Circuit Rule 36-3

 

CITATION OF UNPUBLISHED DISPOSITIONS OR DECREES

 

(a)                Not precedent: Unpublished dispositions and orders of this Court are not precedent, except  when relevant under the doctrine of law of the case* or rules of claim preclusion or issue preclusion.

(b)               Citation of Unpublished Dispositions and Orders Issued on or after January 1, 2007: Unpublished dispositions and orders of this court issued on or after January 1, 2007 may be cited to the courts of this circuit in accordance with FED. R. App. P. 32.1.

(c)                Citation of Unpublished Dispositions and Orders Issued before January 1, 2007: Unpublished dispositions and orders of this Court issued before January 1, 2007 may not be cited to the courts of this circuit, except in the following circumstances.

(i)       They may be cited to this Court or to or by any other court in this

circuit when relevant under the doctrine of law of the case* or rules of claim preclusion or issue preclusion.

 

(ii)  They may be cited to this Court or by any other courts in this circuit for factual purposes, such as to show double jeopardy, sanctionable conduct, notice, entitlement to attorneys’ fees, or the existence of a related case.

 

(iii)  They may be cited to this Court in a request to publish a disposition or order made pursuant Circuit Rule 36-4,[request to publish made within 60 days of issuance of disposition] or in a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, in order to demonstrate the existence of a conflict among opinions, dispositions, or orders.

           

               * * * * * * * * *

 

*Note: As Walker v United States and Walker v Members of Congress  are the only two federal lawsuits in United States history to deal directly with the Article V Convention and the obligation of Congress to call such a convention and as Walker v Members of Congress is the only lawsuit in United States history to have been appealed to any appeals court in the federal judicial system, these suits will always be “relevant under the doctrine of law of the case” as they are the only cases that can be referred to by the courts as no others exist. Therefore, under the precedent exception expressed in Circuit Rule 36-3, the lawsuits of Walker v United States from which the appeals decision in Walker v Members of Congress was derived are precedent. It is proper therefore to state that the federal courts of the United States have established as precedent that under the political question doctrine, Congress possesses the right to disobey the law of the Constitution and is allowed to commit criminal acts in doing so and is immunized from penalty for those acts.

 

The difference between a court memorandum and a court opinion is simply that opinions are published in law books, i.e., they are generally distributed for public review whereas memorandums are not so distributed. Both have equal legal force. As the court obviously knows its own rules, the only explanation possible for the three circuit judges issuing an unpublished memorandum when in fact they issued an opinion with precedent is they didn’t want to publish this fact and their opinion that the government has the right to disobey the Constitution and can commit criminal acts to do it to the general public.