THE HARROWING CASE OF MORMON INTERFERENCE IN THE MATTER OF WALLACE vs. ROMNEY, et al CASE NO. 3:13-c-v-00167-MMD
Graphic by Author
Recently, National Public Television carried the documented story of a
High-Wire artist slowly walking on a stretched cable across the Grand Canyon.
It was an 18-minute ordeal, hoping the walker would not slip and plunge four
hundred feet to his death.
It took a great deal of skill and nerve on the walker's part to not be
distracted by the over-flight of a helicopter filming the event. However, with
his skill and patience he was able to make the crossing into the arms of his
family members. It was a public-interest filming and was viewed by a wide
audience.
Concurrently with that walk across The Grand Canyon chasm, a different
"rope" walk measured in miles rather than feet and without publicity
is presently going on as a drama that concerns the future of the government of
the United States and likely that of the world by pinpointing the dangers of
the NSA Data Center in Utah and its host the Mormon Church.
The walker this time is not an experienced tight-rope walker but rather
an 84-year-old Senior American carrying a burden of proof that the Melchizedek
Priesthood of the Mormon Church is hell-bent on gaining control of the U.S. government
to establish its vaunted Kingdom of God on Earth with the prophet/president of
the church as the world king. The recent uproar over NSA spying and its 2-billion-dollar
data-storage facility in Utah is at the core of the controversy and indeed
impelled the need for the lawsuit on the part of the plaintiff [this writer].
The rope on which this author, [hand over hand], is presently positioned
is stretched between the Reno, Nevada, U.S. District Court building and the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals building in San Francisco. But unlike the Grand
Canyon walker who could keep moving, this walker is immobilized at half point.
Why the immobilization? Simply because the players in the game, i.e.
Mormon sleeper agents in the United States Justice Department and in the United
States Federal Court system, are doing exactly what my lawsuit warns about.
Mormonism has brainwashed its believers that the Church is God's future
political government [kingdom] on earth and church members who have been sworn
to "holy" oaths in Mormon temples and working in all branches of
government, as sleeper agents, are committed to aid and abet the fulfillment of
that goal. I know this because I too was a part of the insane belief for many
years.
Because I had the audacity to file a lawsuit in March 2012 challenging
that deluded notion, the past and present reaction of both the Court and the
Justice Department is to not deny the allegations but rather to ridicule the
allegations and the messenger without investigation or reason in the face of
overwhelming documentation. So they have sought to quiet me by
positioning me at the center juncture on a rope stretched between Reno District
Court on one end and the Appeals court on the other. This action is
presently disabling me from proceeding with the lawsuit while I languish
between the two court systems waiting perhaps eternally for one or the other
court to act. Chief Judge Jones is hoping I will fall off, ending the
attempt to curtail the Mormon quest for empire. Yet all notices have been
timely given and all fees paid for.
Based on a defense of frivolousness, the lower court ruled the case closed
with prejudice on May 16, 2013, thus giving the right to appeal within thirty
days of that order. However, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE [FRCP] rule 59
(e) grants a twenty-eight-day period after the date of filing of the order of
judgment for the plaintiff to file an action in District Court to amend,
clarify, or rescind the order of final judgment. That motion was filed on June 12, 2013, which
means that the lower court cannot legally declare the case closed under the
cited rule for a period of twenty-eight days in spite of the court's ruling
that it was the final order and the case was "closed" on May 16,
2013.
Yet a right of appeal has to be made within thirty days of the order or
the right is lost. That is a two-day difference of limitation on one action or
the other; what lame-brain Committee came up with those interdependent rules is
unknown. To the date of this article [August 12, 2013] the District Court has
failed a response to the motion. All it needs to do is deny the motion
and then we can get on with the appeal. But for some unacknowledged reason it
has refused to act in a pattern similar after February 14, 2013, and 62 days of
silence.
A Motion filed with the Appellate Court on July 6, 2013, to compel the
District Court to act has fallen on deaf ears since the appellate court is
waiting on the action of the lower court to deal with the rule 59 (e) motion
before it can accept the jurisdiction of the appeal and apparently the
authority to rule on the motion to compel.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
