Jim Bell's adversity

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 03:43:15AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
>  On Monday, October 21, 2019, 06:16:53 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
>  
>  
>  On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:46:54AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 09:14:10PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> > > First claim:
> > > 
> > > EVENTS
> > > 
> > > All previous pages and paragraphs herein are incorporated inclusive.
> > > 
> > > Claim #1
> > > 
> > > Beginning at a concealed time unknown to plaintiffs, various government agents including Defendants Jeff Gordon and Steven Walsh but not limited to these, with the assistance of unknown-named private citizens, began to act as individuals and as groups and as a group, in all their respective capacities, in a collusion and a conspiracy against private citizens including the plaintiffs in a scheme or plan in order to deny and violate their Constitutional rights.
> > > 
> > > These victim private citizens included attendees of a Portland, Oregon political/social/legal group called the "Multnomah County Common Law Court", (hereafter MCCLC), which met during the late 1996 through 1997 time frame, and continued until a date and time unknown to Plaintiff James Dalton Bell. The group of government agents and private-citizen co-conspirators is hereafter in some cases referred to as the Infiltrators, and the group of MCCLC attendees and other victims is referred to as Citizens.
> > > -------------------------------------------------  end of quote --------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> > Stunning. Absolutely stunning stuff! And still to today, "main
> > stream" media blackout.
> 
> And that INCLUDES Declan McCullagh.  Remember him?   He had the prospect of covering a truly gigantic story, but he flinched.  In early 2002, he claimed he would visit me at USP Lompoc, to cover my story,  He never showed.  And he lied about it:  Claimed that he couldn't, 'at the last moment', but in reality he didn't even bother to fill out the paperwork to have a visit approved...and that would have had to happen 2 weeks prior to the visit.
> I don't object to the mere lack of a visit:  I objected to the fact that he apparently went from covering the story...WHEN the government would have WANTED him to cover it...to suddenly abandoning the story once I got 'convicted'.
> 
> > Well, today is a new day - I encourage you to create a new
> > affidavit/deposition, attaching/exhibiting all previous documents,
> > get it signed and witnessed, and begin your claim anew.
> Eventually...
> 
> > There can be no statute of limitations on such government corruption,
> > and with the two lame stream parties fighting amongst themselves,
> > there's a chance you'll get an actual proper case going this time...
> 
> Limitations is very complicated.  According to a 1937 Supreme Court decision, Erie Railroad v. Tompkins  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Railroad_Co._v._Tompkins  the SC held that if a federal law had no explicit rule attached, Federal courts had to 'borrow' the corresponding rule from State law.  This included the limitations period ("statute of limitations").    That would have been great in the State of Washington, which up to 1993 'tolled' (stopped the clock) on a civil suit while a person was a prisoner.  Here's a good handling of the general problem, not specifically on Washington:  
> https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1583&context=ilj
> 
> Before 1993, being a prisoner tolled the limitations period.  In 1993, that law was repealed.
> https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/1993/aug/15/wa-repeals-cons-tolling-statute/
> 
> I knew about this in 2001, so I knew that I couldn't wait.


Additionally, you can always file, along with your claim, a "special
leave" application (or whatever they call that in the US - this
means, although you may technically be past any particular arguable
statute of limitation, you apply to the court to waive that
limitation, in the interests of justice (amongst other grounds...).

And always remember to add the various "public interest" grounds -
the public has an interest that wrongs and evils are (if belatedly)
brought to justice, the public have an interest to see justice be
done, the public have especially significant interests around the
organs (departments) and executors (individuals) of government, being
held to account.

If you include a bunch of such grounds, and all your evidence, and
it's still not enough, and you -still- need more "persuasion" (this
is the term used in Australian courts), your next step is to build
support for the exposure of the injustice and the claim to bring at
least some justice, with one or more of:

 - petition to parliament, with as many petitioners as you are
   willing to spend time gathering

 - a letter in support of your case from one or another MP, ideally
   an AG or three




> >Timing is really important Jim - the folks who did you over in their
> pathetic star chamber, may not (all?) be holding seats of powertoday.
> 
> Yes, I knew how important knowing these statutes was.
> 
> >Then again, other similarly criminal humans may have replaced those
> who've moved on."
> 
> No doubt..
> 
> 
> >Notwithstanding, it's a fair bet that the first time you attempted to
> file your claim, those who had most to lose by your claim running in
> the courts, were still in direct power.
> 
> >And so although a good experience, that may not have been the wisest
> time to bring your claim - as in, today might have much better chance
> of success for you.
> 
> >This is my assumptive hope...
> 
> I believe I will eventually get what amounts to 'justice'.   AP?
> 
> 
> >If you do deign to launch your claim at this time, and you have any
> questions at all, feel free to send me any question at all either on
> or off list - some I can answer, but only generally (Australian
> jurisdiction here, and IANAL).
> 
> >Also, you may happen across someone in the US who is of good spirit
> and has some knowledge (even just on legal process) who may be
> willing to assist you.
> 
> Well, the lawsuit I wrote in 2003 should have been plenty...
> 
> 
>