Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00400-FMA

Document 66-2

Filed 01/02/2008

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ § § § Plaintiffs, § v. § § JOHANNS, et al., § § Defendants. § ____________________________________§ WILLIAMS, et al. ____________________________________ ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) Civ. No. 04-1422 (PLF/JMF) ) MIKE JOHANNS, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) RODNEY BRADSHAW, ____________________________________ ) GEORGE HILDEBRANDT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civ. No. 04-1423 (PLF/JMF) ) MIKE JOHANNS, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)

Civ. No. 03-2245 (CKK) (JMF)

1

Case 1:05-cv-00400-FMA

Document 66-2

Filed 01/02/2008

Page 2 of 3

NOTICE OF FILING OF COURT'S OCTOBER 30, 2007 MEMORANDUM OPINION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CLAIMS TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGES COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY AND PAUL J. FRIEDMAN: Plaintiffs in the above-styled matters file NOTICE OF FILING OF COURT'S OCTOBER 30, 2007 MEMORANDUM OPINION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CLAIMS and would show upon the Court the following: 1. The travesty of justice continues: harm, perhaps irreparable harm, to black

farmer complainants and their Counsel! 2. On December 21, 2007, Defendant USA and their Department of Justice

Counsel filed this Court's October 30, 2007 Memorandum Opinion in Stovall v. USA, 05-cv-00400 ­ FMA. Of course, the October 30, 2007, is clearly irrelevant to the in the Stovall proceedings. The Memorandum Opinion was filed only for the purpose of attempting to raise the ire of Judge Francis Allegra as to the clearly erroneous issues in the Opinion. The Department of Justice Counsel failed, as if it was a big surprise, to inform Judge Allegra of Plaintiffs' motion to alter or change the opinion based on the fact that the Memorandum Opinion contains findings that are based on clearly erroneous, perhaps even contrived, testimony. 3. As previously stated, neither Plaintiffs nor Counsel have illusions as to

why this document was filed in Stovall the same as it was in Bradshaw v. Veneman, Civ. No. 04-1422 (PLF/JMF) and Hilderbrandt v. Veneman, Civ. No. 04-1422 (PLF/JMF). 4. The tragedy is that the Court could allow this to continue even for one day

given the Court possessing competent testimony that the findings, at least in part, in the October 30, 2007 memorandum are clearly erroneous.

2

Case 1:05-cv-00400-FMA

Document 66-2

Filed 01/02/2008

Page 3 of 3

5.

The purpose, of course, of filing the document in other Courts is to send

the message to the Courts and the federal judges that Counsel is a liar and scoundrel; and, therefore, the black farmer Plaintiffs and Counsel should be severely punished and dealt with harshly by those judges. What a shame and a sham! 6. Counsel and Plaintiffs can only sit back and watch this "lynching" take

place until the Court decides on the pending motions. 7. The filing is attached hereto, marked Exhibit 1, should the Court care to

read it; same being incorporated herein as if fully set forth. Respectfully submitted, James W. Myart, Jr. P.C. 1104 Denver Blvd San Antonio, Texas 78210 Phone: (210) 533-9461 Fax: (210) 533-4815 By:_/s/_____________________ James W. Myart, Jr. FBN: TX0021 [email protected] ATTY FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via overnight delivery to Mr. Michael Sitcov, Paul Dean and Tara LaMorte' on this 23rd of December, 2007.

By:_/s/_____________________ James W. Myart, Jr.

3