No. 19-290

Jay Nolan Renobato v. Bureau of the Fiscal Service

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-09-04
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: antitrust antitrust-law authority-under-section-636-rule-72 bill-of-rights-excessive-government-power civil-rights conflict-of-interest constitution-application-judicial-proceedings-prop constitutional-interpretation due-process federal-jurisdiction government-power judicial-procedure judicial-transgressions-conflicts-miscarriages rule-12b1-subject-matter-jurisdiction standing subject-matter-jurisdiction treasury-regulations
Key Terms:
Antitrust DueProcess Securities Privacy Jurisdiction JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-11-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Acts of Congress and the Constitution require their corrected application to judicial proceedings, property ownership, and interstate commerce and trade?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Legal Issues. Whether Acts of Congress and the Constitution require their corrected application to judicial proceedings, property ownership, and interstate commerce and trade? (U.S. CONST. art. ITI; 28 U.S.C.; 15 U.S.C.; 7U.S.C.; 31U.S.C.) . a. Judicial transgressions, conflicts, and miscarriages. Whether Rule 12(b)(1) subject matter jurisdiction exists per §§ 1331, 1832, and was properly in light of Home Burlders, Stockman, Wachovia, St. Paul, and DeAguilar, and if appeals Court met legal standard of review as required by law under Becker, Barrett, and Robicheaux? i. Transgressions. Whether lack of authority under § 636 and Rule 72, for a promoted court Clerk neither assigned to, nor presiding over the case, is proper dispositive procedure over objection of party, and without consent or notice? ii. Conflicts of Interest. Whether Bray’s conflict of interest from a close working relationship between FPDO/ USAO, and publicly expressed beliefs on federal budgets clouding Judgmentis truly unbiased or warrants recusal? cia iii, Miscarriage of Justice. Whether unsupported and rebutted presumptions in Bray’s dispositive Memo merging 13 counts of Complaint mixing antitrust, commodity/ security, and Treasury rules into 1 common law breach of contract action for less than $10,000 is reversible as clear errors/plain mistakes of law/fact tainting the Final Judgment Adopted? : b. Bill of Rights. Whether rights in the Constitution protect Plaintiff against excessive government power limiting its authority exercised over Plaintiff's property/TREASURY DIRECT Account and business? (U.S. CONST. amends. V, XIV) c. U.S.C/C.F.R.. Whether Claimant’s monopoly/restraint of trade charges confessed to and admitted by BFS/BPD under Rule 8(d) seals liability for its in violation of trade laws and obligations under 7 U.S.C. Ch. 1; 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2; 31 U.S.C.; 31 C.F.R. $§ 309.3, 306.15? :

Docket Entries

2019-11-04
Petition DENIED.
2019-10-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019.
2019-10-02
Waiver of right of respondent Bureau of the Fiscal Service to respond filed.
2019-08-31
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 4, 2019)

Attorneys

Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Jay Nolan Renobato
Jay Nolan Renobato — Petitioner
Jay Nolan Renobato — Petitioner