r5

I allege that, on or about November 1, 1986, the above named defendant, In consortium and collusion with members or his personal staff, did direct, instruct, or otherwise approve deliver of offensive weapons and other armaments, to a foreign country (Iran), without the approval or knowledge of the U.S. Senate or Congress.

I allege that the above named defendant, with others under his direct order and supervision did knowingly, willfully and without regard for his office, violate, abridge, and otherwise contravene a breach of the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically, Article II, Sections 2 and 3; and with those same individuals, In consort, did violate and breach the War Powers Act, as amended.

Paul Robert Resnick, Jr.,

4144 Arnold Avenue

Lower Burrell, Pa 15068

724-226-0561

This case is a case arising under the laws of the United States of America, including the War Powers Act, The Constitution of the united States, and the treason laws. The Federal Courts have exclusive jurisdiction of the cause as it involves a Federal Official purporting to act in the scope of his duties.

The United States Court of Appeals has Jurisdiction of the appeal as an appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. This action was final pursuant to 28 USC 1291.

Did the District Court ERR in dismissing the complaint as a nonjusticiable political question?

This case arose out of the numerous and several violations of Federal Law and betrayals of trust which are popularly known collectively as the " IRAN ARMS SCANDAL" in which numerous members of The White House Staff, and allegedly, The President of the United States of American, provided arms in support of the Iranians, who have repeatedly declared themselves to be the enemies of The United States, and employed the funds generated from the sale of these weapons as part of an illegal scheme to supply arms for certain Guerrillas in Nicaragua. As a result of official positions which have been changed like shifting Desert Sands, it is impossible to say without more that Defendant Ronald WIlson Reagan, President of the United States of America, was actually aware of or in day to day control of the illegal activities. It is imperative to the future ofth Nation that the People have an unequivocal answer as soon as possible, through public inspection of all the relevant documents, in order we may see how badly we have been served. As to the case at Bar, The President has either been engaged in activities which were impermissible for him, or he has been so lax in his Constitutionally Mandated Supervisory Duties that he has assumed liability for the misdeeds of the various and numerous lackeys under his control.

As the facts of this tragic case have come more and more to Light through the diligent persistent of a persistent Free Press, it has become increasingly clear that The Citizens of the United States have been damaged by incompetence in high places, intentional failure or refusal to discharge solemn duties, or a callous indifference thereto, or all of the items. Plaintiffs a Veteran of the Armed Services of The United States during the Vietnam Era. Plaintiff gave to this country of himself and his Time, Spirit, And Self, Plaintiff is a worker and a self sustaining, productive person, as well as a provider for his family. Plaintiff is also, of course, a Taxpayer, and a member of the Body Politic. Plaintiff is also a responsible and loving Parent who is properly concerned for the welfare of his Children and the World in which the Children live and will grow.

The acts of the individual involved in the Iran Arms Scandal are heinous and Frightening, Since Jimmy Carter was President of the United States, The Iranians have been self declared enemies of the United States. The enmity of the Iranian Government, through the zealous despotism of the Ayatollah Khomeini, has long been open vitriolic, and unconcealed by the Iranians. The Iranians have openly regarded The United States of America as their worst enemy constantly since the overthrow of the Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, The Deposed Shah, The Taking and holding of the Embassy Staff by The Iranian Rebels was unconscionable and has never been accepted or forgiven by The American People, nor, officially, by their Government. The Iranians have gone to incredible lengths to declare that the United States is "GREAT SATAN", and have declared the fervent wish for destruction with even more dedication that the rantings of Nikita Kruschev as he threatened that he "WOULD BURY US". In addition, The Iranians have made hating America a major industry and have apparently supported groups of Terrorist who have taken hostages.

Whoever concocted the Iran Arms Scandal was guilty of TREASON, Truly, for giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States of America. Such conduct on the part of men at the Highest Levels of The Government jeopardize each and every citizen of the United States of American as a result of the Enmity to which it expose Americans at all levels of society. By inviting Foreign Terrorists to kidnap an Americans they may find and hold them as ransom for weapons in an unholy barter game, the agents of the Government who concocted the Arms of Iran

1. The Roe of the Hostages in the Iran Arms Scandal is a separated Tragedy. What makes it all the worst is the fact that rewarding this crude Barbarism with rewards in military ordnance and supplies does little to the long term situation except to guarantee that the taking of hostages will continue or will increases with each succeeding Pay-Off which The Terrorists are able to negotiate. The initial revelations concerning The Iran Arms Scandal seemed to show that the arms were delivered primarily to secure the release of these innocent American Victims, which would be a Humanistic, if misguided, goal in the circumstances. As time went on, however, it became clear that the administration was merely hiding behind the hostages and were really engaged in a sinister game designed to raise large sums of phantom money to be used in direct and intentional violations of the law of the land, with respect to Nicaragua and The Contra Rebels. Scheme have acted with a reckless disregard of The Safety, Health and Welfare of every American Citizen who contemplates going anywhere overseas. Finally, as a member of the Corps of Veterans of our Armed Services, Plaintiff has been made to suffer humiliation and disgrace as a result of the opprobrium which has been offered to all former members of the Armed Services.

Procedurally, this case was commenced by the plaintiff, Paul Resnick, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by the filing of a complaint against The President for having violated or conspired with others to violate The War Powers Act, and for committing Treason by giving aid and comfort to and enemy of The United States of America, The President was represented by The Office of The United States Attorney for The Western District of Pennsylvania, which made a motion to dismiss, alleging that the case was essentially a nonjusticiable political question, and that The Plaintiff had no standing to bring and action of the sort.

Subsequently, and without the allowance of a reponse to the motion to dismiss, The Court entered an order dismissing the complaint, and finding the issues involved in the complaint to constitute a nonjusticiable political question. Plaintiff filed this appeal.

QUESTION PRESENTED: Did the District Court ERR in dismissing the complaint as a nojusticiable political question?

The United States argued in the Court below that the matter raised by Plaintiff was not a justifiable matter or was not a "CASE or CONTROVERSY" Within the meaning of the expression as found in Article Three of The Constitution of the United States. The Court below concurred and concluded that the matter was a nonjusticiable political question and entered and order dismissing the case. The United States in the Court below cited MARBURY V MADISON, 5 us 137 (1803), for the proposition that in certain area of The President's Power he has exclusive and nonreviewable power to act, and that there is no mechanism available to control the exercise of that discretion.

The entire argument of the United States misses the point. PLAINTIFF / APPELLANT certainly agrees with the proposition that The President is necessarily empowered with broad discretion in the making of and carrying out of the foreign policy of The United States. No Rational American in this day and age would ever suggest otherwise as a result of the fast moving pace with which we must keep up. I The President / Defendant had merely been discharging his duty to The People of The United States and to The Government by managing the Foreign Policy, then this case would never have arisen. That was not the case with Ronald Wilson Reagan, however. At the very least, this case involves the violation of numerous laws and acts of Congress, which the PLAINTIFF / APPELLANT is unable to immediately identify as a result of the close protection given to the actual activities which took place during the period question, and which would have to be discovered by the Plaintiff in the course of the litigation.

While the law is clear that the Courts do not assume jurisdiction of some political questions, it is equally clear that the mere fact that a political questions, it is equally clear that the mere fact that a political issue has a manifestation in a legal case does not deprive the courts of the jurisdiction. In The District Court The United States cites the factors which The United States Supreme Court has identified as prominent in deciding the justifiability issue:

(1) Does the case present issues for which there is a "Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinated political department";

(2) The laws broken include at the least The War Powers Act, the prohibition against Treason as a result of the rendering of aid and comfort to Iran, and enemy of The United States of America, In addition, there was obviously a great deal of illegal diversion and disposition of property of The United States of American in the distribution of the military equipment to Iran. From all the reports available, the funds achieved from the sale of the military equipment did not go into the General Fund of The United States as it should have, but was instead diverted to private offshore bank accounts under the control of White House Staffers, who then directed the funds in an effort to overthrow The Government of Nicaragua. Thus there appear to be substantial questions of fraud, theft of conversion to be dealt with on the part of the DEFENDANT / APPELLEE and his henchmen. Is there a "Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standard for resolving" The lawsuit:

(3) Would resolution of the matter involve "An initial policy determination of the kind clearly for nonjuicial discretion";

(4) Would Judicial resolution represent a"Lack of the repect due coordinate branches of government";

(5) Is there an unusual need for strict adherence to a political decision already made; or

(6) Do the questions raised by the lawsuit present "The Potentiality of Embarrassment for multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question".

See, EG, BAKER V CARR, 369 US 186 (1962). In many of the toughest cases ever decided by the Courts in the United States, there were strong political and policy questions which ran posed to the eventual rulings of The Courts, but the political implications did not stop the courts from doing their duty and ruling on the cases. Baker v Carr, supra, and the other case, contrary to the position of The Government, do not stand for the proposition that there can be no judicial review of the actions of the executive branch merely as a result of the activities of the Executive having a relationship to the Foreign Affairs of The United States. In fact, BAKER V CARR itself contains authority to the contrary:

Similarly, recognition of belligherency abroad is an executive responsibility, but if the executive proclamations fall short of an explicit answer, a court may construe them seeking, for example, to determine whether the situation is such that the statutes designed to secure American Neutrality have become perative. 369 US AT 212.

Thus, when the executive defaults or fails to be sufficiently explicit in a foreign policy pronouncement, the matter may become appropriate for judicial review. In this case, The public pronouncements of the executive were completely at odd with the secret behind the scenes activities of The White House, and the diversion of Funds to Nicaragua was a violation of the enactment's of Congress, and the dissipation of weapons and spare parts amounted to a conversion or theft of Government Property. Citizens have an interest in the enforcement of the land, and the courts have the power to enforce the rights of citizens.

Since this case involves the interface between the proper exercise of presidential powers and the violation of the proper activities of the Executive Branch. In addition, there is a very substantial possibility that the events of this case amount to a violation of the criminal laws of The United States of American. The mere fact that the defendant is The President of The United States is not sufficient to render the case non-justiciable. The Power of the President to act is neither unlimited nor is it un-reviewable.

YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE CO V SAWYER, 343 us 579, 72 S Ct 863 (1952) In cases in which the matter to be determined is whether the actions of a branch of government have exceeded The Constitutional authority given to that branch, The Supreme Court must interpret The Constitutional grant of power to determine if the grant has been exceeded, UNITED STATES V NIXON, 418 US 683, 94 S. CT 3090 (1974). In this case, the fact that the executive is involved does not render the matter non-justiciable, especially considering that there is a substantially real possibility that the members of The White House Staff and involved in Treason or other crimes against The United States.

For the reasons stated above, the decision of The District Court must be reversed, and the cause remanded.