Issues Not Yet Resolved

[John J. McCarthy]

Perhaps one of the viewers on this forum knows of a lawfirm willing to tackle this issue or knows of a venue for a Congressional Bill.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: vpocv@comcast.net

To: contactus@njcdlp.org,<contactus@njcdlp.org>

Cc: tom@cherokeetel.com

Subject: Possible Recourse of Federal Judical Ruling

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:34:52 +0000

NATIONAL JUDICIAL CONDUCT and

DISABILITY LAW PROJECT, INC

September 13, 2006

Greetings Gentlemen;

On January 6, 2003 the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. dismissed, with prejudice and without comment, a pro se Civil Action filed by myself against the CIA, et al, for $1.3 Billion as a result of actions by the Defendants which involved Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice in a Capital Murder Case and related charges.

The Case was presented before Federal District Judge Emmett Sullivan in 1999, dismissed in 2000, reinstated in 2001 and ultimately dismissed, with prejudice, in 2003.

In 2002, Judge Sullivan issued a letter ordering me not to refer to allegations of wrong doing by members of the US Government which were 'incident to service', re the Feres Doctrine http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id70.html

by specifically stating "....and you are not to refer to it again".

During 2005, I discovered a ruling, on the Internet, decided on December 6, 2002 by the US Court of Appeals For The District of Columbia Circuit, which appears to overrule the Feres Doctrine, at least in part, which effects my case before Judge Sullivan.

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judic...s/01-5319a.html

The US Attorney arguing for the Government in the Court of Appeals in the above case, Roscoe C. Howard, was the same US Attorney who would later represent the Government in my case before Judge Sullivan. As an Officer of The Court, the US Attorney would be obligated to inform Judge Sullivan of the above US Court of Appeals Ruling re Feres. This ruling would, I feel, provide a change of opinion by Judge Sullivan and allow him the opportunity to address the issues presented in the Civil Action which violated the Constitution.

As mentioned in the Federal Appeals Case, above, the Court has ruled:

First, as the district court correctly noted, the Feres doc-

trine forecloses damages actions by service members against

the government for injuries occurring "incident to service" in

the military. "The special nature of military life--the need

for unhesitating and decisive action by military officers and

equally disciplined responses by enlisted personnel--would be

undermined by a judicially created remedy exposing officers

to personal liability at the hands of those they are charged to

command." Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 304 (1983).

The Supreme Court has made clear, however, that Feres

does not bar all suits by service personnel:

"[O]ur citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic

rights simply because they have doffed their civilian

clothes." This Court has never held, nor do we now

hold, that military personnel are barred from all redress

in civilian courts for constitutional wrongs suffered in the

course of military service.

Reinforcing the above, my duties required living as a civilian, under the control of a civilian agency of the US Government, CIA, and I was directed not to openly associate with any and all military personnel in Vietnam. Details on this matter are outlined in the reference URL's below.

Additionally, one of the issues not recognized for review by Judge Sullivan was the Supreme Court decision: Thornwell vs US. In this case the Court ruled that Thornwell, who was sereptitiously administered LSD during interrogations by US Military Intelligence personnel in their attempts to investigate a breach of classified information which occured in France, and who suffered 'flash backs', was civilly libeled and he was awarded the sum of $11 million dollars in compensation.

If this information re the Feres ruling at the Court of Appeals fits "newly found evidence and fraud on the court" or other means of relief, would this allow me to reinstate my case before the Federal Court, or, file directly with the Court of Appeals for relief and or possible remand to the Federal District Court for further review?

Would the NJCDLP be in the position to represent me in this matter?

Best Regards,

John McCarthy

310 397 1143

http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id1.html

http://www.geocities.com/larryjodaniel/17.html

http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id258.html