This is our final pleading in this case to which we simply received a "no" from the clerk of the court. That is was actually read, much less taken on merits is less than likely. Then, what else could one expect from the Supremely Corrupt Court.

The history of federal injustices and the prelude to this last slap of injustice by the cesspool that calls itself a judiciary can be found in the CASE DIARY.

in chronological order with links to appropriate documents.



                                     IN THE



                     WILLIAM C. HAMMEL, and
                     ALAN J. BELLAMENTE             - PETITIONERS


                     INSURANCE CO.., and            - RESPONDENTS
                     STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY  



                        PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

           WILLIAM C. HAMMEL                ALAN J. BELLAMENTE
           A-11 Moose Branch Road           A-11 Moose Branch Road
           Apartment 1-A                    Apartment 8-A
           Robbinsville, N.C. 28771         Robbinsville, N.C. 28771
           (828) xxx-xxxx                   (818) xxx-xxxx

                           QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

	1) Has the US Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit so
	   far departed from the accepted and usual course
	   of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a
	   departure by the US District Court, Western District
	   of North Carolina, as to call for an exercise of
	   this Court's supervisory power?

	2) Has the district court, in its actions, including a pattern of
	   violations of FRCP, particularly 15(a), acted improperly and
	   abused its discretionary power, particularly regarding 8(a) and
	   8(e), and with a lack of appropriate judicial clarity in improprly
	   granting defendents' motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), so as
	   to prejudice Petitioners in their rights, or in
	   their pursuit of justice?

	3) Has the District Court, through its deliberate failure to
	   consider appropriate and correct law and fact which were
	   called to the court's attention, improperly dismissed the
 	   action of Petitioners?

	4) In its dismissal, with prejudice, of the action brought
	   by Petitioners, has the District Court violated their rights,
	   in fact:

		a) under the First Amendment to
		   petition the courts for redress of grievences;

		b) under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
		   equal protection of the laws.

		c) under the Seventh Amendment to a trial by jury.

	5) Has the US Court of Appeals failed in its its duty under
	   law, and specifically, 28 USC 1652, 1738, by affirming
	   the district court's order without addressing the significant
	   violations of procedure and law in US District Court, brought
	   to its attention by Petitioners, thereby violating Petitioners
	   rights under the same Constitutional provisions stated above?

	6) Has the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in denying Petitioners
	   a rehearing, again failed in its duty and once again violated
	   Petitioners' rights when such prior violations had been brought
	   to that court's attention in petition?

                                LIST OF PARTIES

           [X] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the
               cover page.

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

         OPINIONS BELOW.......................................



         STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................

         REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT........................


                              INDEX TO APPENDICIES

         APPENDIX A  Decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals
                     for the Fourth Circuit

         APPENDIX B  Decision of the U.S. District Court,
                     Western District of North Carolina

         APPENDIX C  Memorandum and Recommendations of the Magistrate

         APPENDIX D  Denial of Petition for Rehearing by the U.S. Court
                     of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 

         APPENDIX E  Petitioners' Memorandum Attachment to Informal Brief
                     to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

         APPENDIX F  Petitioners' Petition for Rehearing to the
                     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Cases:                                                       Page Numbers

	Campbell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.,
	No. 890905231, slip op. at 53 (Third Judicial Dist., Salt Lake
	City, Utah, Aug. 3, 1998)

	Fornoratto v.  American Waterworks Co., Inc.
	144 F.3d 276, 278 (3rd Cir. 1998)

	Humana Inc. et al. v. Forsyth et al., No. 97-303,
	Decided January 20, 1999.

	Lawlor et al. v. National Screen Service,
	1955.SCT.748 ,
	349 U.S.  322, 75 S.  Ct. 865, 99 L. Ed. 1122.

	Mortgagelinq Corp. v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.,
	662 A.2d 536, 142 N.J. 336 (N.J. 08/01/1995)

	U.S. v. International Building Co., 345 U.S. 502 (1953)

Statutes and Rules:

	28 U.S.C. 636
	28 U.S.C. 1738

	F.R.C.P. 8(a)
	F.R.C.P. 8(e)
	F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)
	F.R.C.P. 15(a)


	U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
	U.S. Constitution, Amendment V
	U.S. Constitution, Amendment VII
	U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV

	Petitioners' Memorandum Attachment to Informal Brief
	U. S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, No. 00-2369


                                      IN THE

                        SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

                          PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

        Petitioners respectfully pray that a writ of certiorari issue
        to review the judgement below.

                                 OPINONS BELOW

        The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at
        appendix A to the petition and is unpublished.

        The opinion of the United States district court appears at
        Appendix B to the petition and Petitioners are unable to know
	whether it is published, despite several calls to the court,
        including speaking with judge's secretary.


        The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided
        our case was March 27, 2001.

        A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United states
        Court of Appeals on the following date: April 10, 2001, and a
        copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix D.



        The United States Constitution,
	First Amendment in pertinent part provides:

		"Congress shall make no law respecting ...
		to petition the government for redress of grievences"

	Fifth Amendment in pertinent part provides:

		"No person shall ... ; ... ; ... , nor be deprived
		of life, liberty, or property, without due process
		of law; ...."

	Seventh Amendment in pertinent part provides:

		"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy
		shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury
		shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall
		be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United
		States, than according to the rules of the common law."

	Ninth Amendment:

		"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
		rights, shall net be construed to deny or disparage
		others retained by the people."

	Fourteenth Amendment in pertinent part provides:

		..., no State shall make or enforce any law which shall
		abbridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
		United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
		life, liberty, or property, with out due process of law;
		nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
		protection of the laws.

	The U.S. Supreme Court understands this as global in order to
	maintain consistency with Fifth Amendment.

	28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) in pertinent part provides:

	A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of
        those portions of the report or specified proposed
        findings or recommendations to which objection is made.

	28 U.S.C. 1738

   	Sec. 1738. State and Territorial statutes and judicial
                   proceedings; full faith and credit 
   	The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or
        Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be
        authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or
        Possession thereto.

   	The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such
	State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be
	proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and
	its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk
	and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with
	a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation
	is in proper form.

   	Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof,
	so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in
	every court within the United States and its Territories and
	Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such
	State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

	F.R.C.P. 8(a) in pertinent part provides:
  	Rule 8. General Rules of Pleading
    	(a) Claims for Relief.
   	A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an
	original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim,
	shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds
	upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, unless the court
	already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of
	jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and plain statement of
	the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and
	(3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.
	Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be

	F.R.C.P. 8(e) in pertinent part provides:

    	(e) Pleading to be Concise and Direct; Consistency
   	(1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and
	direct.  No technical forms of pleading or motions are required.
   	(2) A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or
	defense alternately or hypothetically, either in one count or
	defense or in separate counts or defenses. When two or more
	statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made
	independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made
	insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the
	alternative statements. A party may also state as many separate
	claims or defenses as the party has regardless of consistency and
	whether based on legal, equitable, or maritime grounds.
	All statements shall be made subject to the obligations set
	forth in Rule 11 .

	F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) in pertinent part provides:
  	Rule 12. Defenses and Objections--When and How Presented--By
	Pleading or Motion--Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
    	(b) How Presented.
   	Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any
	pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or
	third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading
	thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses
	may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: ...
	(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
	granted, ....

	F.R.C.P. 15(a) in pertinent part provides:

  	Rule 15. Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
    	(a) Amendments.
   	A party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of
	course at any time before a responsive pleading is
	served or, ....  

                        STATEMENT OF THE CASE

        Petitioners filed, under 18 USC 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act,
	an action against, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
	(SFM) and State Farm Indemnity Company (SFI), a wholly owned
	subsidiary of SFM, while Petitioners had a pending Personal
	Injury Protection (PIP) action against SFI in the Superior
	Court of the State of New Jersey.

	The RICO action was filed in US District Court, Western District
	of North Carolina, (Bryson City) on March 11, 1999, along with a
	Petition to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Civil Docket #: 99-CV-44)

	The basis for federal jurisdiction in the court of first
	instance, the district court, was "Federal Question".

	A district court order denied the pauperis petition June 10,
	1999.  Petitioners responded to that order on June 22, 1999,
	asking for reconsideration, which was granted in an Order,
	July 6, 1999, allowing  Petitioners to submit additional
	affidavits in support of their petition, to which  Petitioners
	responded on July 13, 1999.  Their pauperis pettion was denied
	for the second time on July 23, 1999.  Petitioners submitted
	the filing fee on August 3, 1999.

	On September 21, 1999, Defendants SFM and SFI filed a Motion
	to Dismiss and in the Alternative to Stay, moving the District
	Court under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) claiming that Petitioners had
	not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, and
	that their action was barred by the doctrines of accord and
	satisfaction, and res judicata.

	On November 8, 1999, absent any responsive pleading by
	Defendants in the RICO action, and in a clear misquoting of
	Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' request for extended time
	to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Magistrate
	Judge issued an order compelling Plaintiff Petitioners to file
	a motion to amend their complaint, abrogating Plaintiff
	Petitioners' right under FRCP 15 (a), and stating that no
	further extension of time would be granted.

	Plaintiff Petitioners obeyed the letter of the Magistrate's
	Order because time was of the essence, but later called that
	error to the district court's attention.

	On February 7, 2000 in timely compliance with the Magistrate's
	Order Petitioners filed their Motion to Amend, the "proposed
	Amended Complaint", along with several Affidavits and Memoranda
	in support, as well as a Response to Defendants' Motion to
	dismiss indicating why Defendants' arguments were vacuous, and
	without merit.

	On March 20, 2000, Defendants SFM and SFI filed a Renewed
	Motion to Dismiss, moving the court under the same rules as
	before, and additionally under FRCP 8(a).  Complaints longer
	than that of Petitioners have been accepted by the courts.

	On April 4, 2000, Plaintiff Petitioners moved the court for
	permission to correct their amended complaint, on the basis
	of new evidence received during the period December, 1999 to
	February, 2000.  That motion was never responded to.

	On April 11, 2000, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum
	and Recommendations, wherein he recommended denial of the very
	motion to amend that he had ordered filed, as "unecessary under
	Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.", thus contradicting
	his own Order of November 8, 1999, and in so doing, severely
	damaging Petitioners in their Remedies.

	On April 27, 2000, Plaintiff Petitioners called attention to the
	court's error in their Objections to the Magistrate's Memorandum
	and Recommendation.  With new evidence at hand as to previously
	unknown criminal acts of Defendants SFM and SFI, Petitioners
	once again showed the vacuousness of the application of all
	preclusionary doctrines.

	On September 21, 2000, the district court granted Defendants'
	Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed, with prejudice, Plaintiff
	Petitioners' RICO action, on the basis of Res Judicata and New
	Jersey's Entire controversy Doctrine.  Petitioners have shown in
	their Memorandum Attachment to Informal Appeal Brief, that no
	principle of preclusion claimed by Defendants or the District
	Court applies to the facts of this case.

	The district court also rejected Plaintiff Petitioners' amended
	complaint under rule 8, FRCP.  The proposed Amended complaint,
	while apparently attached to the Record, was never docketed.
	Rule 8 does not provide any limitation in page length for
	complaints, nor has any court successfully imposed such a
	limitation.  This court has held that dismissal on the basis of
	Rule 8 length is not with sufficient cause.

	On October 19, 2000, Petitioners filed a timely Notice of Appeal
	with the District Court.

	On or before November 20, 2001, Petitoners filed, in a timely
	manner, an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
	Fourth Circuit (No. 00-2369).  Petitioners clearly demonstrated
	the errors in the district court's dismissal, clearly showing
	that neither Res Judicata nor New Jersey's Entire Controversy
	Doctrine were applicable to their RICO litigation.

	On March 27, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the
	Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court by an unpublished,
	per curiam, opinion, avoiding Petitioners' demonstrations of
	errors in law, fact and Rules.

	On April 10, 2001, Petitioners filed a petition for rehearing
	with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
	On May 8, 2001, the court of appeals denied, without explanation,
	Petitioners' petition for rehearing.


	1) In conflict with the Supreme Court of the United States,
	   [International Building] and [Lawlor] The United States
	   Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, by affirming the
	   district court's order, allows to stand, the district court's
	   decision based on a misapplication of the principle of Res
	   Judicata.  The facts do not allow the application of any
	   preclusive principle, as we have adequately demonstrated
	   in our pleadings.

	   Petitioners, having been given no reason for the Fourth
	   Circuit's affirmation, must rely on their Memorandum
	   Attachment to Informal Brief.  In that Brief Petitioners
	   clearly demonstrated that the tests for Res Judicata were
	   not met.  The cause of action in the New Jersey suits was an
	   automobile accident;  the cause of action in the present suit
	   is the violations of the Federal RICO statute(s) involving
	   acts unknown at the time of the New Jersey filings, and acts
	   uncommitted at that time.  The filing of the federal suit
	   preceeded resolution of the New Jersey suits.
	   In [International Building], Mr Justice Douglas opines:

	     "The governing principle is stated in Cromwell v. County of
	     Sac, 94 US 351, 352-353.  A judgement is an absolute bar to
	     a subsequent action on the same claim.

		'But where the second action between the same parties is
	        upon a different claim or demand, the [345 U.S. 502, 505]
	        judgement in the prior action operates as an estoppel
	        only as to those matters in issue or points controverted,
	        upon the determination of which the finding verdict was
	        rendered.  In all cases, therefore, where it is sought to
	        apply the estoppel of a judgement rendered upon one cause
	        of action to matters arising in a suit upon a different
	        cause of action, the inquiry must always be as to the
	        point or question actually litigated and determined in
	        the original action, not what might have been thus
	        litigated and determined.  Only upon such matters is the
	        judgement conclusive in another action.' "

	   Judgements in the New Jersey actions were unaccompanied by
	   any findings.  Chief Justice Warren, in [Lawlor] wrote:
                "...judgement was unaccompanied by any findings and
	         hence did not bind the parties on any issue."

	   Allowing this decision to stand allows then also to stand
	   routine violations of the First, Fifth, Seventh and
	   Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution which would
	   certainly not be in the general interest or good.

	2) In conflict with The United States Court of Appeals for the
	   Third Circuit [Fornoratto], and in conflict with the New
	   Jersey Supreme Court [Mortagelinq], The United States Court
	   of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, by affirming the district
	   court's order, allows to stand, the district court's decision
	   based on a misapplication of Section 1738 of Title 28, United
	   States Code, and Article IV, Section 1 of the United States

	   In deciding to honor New Jersey's Entire Controversy Doctrine
	   under the Full Faith and Credit clause, the district court
	   ignored the New Jersey Supreme Court's determination that:

	      "Maintaining a cohesive federal system (and the Full Faith
	      and Credit Clause melds the state courts into that system)
	      does not require that other parts of the federal system
	      honor our entire controversy doctrine." [Mortgagelinq]

	   Therefore, Petitioners' RICO action would not be barred by
	   that doctrine.

	3) The Court should grant certiorari in the interest of the
	   public welfare, in that it would refine and further clarify
	   the Court's decision in [Humana] regarding the application
	   of RICO to insurers that have, with increasing regularity
	   been shifting their claims costs to the taxpayers through
	   their conducting of patterns of racketeering activities.

	   Many citizens similarly situated have had no choice, in an
	   effort to effect their remedies, but to file pro se, and
	   in that position have been discriminated against by the
	   courts, as have Petitioners in this case.

	4) The Court should grant certiorari, not only to protect the
	   rights of Petitioners, but to protect the rights of an
	   estimated 20% of those who are forced to litigate against
	   their own insurers regarding the insurers' criminal conduct,
	   wherein, e.g., interactions in contractual and legal matters
	   are more than 50% systematically "mishandled" by the insurer,
	   as consistently estimated by several experts in the field.

	   These victims of insurance racketeering are captive through
	   the pervasive racketeering of the industry, and the mandates
	   by law and other instruments that they must buy and pay for

	5) The Court should grant certiorari, in order to protect the
	   the economic health of the United States of America.
	   Defendant SFM is, together with its incorporated, wholly
	   owned subsidiaries, the largest and wealthiest insurer in
	   the world.  As judge Bohling in [Campbell] has pointed out,
	   this great economic advantage forces all other insurers to
	   adopt its own methods of doing business, and so
	   deleteriously affects interstate commerce.

	6) The Court should grant certiorari, similarly to protect
	   the similarly situated citizens who find themselves denied
	   their day in court when they seek redress against the very
	   corporations who have pledged to protect them from
	   catastrophic loss, while through their racketeering
	   activities [Campbell] conspiring to deny that protection.

	7) The Court should grant certiorari in the interest of the
	   public welfare, in that it provides the Court with the
	   opportunity of clarifying the proper considerations of the
	   lower courts regarding partial and full considerations of
	   law and fact, thus setting a precedent regarding the abuses
	   of power of the lower courts to dimiss on grounds contrary
	   to both law and fact, and then also clarifying futher than
	   it has so far, what is, and is not an abuse of discretion,
	   or an abuse of power.
	8) The Court should grant certiorari in the interest of the
	   public welfare, in that it provides the Court with the
	   opportunity to clarify certain written inconsistencies in
	   the the Circuits' understandings of the RICO statutes
	   arising from failures to understand the deliberate intent
	   of Congress that RICO be broadly interpreted in order to
	   provide an appropriate legal tool with which to combat
	   powerful racketeering interests.
	9) The Court should grant certiorari in the interest of the
	   public welfare, in that it provides the Court with the
	   opportunity of restoring to the people, the full magnitude
	   of their Constitutional rights to redress of grievences,
	   that seem to be greatly diminished in procedural fact,
	   of late.

       10) The Court should grant certiorari since if it does not
	   Petitioners will be further damaged in their persons
	   and property, thus compounding the injuries already
	   inflicted upon them by defendents and the lower courts.
	   Petitioners claim under the Ninth Amendment that they
	   have the right not deliberately to be damaged by their
	   own government.


	The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

	      Respectfully submitted,

	      William C. Hammel

	      Alan J. Bellamente

	      Date: August 2, 2001

Top of Page
Home Page
Insurance Page
Uncivilization and its Discontents
Essay Page

Email me, Bill Hammel at
bhammel AT graham DOT main DOT nc DOT us

The URL for this document is:
Created: February 10, 2002
Last Updated: February 10, 2002