florida ) which was dismissed for reasons inconsistent with USSC standards.  
I have asked the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility and Federal Judge William Hoeveler to enforce this codified law, but my requests have been rejected.  The FBI was asked to investigate my allegations of corruption but apparently has opted out.  I asked John Gillies SAIC in charge of the Miami FBI office investigate my allegations of corruption in the Federal Court of the Southern District of Florida where the conduct occurred but in almost a year heard nothing from him—not even a request to review my evidence.  The FBI represents  “verdicts handed down in courts” to be a “top priority” —WHY?.

On point Federal Court decision regarding U.S. Attorney discretion in 18 USC 3332 has been addressed and removed in the case IN THE MATTER OF GRAND JURY APPLICATION, 617 F. Supp. 199, 1985 SDNY April 26 1985 .  Link to decision:  

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2738262464418783101&q=%22617+f.supp.%22+%2Bin+re+grand+jury%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2002

The United States Supreme Court on June 26, 2006 in ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, PETITIONER v. PEARL MURPHY et vir wrote:

“We have “stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 253–254 (1992) . When the statutory “language is plain, the sole function of the courts—at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd—is to enforce it according to its terms.” Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N. A., 530 U. S. 1, 6 (2000) (quoting United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., ”

In the entirety of my dealings with the Office of U.S. Attorney,  DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility and Federal Courts, there has been no comment on what is considered “absurd” or is not clear in 18 USC 3332.

In 2008 I resorted to filing a PETITION FOR RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF to have the U.S. Attorney compelled to comply with 3332. The case was assigned to Judge William Hoeveler, number 08-21366 SD FL Included in the complaint, as exhibits, were more than 100 pages of deposition testimony which clearly demonstrated fraud by Officers of the Court in this civil case, abrogation of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and Model Code for lawyers. Judge Hoeveler dismissed my complaint for very minor procedural reasons and without comment on what he considered “absurd” or not “plain” in 3332. Had Hoeveler reviewed the complete case file he would have realized some of his reasons for dismissing the complaint were actually in the file. The failure of the complained of parties constitutes a violation of 18 USC 242 ( ex 7 )  as two or more people have conspired to deprive me of rights secured by codified law ( 18 USC 3332) .

 All I want is for 18 USC 3332 to be complied with in a competent, professional, timely manner and for those who have been an obstacle to compliance held accountable. Clearly there have been numerous violations of law by numerous employees of the Federal Government in this matter and I have the proof..   I have numerous documents that support my allegations and welcome the opportunity to share them with any investigator you designate.  Corrupt Officers of the Court should be held accountable for their actions and there should be no place in our government for those who refuse to enforce codified law in the manner mandated by the United States Supreme Court. 

 Judiciary committee investigation into my concerns would demonstrate new leadership of a House Judiciary Committee that will no longer tolerate inept  conduct previously found in leadership of the committee.  America is looking for an end to perceived corruption in our government –this is a great place to start investigating.  Numerous parties have been asked to comply with codified law and have refused.

  There is also significant benefit from reviewing the precedent set by  courts with their apparent corrupt decisions in my case.   The courts concluded if anyone crosses a “union picket line” they are “scabs”.   Please ask yourself “ if the janitorial staff  in the building  where you work was on strike and you crossed their picket line to go to work today, Would you consider yourself to be a “union scab”?  I submit you would not because you did not perform the work of those on strike and would certainly not want your good name placed on a widely distributed “scab list” as mine was. The potential of allowing the precedent in my case to stand gives unions significant intimidation power in strikes—power that can easily cause financial damage to employers.  
The Judiciary Committee needs to shine some sunlight on the judiciary and unprofessional conduct found at the DOJ.  It is time to start the disinfectant process if in fact we are a “nation of law” and “have the rule of law”.  If we are not a “nation of law” and actually do not have the “rule of law” then we citizens need to know.

I believe review of my case by the Judiciary Committee would result in justification for several changes to the way  courts conduct their business.  The changes include:

1            .Federally licensing Officers of the Court that practice in Federal Courtrooms.  Oversight of these Federally licensed individuals would be provided by a newly created body that would license, discipline and regulate individuals that participate, for hire, in the judicial process.  Cost of operation for this newly created oversight would be paid for through annual membership dues.

2    .Limit the case load for judges over age 80 to one civil case per week.  Limit case load for judges over 83 to one civil case per month.  Limit case load for judges over 85 to one civil case per quarter.  Limit case load to judges over age 87 to one civil case per year.  This would be a legislative way to avoid conflict with “ lifetime appointment” yet limit damage die to mental/physical decline.  Airline pilots are mandated to retire age  65- until recently it was age 60 . These limits are in place to protect public safety. Limiting Federal Judges ability to inflict damage is crucial to the way the justice system is supposed to work.

3.            Incorporate the Canons of Judicial Conduct into 28 USC 28--, change the word “should” found in the current Canons  back to “shall” and make compliance mandatory.

4. Consider repeal on the 1934 Rules Enabling Act.  Allowing the judiciary to “self police” and create its own professional standards is just not doing the job.
   
5. Determine there is no statute of limitations for fraud upon the court.

 We have a Democrat President and Attorney General who represent “ we are a nation of law” and have the “ rule of law” and that is all I ask for—compliance with codified law.

Regards and many thanks for your help. 

Joseph S. Norman II"