Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
14-50543
Brad Kempo
Appellant
v.
Appellee
Appellants Brief
1. The Appellant delivered to the United States District Court for the District of
2. On February 11, 2014, Huvelle J. (hereinafter the Trial Court) ruled said
3. The Appellant submits the Trial Court made errors of both fact and law.
facts that support the causes of action; the principal one being the tort of
deceit.
5. The Trial Court states The involvement of the United States ... is unclear
and the Appellee (para. 2.47) and one that was entered to in a manner that
involved deceit (para. 2.53 et seq.). The Appellant establishes direct and
6. The Trial Court states [The claim is] attenuated and unsubstantial as to be
question suitable for decision. The claim is substantial, meritorious and the
causes of action are known in law, the facts pled fully support them and the
7. The Trial Court cites the Federal Tort Claims Act (hereinafter the FTCA)
stating:
2
In order to maintain a claim for monetary damages against the United
States for certain torts a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies
first present[ing] the claim to the appropriate Federal agency. []
Even if the instant complaint stated a potential claim, it still would be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction because there is no indication that
plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies under the [FTCA].
8. In the materials provided the Trial Court, comprising the proposed within
Complaint and a Brief of Fact and Law supporting the application for in
forma Pauperis status, the Appellant made no mention about complying with
said statute. Consequently, there were no facts in evidence that allowed the
Trial Court to dismiss his proposed claim with prejudice on the basis of not
to either plead in its Answer a failure to comply with the statute or after filing
same bring a motion to strike the Complaint on the basis of having so failed.
10. The Trial Courts error of law lies in the fact the FTCA expressly exempts the
statute:
3
28 USC 2675 - Disposition by federal agency as prerequisite
(a) An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United
States for money damages for injury or loss of property or
personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act
or omission of any employee of the Government while acting
within the scope of his office or employment, unless the claimant
shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal
agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the
agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail.
The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall not
apply to
11. How the Trial Court ruled was in serious error. The standard of review in this
The court used a standard for plain error contained in Potts v. State, 712
P.2d 385, 390 (Alaska App. 1985), stating:
12. What the Trial Court did was in effect grant by its own motion summary
4
filed based on an alleged and unsubstantiated lack of jurisdiction. The
standard of review on appeals from this type of District Court ruling is well
established. In Public Citizen v. United States District Court for the District
13. And in Herbert v. National Academy of Sciences, 974 F. 2d 192 (USCA, D.C.
Cir., 1992), this statement of the law as it relates to the standard of review, at
14. This in McKinney v. Dole, 765 F. 2d 1129 (USCA, D.C. Cir., 1985), at para.
14:
5
Rule 56(c) states that a District Court may grant a motion for summary
judgment if the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law. It is now long established that summary judgment is
proper only when the moving party demonstrates the absence of any
genuine and material factual issue. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398
U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Catrett v.
Johns-Manville Corp., 756 F.2d 181, 184 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Kreuzer v.
American Academy of Periodonotology, 735 F.2d 1479, 1495 (D.C. Cir.
1984).
[]
In assessing whether a party moving for summary judgment has met his
or her burden, a court must view all inferences to be drawn from
underlying facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the
motion. See United States v. Diebold, Inc. 369 U.S. 654, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8
L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) (per curiam ); Kreuzer, supra, 735 F.2d at 1495;
Williams v. WMATA, 721 F.2d 1412 (D.C. Cir.1983). In fact, the
record must show the movants right to [summary judgment] with such
clarity as to leave no room for controversy, and must demonstrate that
his opponent would not be entitled to [prevail] under any discernible
circumstances.
15. As for the Trial Courts finding there was factual insufficiency, in Marshall
Cir., 1993) the standard of review was stated thusly at para. 21:
6
16. In Bristol Petroleum Corporation v. D. Harris, 901 F. 2d 165 (USCA, D.C.
Cir., April 1990) the Court referred to a deferential standard of review (in
footnote 5).
17. In Allaire Corporation v. Okumus et al., 433 F.3d 248 (USCA, 2nd Cir., 2006),
18. As pled in the within proposed Complaint (para. 2.06), the Appellant has been
a member of the Canadian Bar, a lawyer, since 1990; and ipso facto is
cognizant of how and why judges rule. He observed Huvelle J. having made
statements of fact and law that were blatantly and brazenly false, incendiary,
vitriolic and egregiously biased. Consequently, the only rational and logical
reason why she ruled as she did was because she took receipt of ex parte
fact obstruct justice when dismissing the within claim with prejudice. By the
time of the hearing of the within appeal an administrative complaint will have
7
been filed with the Judicial Council of the District of Columbia Circuit
The motivation for the conspiracy was at all costs to prevent the filing of
the within Complaint and prevent national publicity and a political
scandal that would engulf the Obama administration. It pleads a
successful military R&D program originally commenced and managed
by the governments of China and Canada one that from the late 1980s
to the mid-2000s achieved benchmark successes that the Central
Intelligence Agency didnt when engaging in the same type of program
in the 1950s and 1960s. Rogue personnel in Canada and the United
States military, intelligence and security communities have at every turn
sought to prevent me from attaining justice and to procure reform and
other forms of accountability.
1
When matters that are litigated involve national security issues a separate court
file is created and ascribed a DES designation; in this case two were.
8
Canada, claimed national security privilege upheld by Lemieux. And
the litigation was then dismissed on a nominal, warrantless technicality
before getting to the deposition stage.
Between August 2007 and April 2008 I delivered the results of my five
years of academic research (pled in para. 2.18, 2.21 2.22, 2.25 2.27)
to virtually every parliamentarian (House of Commons and Senate in
Ottawa). The Canadian security services proactively prevented reform
and accountability. In January 2011, I conducted an extensive
edification campaign in the United States (as pled in para. 2.68) in which
I contacted around 120 private sector organizations, associations, groups,
church executives, university professors and small, medium and large
newspapers (the complete list of recipients is posted at http://a7ai-
email.yolasite.com). Further, I also called every human rights
organization I could find through Internet searches, seeking their
assistance. I also reached out to a couple dozen attorneys seeking legal
representation to commence litigation in U.S. courts against the
Government of Canada. Nothing whatsoever resulted from these efforts.
19. It would, therefore, be a miscarriage of justice in the extreme to let the Trial
law that the proposed Defendant could successfully bring the administration
20. The Appellant seeks the relief of (1) reversing the ruling in the Memorandum
Opinion dismissing the proposed Complaint with prejudice and (2) this
11
Honorable Court order same be filed forthwith in the United States District
_______________________________
Brad Kempo, Appellant
12
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The Appellant submitted his proposed within Complaint to the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia. Huvelle J. ruled on 11 February 2014
the action was dismissed with prejudice. Therefore he has a right to appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
GLOSSARY OF ABREVIATIONS
USCA, D.C. Cir.: United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia Circuit
13