This is the case where a USA bird Expert, Tony Silva was allegedly wrongly jailed for smuggling offences a few years agio, due to perjured evidence by a known criminal, and due to key evidence being with-held from the court.
Dear Raymond:
Howdy! I decided to send you a few snippets you may or may not have.
The government in their "Defendant's reply to plaintiffs opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" indicates on pages 12-13 that the agents acted ultra vires. Black's Law Dictionary, the bible-of-lawyers, defines "ultra-vires as:
An act performed without authority to act on subject.
The government argues that because the agents' taking of my birds was "ultra vires and cannot be attributed to the United States for the purpose of taking law."
The agents' taking of my birds "constitutes bad faith on the part of the agent, the act is ultra vires and a taking does not occur."
In other words, agents can take your personal property and because they acted illegally they are not liable! In this case, they took my collection of birds and the government feels that, though illegal, I have no recourse. This should start to open eyes as to this case.
On another subject, the recent Court of Appeals decision regarding my personal property (including the Brady or exculpatory material) which the agents and government, with the confusion of my attorney, kept from me, shows how much in bed my attorney was with the agents; remember that the government has not questioned that there was a conflict of interest between the agents and my attorney, who as you know was getting paid both by me and the government.
In the affidavit Schippers, my former attorney, Provided to the government to help defeat my habeas corpus, he states in paragraph 31 at page 8:
Several requests were made of the government and Affiant [Schippers] was informed that all of the material had been turned over.
This was a sworn affidavit, He lied here as he lied elsewhere, including that pleading guilty was a way of attacking a case; my ignorance of law and his pressure had me sign such a document.
The court of appeals in their November 20, 2001, decision clearly states:
... the government seized and continues to retain property from Silva's home [and]... Silva is entitled to the return of his seized property.
This is all for now.
Warmest regards.
Tony