State of Hawaii v. Trump

Filing 237

MOTION to Intervene ("Tertius Interveniens Notice of Lack of Standing of State of Hawaii to Challenge President's Executive Order (Travel Ban)); (FRCVP Rule 20(a)(2)(B) & 28 USC 1397)" - by Intervenor Eric Richard Eleson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Certificate of Service, # 8 Mailing Documentation) (emt, )

Download PDF
OflrG- ORIGINAL Eric Richard; eleson,® Secured Party RLED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT In Care Of: MULE CREEK-II STATE PRISON DISTRICT OF HAWAII [j-^s^jc E 1 V E D Fac. D-16-A103-3Low 20^17 ^ U.S.P.S. Box 409089 CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT lone, Califiomia Near[PZ: 95640-9089] N. America Authorized Representative for and via: at MAR 20 2017 A ^o'clock and min._ SUE BEIT1A, CLERK ERIC RICHARD ELESON©,Trust(J-59564) p-lfRicfoFHAWAlt district court of the united States for the district of Hawaii [If Necessary] The words"district court of the united States" commonly describe constitutional courts created under Artiele III, Section 1 .... U.S.C.A. Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 1. Note 1 14 Case No. U 17.- CS/tQC^- DKmJ-TOA ALLEGED STATE OF HAW AH, Judge: Petitioner, VS. TERTIUS interveniens NOn.CE OF LACK OF STANDING OF STATE OF DONALD TRUMP, HAWAII TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER (TRAVEL BAN); ^ PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES • (FROP RULE EXHIBITS "A" TO "F"; JUDICIAL Respondent NOTICE OF ALL DOCUMENTS vs. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL Eric Richard; eleson®, Secured Part}', Tertius Interveniens/Auth. Rep. ex rel. ERIC RICHARD ELESON®, Trust,(J-59564) Tertius Interveniens. J COMES NOW, Eric Richard; eleson®, Secured Party, Tertius Interveniens/ Authorized Representative for Tertius Interveniens (hereinafter,!.I.) in support of Respondent, DONALD TRUMP, and submits his NOTICE (and Proof) of alleged STATE OF HAWAI'I's Lack of Standing to File Challenge to Respondent's Executive Order (Travel Ban), until U.S. Supreme Court resolves Tertius Intervenien's Challenge to the Constitutionality of an (alleged) Act of Congress, Fraudulently Adopting the Failed Treaty of Annexation of the Republic of Hawai'i via an unconstitutional Joint Resolution of 1897. ("Newland's Resolution''). NOT. Lack of Standing Page 1 of 4 I. BACKGROUND STATEMENT OF FACTS obtained document(s) (attached hereto Exhibit A ), from the STATE OF HAWAII Archivist, and filed them (with aas Subpoena) in Case No. Cr. 89-1659, on Decatber 27th, 1989. It was T.l.'s intention to use mZltrr""' was e°5-32 £r™ which (KI Art to §4 4 HRS t ^r®™"" the County District Attomey(s) are empoweredXVI,prosecute ^ses (T.I.'s No(s) 7165(2), 7754(2), 4 7688(2) - 5/20/1984). T.l. suffered tamiiy problems and had to leave Hawai'i. 2. In 1995, during T.I.'s Trial, he stated on the Stand (sworn Testimony) that the above had occurred and provided the Court with his Case No. to obtain proof an copies. Ihis was NOT done, and was IGNORED by the CA Superior Court, which then used the VOID conviction as a "Strike." FRM^s ®^"tuallyillegallyPetition for a all the way up.Corpus Ground SEVEN, filed a Time-Barred" Writ of Habeas (See: on that and other '^ attached as Exhibit "B", in cases. i-iKw x c oii;oo/ j• _ , XII Cases* CRW-A9n88 & S-216294, and instant Exhibit "A was attached as Exh. "11" to those Petition(s)). 3. Duri^ T.I.'s 9th Circuit Appeal (No. 15-16697), T.l. received an Internet icle by University of Hawaii (Manoa) Richardson School of Law, Professor, Zl r r? "ith the ChalL r :k ^ Exhiwri tt n In f Notice; and the Acts (FRCvP Rule 5.1/28 USC §2403) with a ^^ "£")• These documents were IGNORED by the ZZ Barred " ^"F d Duty" pursuant to said ^^^^^SAlly) Dismissed as 'Time- sol^'T H T r ^ ^^-^X-^hing, documents, tontract, and even the most This H " Court may also consider Exhibit(s)61,"4," "B,"L. "£' as "Filed" ^■^°'^l™"^ton, 98 US 64, 25 4 Ed. 93 (1798). Honorable in t^s instant case, as if done originally, for its own purposes. • .1. then submitted a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Exhibit "D") to the U.S. supreme tourt Oiich was allegedly filed on May 23, 2016, and DoTketed on sept^ber 19, 2016. (#16-5987). T. I. then sent F.O. l.A.'s to: 1) the U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL (w/Non-Resnonse^ 4) the SECRETARY OF STATE, JOHN KERRY (li/So R^^nsef NOT. Lack of Standing Page 2 of 4 5)the NATIONAL ARCHIVES & RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (w/No Restxjnse) ) the OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE (FOIA Div. - Refered back to NARA) and received NO responsive "Official" document(s). (See: F.O.I.A.'s attached hereto as Exhibit "E") These were also sent to the U.S. Supreme Court Clerk as "Added Exhibit "3" to the 9th Circuit filed Challenge; and is now in the hands of NARA s "Special Access" Division. 5. T.I. was recently forced to send a NOTICE OF VOID ORDER to the (alleged) Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court (& others) as T.I.'s Issues REQUIRE Certiorari pursuant to Fairbank v. United StatPs, 181 US 283, 285-286 (1901), citing: Marbuty v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1801), for the very same reasons sUted in those (2) Cases! (attached hereto as Exhibit "F"), which brings us to the present. II. STATE OF HAWAI'i's LACK OF STANDING TO CHALLENGE RESPONDENT TRUMP's EXECUTIVE ORDER. 1. It Is not disputed that the Treaty of Annexation of the Republic of Hawai'l FAILED. (U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Cl. 2, §2). 2. It is also undisputed that where a Constitutional Provision exists applicable to the issue, NO alleged Act of Congress may circumvent its application. (Fairbank, supra, at 285-286). 3. Since U.S. Constitution Art. II, Cl. 2, §2 exists (was available in 1898 on ward also!), there is absolutely NO AUTHORITY for the President & Congress to entertain an Act of Congress (Joint Resolution of 1897 - "Newland's Resolution") to replace or circumvent the Constitutional Provision. 4. Further, as shown by T.I.'s Documented Evidence (to which Judicial Notice was supposed to have been taken!), even if the J.R. were authorized, it would We been required to have a "simple majority" (51%) of the Senator(s) present (le: 45 of the 88 present) to "Pass." Since only 42 of the 88 present Voted: AYE, the J.R. also FAILED! and its "declared" passing IS A FEIAUD! III. STANDING OF TERTIUS INTERVjEWIENS 1. T.I. is being harmed by the proven VOID Judgment. That VOID Judgment is an issue (Ground SEVEN) in T.I.'s Habeas Corpus/Certoirari and also his Challenge o the Constitutionality of Statute/Acts (Exhibit "C") which is required to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. (Fairbank. supra.). 2. ^T.I, has relevant documented evidence pertaining to the alleged "Standing" of Cl Po.i.i.y to this action which touches upon Jurisdiction, to which this Court IS required to take Judicial Notice. NOT. Lack of Standing ® Page 3 of 4 IV. TERTIUS INTERVENIENS CLAIMS/ISSUES ARE REQUIRED TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE IHE INSTANT CASE CAN MOVE FORWARD. 1. Given the unresolved status of T.I.'s Challenge to the Constitutionality of using an unauthorized Joint Resolution of 1897 (WHICH ALSO FAILED!) to validate a Failed Treaty, the requirement of "Standing" by the (alleged) STATE OF HAWAII to Challenge to President's Executive Order is in question. 2. Until the U.S. Supratie Court GRAJTTS (the required) Certiorari in T.I.'s Case (16-5987) and resolves the issues bearing on the Constitutional validity of the Annexation of tlawai'i; this Honorable Court, after re\ and taking Judicial Notice of T.I.'s documented Evidence, ISSUES its own ORDER, VOIDING the above-cited 1984 convictions (as UI.TRA VIRES) - thereby making I'OOT T.I.'s Standing in this instant action; the STATE OF HAWAII is without "Standing" to bring the instant Qiallenge to the President's Executive Order; and must be DISMISSED. 3>J /y Respectfully Submitted, Eric Richard; eleson®, Secured Party, Tertius Inteiyeniens! Rep,, ex rel., ERIC RICHARD ELESON®, Trust (J-59564), Exemption No. 559828464 {juris et dejure) Holder-In-Due-Course, Record Owner Trade Name Owner, Sovereign American BondNo. C-52971371 NOT. Eack of Standing Page 4 of 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?