EoP Amicus Request to CCR v USA et al is one of the EoP Legal Submission cases involving EoP scientific and cultural law recommendations to shut down the WiP Ponzi profiteering of resource conflict and misery economy, by ‘turning off the tap’ — i.e. the breeding / consumption above ecological carrying capacity limits — causes of resource conflict and war; by implementing an Ecology of Peace New World Order Social Contract that (a) requires all citizens of all races, religions, nations, to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; or be humanely eliminated from the planetary genepool; (b) nationalizes all property and provides all responsible freedom oath citizens: (i) cultural law self rule for groups with subjective racial, religious & gender identities; and (ii) a property ration to enable their shelter and survival self-sufficiency to enable the rebuilding of a relocalized low-tech organic agrarian sustainable future.
Clerk/Registrar accepted EoP application into the court record they administratively clerked on, for juridical arbitration. The Judge/s – perhaps as a result of ego and/or ecological illiteracy [EoP Definition of Ego/Eco Literacy] – refused to allow the application to be submitted into court record proceedings, for official ruling response from the judges, and/or other parties, to enable court to make impartial truth-seeking evidentiary enquiry into EoP v WiP issues in dispute.
→ US: US Court of Appeals for Armed Forces: Judges: Case # 12-8027/AR: CCR v US.
» EoP Leg Sub: Official State Responses: 21 Jul: Re: USCAAF Judges Ruling Re: EoP Amicus submission to USCAAF: #12-8027/AR: CCR v USA.
CCR v USA arose as an appeal/review of issues in dispute in US Army First Judicial Court: US v Bradley Manning.
The EoP Amicus requested the Court to support Pfc Manning to receive a Truthseeker trial, by providing primary access to controversial court submissions or transcripts to journalists or publications who practice scientific journalism as opposed to left or right wing biased misrepresentation propaganda journalism.
Arguments: (i) EcoFeminist Radical Honoursty Transparency culture Wild Law Sustainable Security perspective to parties Anthropocentric Masculine Insecurity PR War of Pretend Transparency to profit from the ‘Control of Reproduction’ Human Farming War Economy Racket (ii) Pfc Manning cannot receive free and fair trial, if Media Abuse their Publicity Power.
USCAAF Judges refused to accept the EoP Amicus brief submitted to the Clerk, and instead of issuing an official order of court, refusing the EoP Amicus submitted to the cuort, the Judges ordered the Clerk to write a letter informing the applicant that they had decided not to grant the request to proceed as an Amicus Curia in the case. The EoP Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration, to which the Clerk responded: “The rejection of your brief was not done by order, decision or opinion of the Court, and therefore is not subject to reconsideration under Rule 31. Accordingly, and with the agreement of the Judges, your petition for reconsideration likewise will not be considered or be made part of the record.”
The Clerk later provided a more detailed response: “To recap, in late September, I forwarded your request to file a pro se amicus brief in the case of Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. v. United States and Colonel Denise Lind, to the Judges of the Court. After reviewing it, and exercising their discretion, the Judges noted you are not a party to the case and therefore cannot appear “pro se” and that you are not an attorney who would be able to file an amicus brief. Additionally, the Court noted your use of indecent language and the lack in your brief of any coherent argument to be allowed to file. Accordingly, they instructed me not to file it with the record and to return it to you. A court order was not issued. Because you filed electronically, there was no point in returning it to you, but I did inform you by email that the Judges decided not to grant your request to file the pro se amicus brief. On October 15, you filed a petition for reconsideration, which I also forwarded to the Judges. They directed me to inform you that because there was no order issued in the first instance, there was no basis for a petition for reconsideration under Rule 31 (“A petition for reconsideration may be filed no later than 10 days after the date of any order, decision or opinion by the Court”). I informed you of this on October 16. Later the same day you replied, attached a letter to the Judges, and asked me to submit it to the Judges. Due to the profanity and intemperate language you used in the letter, I have not forwarded it to them and I will not do so.”
USCAAF Judges and Clerk’s refusal appealed to US Supreme Court for Review in Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
- 24 Sep 2012: EoP Amicus Brief [PDF]
- 16 Oct 2012: Petition for Reconsideration [PDF]
- 09, 16 & 22 Oct 2012: USCAAF Judges and Clerk Orders & Correspondence [PDF]
EoP Leg Sub CCR v USA correspondence.