Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al

Filing 576

EXHIBIT 1 by Lawrence Crawford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2, # 2 Exhibit 3, # 3 Exhibit 4, # 4 Exhibit 5, # 5 Exhibit 6) *Note that the envelop of this filing states that it is being made as 2 of 2 but Clerk's Office never received envelop 1 of 2 so there is no motion to link this to on the docket*(McDonagh, Christina)

Download PDF
N TH&1JNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA . /' ) YAHYA ~UQUIT #318455 ) / ) PLAINTIF F ( S) C/A 8:17-cv-0 1804-RB H-JDA ) """ -:, e C (/) c:, <- ) 0 .m:;:o c:: r- ) ('") C") ::orn :;,;C"') ~f"l ;:Q- ) -0 ) w 3 ~~ z-O < .. ':C . N . r,'I ) (,n Vs. ,:-, ) AFFIDAVIT1 OF SERVICE ) ) ) ) · JUDGE ROBERT E. HOOD ETe AL., DEFENDANT(S) I, YAHYA MUQUIT, DO HEREBY CERTIFY , THAT I HAVE MAILED AND OR SERVED A COPY OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS GIVING JUDICIAL NOTICE; FILING WRIT OF ERROR; MOTION TO AMEND THE DEFENDANTS; MOTION TO CHALLENGE THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDIC TION TO PREVENT THE FILING OF ANY DOCUMENT FILED OR SIGNED BY CRAWFORD FROM BEING FILED IN THIS CASE; MOTION TO VACATE ENTRY# 23 DATED JULY 3, 2018; MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME; MOTION FOR FORFEITURE AND MOTION TO MOTION THEREFOR, ON THE U.S. DJSTRICT COURT, JUDGE AUSTIN, GREENVILLE DIVISION , BY U.Se MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID , BY DEPOSITI NG IT IN THE INSTITUT ION MAILBOX ON JULY 9 2018. 1 IT IS FILED THAT DATE, ggg£~GW -~.~~A~K z 266 U.S. 278 (U.S.198 8). RESPECTFULLY, Y~HYA MUQ~.1L 2; f ~/,7 /~C JULY 9, 2018 l -of-17 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE DISTR CT OF SOUTH CAROLINA YAHYA MUQUIT C/A 8:17-cv-01804-RBH-JDA PLAINTIFF(S) AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS GIVING ) JUDICIAL NOTICE; FILING WRIT OF ERROR; MOTION TO AMEND THE DEFENDANTS; MOTION Vs. ) TO CHALLENGE THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION TO ) PREVENT THE FILING OF ANY DOCUMENT FILED OR SIGNED BY CRAWFORD FROM BEING FILED IN THIS CASE; MOTION TO VACATE ENTRY# 23 DATED JULY 3, 2018; MOTION FOR JUDGE ROBERT E. HOOD ET. AL., AN EXTENSION OF TIME; MOTI~ ) ) DEFENDANTS : FOR FORFEITURE AND MOTION ~ ~ - TO MOTION THEREFOR r-"' -0 :r: (.i.) •• TO: JUDGE JACQUELYN AUSTIN, THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT ET. AL., 0 N r HERE THE COURT WILL FIND: (1) EXHIBIT, "DEFENDANTS". THIS IS THE [14] PAGE AFFIDAVITOF FACTS; AFFIDAVIT OF SERV±CE THAT WAS RETURNED TO ME BY THE COURT. I CHALLENGE THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO RETURN THIS DOCUMENT. YOU HAVE FRAUD UPON THE COURT _GOING ON. THIS DOCUMENT WAS CRIMINALLY BLOCKED FILING BY BOTH·THE COURT AND THE DEFENDANTS WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN LISTED WITHIN -VHIS CASE WHEN IT WAS INITIAI'iLY FILED. I OBJECT. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ACTS OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT r'N RETURNING THIS DOCUMENT. IT IS LISTED IN THE (44) PAGE COMPLAINT THAT ESTABLISHES THIS CASE. IT IS ATTACHED TO THE FACE OF THE ORIGINAL 2-of-17 V ; . '~ t ,~OMPLAINT FOR-THE PURPOSE OF PROPERLY LISTING- THE- DEFENDANTS IN THEIR TOTALITY. I MOTION TO AMEND THE DEFENDANTS TO ADD THE PARTIES LISTED WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT AS DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE. I SEEK TO ADD THESE NAMES TO THOSE PRESENTLY LISTED TO ESTABLISH THE JURISDICTIONAL FACTS. THIS DOCUMENT IS ATTACHED TO THE FACE OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR ALL PURPOSES TO INCLUDE INFORMING ' THE COURT WHO ARE THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE. I MOTION TO AMEND -THIS CASE TO ADD ALL PARTIES LISTED WITHIN THIS ATTACHED (14) PAGE AFFIDAVIT DATED APRIL 25, 2017 AS DEFENDANTS, ~RAZ~~L-~9 WlWQ£GRz 384 s.c. ~ .. -~ER~MEL£ENz 502, 682 s.E.2d. 824(S.C.App.2009); ~ELLEGRAlW F.Supp.2d., 2012 WL 10847(DSC.2012); GAM~LE~~. ¥.-~AWK-G~-AMERl~Az-W~A•x 2014 WL 2468465(DSC.2014); CAR~ER ~T-£GU~M-C.ARG~INA 7 2014 WL 5325234(DSC.2014); E~£XElN-~ .. ~WGRLQ A~~E~~AW~E-~GR~TX 2015 WL 2365701 (DSC.2015). YOU HAVE CLERICAL ERROR, BUT MORE SPECIFIC, FRAUD UPON \ THE COURT.THE DEFENDANTS WERE NEVER INTENDED TO BE LISTED AS THEY ARE NOW. YOU ARE MISSING 90% OF THE DEFENDANTS PRODUCING MANIFEST INJUSTICE AND FRAUD UPON THE COURT, WHICH ALSO VOIDS THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION. THIS WAS INTENTIONALLY DONE WHERE "THIS COURT CONSPIRED WITH THE DEFENDANTS s.c.D.C. TO PREVENT AND OR DELAY THE COPY OF THE (14) PAGE DOCUMENT FROM BEING MADE SO YOU CAN PURPOSELY LIST THE DEFENDANTS INCORRECTLY TO ALLOW YOU TO MAKE THIS CASE APPEAR FRIVOLOUS IN ACTS OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT AND SAY THAT I AND OR WE ARE SUING PEOPLE WHO COULD NOT BE SUED FOR THE CLAIMS MADE, AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMAINING SILENT ON CRUCIAL ISSUES RELEVANT TO THIS CASE. THIS IS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOIDS THIS COURT'S \. JURISDICTION, ~CS-Wl~R-G~Wr-lW~.-~ .. -RQSS-QE~ELQ~MEW~-CQR~.T 126 F.Supp.3d. 611 (DSC.2015); ¥A~E£..._}.{ .. -RQRC,.,MGXGR-CG .. x--F.Supp. 3d.--, 2015 WL 6758983(E.D.N.C.201'5); WELL£-RAR~G-~AWK-W .. A.. v .. -~ARAGr 2016 WL 2944561 (N.C.2016); g .. £.~~ .. -CG~~QWx 231 F3d. 890(4th.Cir.2000); lW-R~~-QURAMAX-QIE£EL-Ll~IGA~lQW 7 --F.R.D.-, 2018 WL 949856(E.D.Mich.2018); ~LgE-SK¥-~RA~EL-AWC-~QURSr -LQ .. -~ .. -~A¥¥AR 7 --Fed. Appx'--, 2015 WL 1451636 CA4 (Va.2015); ~¥ME-~ .. -UWl~EO-£~A~E£ 7 FmSupp.3d., 2016 WL 1377402(D.C.Md.2016). · AMENDMENT THAT CHANGES THE PARTIES AGAINST WHOM A CLAIM IS ASSERTED RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL PLEADING 3-of-17 I,\ • tF f1) THg CLAIM( S) IN THE AMENDMENT ARISE OUT OF- THE SAME BASIS OF ACTION, WHICH IN THIS CASE IT DOES, ALL EMERGING FROM CASE 2013-CP-400-0084 TO WHICH CRAWFORD AND THE DEFENDANTS INVOLVED ARE PARTY TO THAT WHICH FORM THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM(S) IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT. THIS ALSO DEMONSTRATES THAT THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ACTS OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT IN EFFORTS TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 AND 1001; (2) THE PARTY TO BE BROUGHT IN BY THE AMENDMENT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE ACTION SUCH THAT IT WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED IN MAINTAINING A DEFENSE TO THE CLAIM, WHICH THEY WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED SINCE THIS IS THE PRE-ISSUANCE OF SERVICE STAGE AND (3) IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN THAT IT WOULD HAVE ORIGINALLY BEEN NAMED A DEFENDANT BUT FOR A MISTAKE IN THE IDENTITY OF -THE PROPER PARTY. THE COURT CONSPIRED TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE CLERICAL ERROR WHEN IN TRUTH THE COURT CONSPIRED TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH OF WHO THE DEFENDANTS WERE IN THIS CASE. THE NAMES OF JUDGES WILKERSON, HARRIS AND WINN FROM THE 4TH. CIRCUIT ARE ALSO ADDED AS DEFENDANTS AS WELL AS THE 4TH. CIRCUIT FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSFER VENUE AND DISQUALIFYING THEM DUE TO THEIR ACTIONS REGARDING CASE 18-6606. WILKERSON, HARRIS AND WINN ARE PARTIES IN THE INITIAL ACTS THAT PRODUCE THIS CASE. ALL PARTIES NAMES RELATE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT I OBJECT TO THE FRAUD. AMEND THESE DEFENDANTS AS THEY WERE INITIALLY SOUGHT TO BE LISTED , GQG.Q.MA:W-lil' .. -I2RAXJ;Rr-J;W(;; .. T 494 F3d. 458, 68 Fed. R. SERV.3d. 850(4th.Cir.2007); WI~KIWS~~ .. -MGW~GQME~~- 751 F3d. 214(4th.Cir. 2014); KRUI2£KI-~ .. -~Q5~A~CRQCIEREr 560 u.s. 538, 548, 130 s.ct. 2485, 177 L.Ed.2d. 48(U.S.2010); 5WEA~-~ ... -WE5'I'-l,CJ;Rc;;;u~rIAx 2016 WL 7422678(S.D.Va.201 6); GREEW-~ .. -~RAQL~¥-~QM~AW¥ x--F.Supp.3d. --, 2016 WL 3633833(DSC.2016); WRIGW~~~~-G~~J;CER-~~J .. -5AW¥ER 7 201 6 WL 3 6 3 3 4 4 5 (DSC.201 6) ; ~A'XIJM,..J.r .--R .. J..R.: .. -J;!EWaIQ:W ... .Il\U.Z,.-CQMMii"~EE 761 F3d. 346(4th.Cir.2014). I MOTION TO VACATE ENTRY# 23 AND I CHALLENGE THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO PREVENT ANY DOCUMENTS FILED AND OR SIGNED BY CRAWFORD FROM BEING FILED WITHIN THIS CASE. THE COURT ISSUED IT TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS AND BE SiLENT ON ESSENTIAL ISSUES. I ALSO INTEND TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO FURTHER ESTABLISH THE JURISDICTIONAL FACTS, WHICH BY MY RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS THE (OURT CAN'T PREVENT, WHICH WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID 4-of-17 '1 icouR- JURISDICTIOr-f. -THE COURT. ISSUED- THIS DETERMINAT!ON--If-rACTS OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT TO ABSTAIN FROM ANSWERING SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION OF DEFAULT AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL THAT APPLY TO ME EMERGING FROM CASE 2013-CP-400-0084 THE CRAWFORD CASE. THE COURT IN ACTS OF FRAUD CANNOT CONSPIRE TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH AND ABSTAIN FROM ANSWERING SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION CONSPIRING UNDER COLOR OF LAW AND OR AUTHORITY IN VIOLATION OF _DUE PROCESS WHICH MAKES THESE PROCEEDINGS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, g.,£.-E~CI,E£~GW 7 --Fed. Appx'--, 2015 WL 4591890 CA4 (Md.2015); Y.. £ .. -l.l.-~EJACAz 445 Fed. Appx' 719, 2011 WL 3891825 CA4 (s.c. 2011); LAKE-CARRIER-AaS!W ~v.-M.~M~LL.ANx 406 u.s. 498, 92 s.ct. I 1749 (U.S.1972). THIS IS PLAIN ERROR AND IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND VOIDS THE COURT'S JURISDICTION FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION, ~RQWN-v.-CQMMlSSlQ NER~0~-5QC•AL-S~G.r 969 F.Supp.2d. 433 (W.D.Va. 2013); MA££•-l.l .. -WA£M1NGT-QN-GQ.T 2013 WL 5410810(DSC.2013); AS'I'~R. ~ACI-l.l.-LEl~ESSr 176 Fed. Appx' 426 CA4 (Va.2006); lW-RE~-~UlL. QlWG-MA~ERlAL-CGRP,-QE-AMERlCA-Aa~UAL~-RQQ~lWG-SUlWG~Ea-~RQCUC~Sx F.Supp.2d., 2013 WL 1827923(DSC.2013); ~o~.CK-v.-~QMMlSSlQ WER G~-£QClAL-SEC.r 32 F.Supp.3d. 157; ENCRANA~lGW-l.l.-2RANC~x 2015 WL 7078682 (N.D.N.Y.2015). INASMUCH, SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME, CANNOT BE WAIVED BY ME AND THE COURT "[M]UST" TAKE. NOTICE, SE~ELlUa-~.-AU~URN-R EGlQWAL-MEQ.CAL-C ~~~ERr 133 s.ct. 817, 184 L.Ed.2d. 627, 81 u.s.L.W. 4053 (U.S.2013); al~WARQ l.l.-RICQ~Ez F.Supp.2d., 2013 WL 707018(DSC.2013); GRIJRG-CA~ARLUX l,!.".-A'I'LA~-G~Q~AL-GRQIJ~r-I. .. Il .. r 541 u.s. 567, 124 s.ct. 1920, 158 L~Ed.2d. 866(U.S.2004); ~QUMIE~-v.-UNI'I'EC- S~A~E£r 65 F.Supp.3d. 19 (2014); u .. sT-v.-~I£CALE 7 F.Supp.2d., 2007 WL 2156666, (DSC.2007). THE PLAINTIFF INTENDS TO AMEND THIS CASE ALSO FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL ON KEY ISSUES BEING ARGUED IN THIS CASE THAT EMERGE FROM CASE 2013-CP-400-0084 INVOLVING CRAWFORD. THE LAW IS CLEAR ON _THIS ISSUE ALSO. A NON PARTY TO AN ACTION CAN CLAIM COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IF THE ISSUES AND PARTIES IN THAT ACTION ARE THE SAME FOR WHICH HE SEEKS RELIEF IN HIS ACTION, WHICH OF COURSE IS THE CASE HERE, ~ES'I'-~.-~ANK GR-AMERJ;;CA-N .. A,. 7 201 5 WL 51244 63 ( E .D .N. Y. 2015); WQRKMAN-l.l.--b!:I~;l S -of-17 ' _'1, \I ·~ -- -- - - ~ ··- blli'-~~JV~CIJSE 7 2015 WL 3004 35 (N.D .N.Y .201 5); ~EA.£11:IE ... ~Q~S-l.Z",. MQN£~ER-ENERGX-CQ,.T 2015 WL 736 078 (S.D .N.Y .201 5). ATTACHED IS A COPY OF ENT RY# 23, THE (16) PAGE DOCUMENT FROM CASE 18-6 606 AND THE SUMMONS PRES ENTLY FILE D IN CASE 2:17 cv-1 300- RMG . THESE DOCUMENTS AID IN DEMONSTRATING WHO THE DEFENDANTS ARE IN CASE 8:17 -cv- 018 04-R BH- JDA THAT WERE FRAUDULENTLY BLOCKED BY THIS COURT AND THE CONSPIR ING DEFENDANTS. THE U.S . FEDERAL COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE THE SAME PRECLUSIVE EFFECT TOS$'ATE COURT JUDGMENTS THAT THOSE JUDGMENTS WOULD GIVE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATES WHICH THE JUDG MENTS EMERGED. IN THIS CASE, IT IS CASE 201 3-C P-40 0-00 84 THE CRAW FORD CASE, WHERE IT WOULD BE A CRIMINAL ACT OF CONSPIRACY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUS TICE TO PREVENT THIS EVIDENCE FROM BEING PLAC ED WITHIN THE COURT RECORD, NOT JUST FOR EXERCISING CLAIMS OF COL LATERAL EST OPP EL, BUT ALSO FOR PURPOSES OF AMENDING TO DEMONST RATE HOW EACH DEFENDANT APPlJES TO ME, WHEN IT IS THE SPE CIFI C CLAIM THAT THE COURT AND CON SPIR ING PAR TIES ATTACKED MY PREV IOUS DUE PROCESS MATTERS DUE TO MY CONNECTION TO THE CRAWFORD CASE WHERE I TRIED TO HAVE THE ISSU ES THAI' HE FOUND ADJUDICATED WITHIN MY CASE AND THE PAR TIES ENGAGED IN FRAUD UPON THE COU RT TO PREVENT THI S. THE COURT CANNOT IN ACTS OF FRAUD PREVENT ME FROM ESTABLISHING JUR ISDICTIONAL FACTS AND KEEP ME FROM ESTA BLIS'FIING CLAIMS OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL THAT EMER6E FROM THE CRAWFORD CASE, U.£. -RT -EA S~ I RI~ER-MGJJS.N~-CQR~~x 90 F.S upp .3d. 118 (S • • N.Y .201 5); ~ ~.-~A NK~ G~-A MER •CA -N.A .x 2015 WL 512 446 3(E .D.N .Y.2 015 ); A~LSXAXE JNS .-CG --~- C~E RR~ r F.S upp .2d. , 2012 WL 142 515 8(20 12); ~W-RE~ RU££Q-~~E£~WU~r 522 B.R . 148 (DS C.20 14). THE CRAWFORD DOCUMENTS ARE INTENDED TO BE SUBMITTED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER 192 MEMBER STATES OF THE UNITED NATIONS ARE PARTY TO THE DEFAULT AND CLAIMS OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL WHICH WOULD BIND JUDGE AUSTIN TO ACT AS TRUSTEE AND THE COURT ITSE LF BEING EMPLOYEES AND OR AN ARM OR ~ BRANCH OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES DUE TO THE U.S . FEDERAL ATTORNEYS KRISTTY KHOL AND PAUL GUN TER'S APPEARANCE~ THE FEDERAL JUDGE IN THIS CASE IS CONSPIRING TO INAPPROPRIATELY ENTERTAIN JUR ISDI CTIO N 'WHEN JUR ISDI CTIO N LIES E~L USIV ELY BEFORE JUDGE AUS TIN. I OBJ ECT . AN APPEARANCE MAY BE EXPRESSLY MADE BY A PARTY, 6-o f-17 ' ., . 13¥ FORMAL wR"fT-TEN OR ORAL DECLARA TION, oR REC-ORD ENTRY- rAs··--wE-- HAVE HERE), OR IT MAY BE IMPLIED FROM SOME ACT DONE WITH THE :tNTENTI ON OF APPEARING AND SUBMITTING TO THE COURT'S JURISDIC TION. THE ACT DONE rs THEY COVERTLY RECEIVING PLEADINGS FROM THE STATE CASE. THE CRAWFORD DOCUMENTS ARE SUBMITTED TO SHOW RECORD ENTRY AND ACTS DONE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE STATE COURT IN CASE 2013-CP -400-008 4 HAD JURISDIC TION OVER THE UNITED STATES AND PARTIES WHERE THEY MADE AN APPEARANCE, FAILED TO PLEAD OR DEFAULTED AND CONSPIRED IN FRAUD TO CONCEAL THEI.R APPEARANCE J IN THE COURT RECORD. THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION IN THAT CASE VOIDED THEIRJU RISDICTI ON. THUS, IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AN ABUSE OF DISCRET ION, AN ACT OF FRAUD AND VOID THIS COURT'S JURISDIC TIO~IF THEY DID NOT ALLOW THE CRAWFORD DOCUMEN_TS TO BE FILED IN THIS CASE WHEN I AM CLAIMING COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EMERGING FROM THAT CASE, £XEARW £-~ANK-W A~.-Aa-!N -~.-~R~~N WQQQ ~A~~Sr- L·~-x 373 s.c. 331, 644 s.E.2d. 79 REHEARING DENIED, CERT. DENIED (S.C.App .2007). IF THE SAME RIGHT IS INVOLVED IN TWO ACTIONS , WHICH IN THIS CASE -IT IS, SPECIFIC ALLY EMERGING FROM CASE 2013-CP -4000084. JUDGMENT IN THE FIRST CASE BARS CONSIDERATION NOT ONLY ON ALL MATTERS ACTUALLY RAISED IN THE FIRST SUIT UNDER 2013CP-400-0 084, BUT ALSO ALL MATTERS WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED. THEREFORE, THE DOCUMENTS CANNOT, :BE BARRED ADMISSIO N. I OBJECT TO THIS FRAUD WHICH VOIDS ENTRY# 23 FOR BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, 1u:cllMAW-~ .. -~Q~Ql\llAX.-CQ~I2.x 14 7 Cal. App.3d. 1170, 1174(19 83); KEARNE¥-K.-RQ~E~-ANQ-~AR~NER L.L.~~T 2016 WL 5405552 (2016); l\ll~CUL~E X-v.-~ANK -0~-AMER ~CAr W.A. 7 605 Fed. Appx' 875(11t h.Cir.20 15); E~A~S-K,. .-~QL~~M x 2015 WL 1143004 (Ala.201 5); ~ALE-Y.-M ~N~LEQQ R~~r 2014 WL 7012772( N.D. Ga. 2014) • IF THE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED SUBMITTED, THE NEXT THING THE COURT WILL BE ASSERTING IS A ~ECK-~.-~UMRMRE~S CLAIM. ::i:- MUST BE PERMITTED TO DEMONSTRATE WHY SUCH DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE. THE CRAWFORD DOCUMENTS ARE SUBMITTED FOR THIS PURPOSE ALSO. I HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO BE FULLY HEARD AND PRESENT A COMPLETE DEFENSE AGAINST ANY POTENTIAL ARBITRARY JUDICI~L ACTION, £XA~E-K ,-2UR~E£ £x 391 s.c. 15, 703 s.E.2d. 7 -of-17 .. ' t ~. . . .... ...,12 -TS.C .App. 2010) ; ~RANi;;J~-l.l .. -GZMINXr 664 F.Su pp.2d . 626(D SC. 2009 ); IN-R E~-K E~lN -R. 409 S.C. 297, 762 S.E.2 d. 387(S .C 2014 ); 7 u.. £.-l.l.-MQUSSAQU~r 483 F3d. 220 CA4 (Va.2 007) . 0 WRIT OF ERROR IS FILED UNDER THE INDEPENDENT ACTIO N RULE FOR FRAUD UPON THE COURT. THE "INDEPENDENT ACTIO N" REFERRED TO IN RULE, GOVERNING RELIE F FROM JUDGMENT AND PROVIDING THAT RULES DOES NOT LIMIT THE POWER OF THE COURT TO ENTERTAIN AN INDEPENDENT ACTION TO RELIEVE A PARTY FROM A JUDGM ENT OR TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT FOR FRAUD UPON THE COURT, IS ONE IN EQUI TY, AND AS SUCH, THE COURT MAY CONSIDER EQUITABLE DEFENSES, SUCH AS LACHES, COLLATERAL ESTO PPEL, UNCLEJ\N HANDS, AND WHETHER AN ADEQUATE REMEDY EXIST (ei. FEDERAL FORUM UNDER THE F.S. I.A. ), AND THE COURT MAY CONSIDER POLICY DOCTRINE SUCH AS PARENS PATRIAE OR PUBLIC JURIS CLAIMS AS THOSE PRESENTED VIA THE RECENT F.B. I. INVESTIGATION ON THE RANDOM MASS KILLI NGS AS REFER RED TO WITHIN THE DOCUMENT RECENTLY SERVED UPON JUDGE AUST IN. THE COURT MUST BE AWARE OF ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE COURT RECOR D BEFORE IT ACTS, AND THUS, THE PART IES "[M]U ST" BE A.LLOWED TO DEVELOPE THE RECORD ACCORDINGLY TO PROVE THE JURIS DICT IONA L FAC TS, ~ J.r..--M R£ .. ~.T 378 S.C. 127, 662 S.E.2 d .. 413(S .C.A pp.20 08); £-& E-CG W~RA G~QR S-INC .-l.l.-U .£.x 406 u.s. 1, 92 s.ct . 1411 (U.S .1972 ); c;;ox-11.--li:'I.EE"J;:"WQQI;;)_•UQMES-Oli:-~EQR{;lAz-J;;N-... r 3 3 4 S. C. 5 5, 51 2 S. E. 2d. 498 (S.C .199 9). THE U.S. DISTR ICT COURT AND THE DEFENDANTS SOUGH T LISTE D WHICH THE COURT AND PART IES BLOCKED BY THEIR FRAUD ULENT OBSTRUCTION OF JUST ICE ARE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING ANY CLAIM DEFAULTED ON AND THEY ARE BARRED FROM RAISI NG ANY ISSUE WHICH WAS ADJU DICATED IN THE FORMER CRAWFORD SUIT AND ALL ISSUE S WHICH COULD ·HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THAT SUIT . THE CRAWFORD DOCU MENTS ARE SUBM ITTED TO THIS END. ONCE A COURT HAS DECIDED AN ISSUE OF FACT OR LAW NECESSARY TO ITS JUDGMENT. THAT DECI SION PRECL UDE RELI TIGA TION BY THE DISTR ICT COURT, WHICH IS A JURIS DICT IONA L CHALLENGE, IN A SUIT CN A DIFFERENT CAUSE OF AcrIO N INVOLVING A PARTY TO THE FIRS T CASE WHICH IS WHY YOU IN FRAUD LISTE D THE DEFENDANTS :INCORRECTLY, ~GRQ-ll.-WA~£GN 282 SoC. 66, 316 S.E.2 d. 429( 4th. 7 (ir.1 984) ; IN-RE ~-GUX 552 B.R. 89(D SC.2 016); £AN-REMG-SGXELx 7 I. 8-of- 17 \ I I ii:: -- --- · - • -- --., I,,.R ... ~kl,. . ... c;;J;~¥-.AWQ ... !;;QU:W i1¥-G~-£.AW-~RANc;;J;,aGQr-Ce 125 s.c t. 249 1, 162 L.E d.,2 d. 315 (U .S. 200 5). .l .. r 54 5 U.S . 3 23, ANY FIN AL , VALID JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS OF A PARTICULA R ISS UE , BY A COURT OF COMPET ENT JUR ISD ICT ION PRECLUDES ANY FURTHER SUI T BETWEEN THE PAR TIE S OR THEIR PRI VIE S ON THE SAME ISS UE OF ACTION OR CAUSE OF ACTIO N. THE CLAIM OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EMERGING FROM CASE 201 3-C P-4 00- 008 4 APP LIE S TO ME ALSO, WHICH IS WHY THE COURT IN ACTS OF FRAUD LIS TED THE DEFENDANT S INC OR RECTLY AND DO NOT WANT THE CRAWFORD DOCUMENTS FIL ED . I OBJECT AND YOUR FRAUD VIT IAT ES, VO IDS EN TR Y# 23. IT VIT IAT ES THE EN TIR E CASE PLACING YOU IN FOR FEI TU RE, ~A~~GRQU~~MAWAGEMEW ~r-lN~.-~. £C ~W EIQ ER z-- F.S upp .3d .--, 201 8 WL 655 595 (E. D.P a.2 018 L ); EA£~ERW A££Q~J;A~JGW-CG.A&-CO.-~.-QIR E~~GR-GR~~~E-GR-WGRKRR£-~GM ~ENSA~J;QW ~RGGRAM£ 7 578 Fed . Ap px' 165 CA4 (20 14) ; ~;i;~~EX-~ .... JAGUA Rt-~AWD. RQ ~ER -~II .~G N-~ EA Qr 201 5 WL 373 621 2(D SC .20 15) . THE PARTY ASSERTING COLLAT ERAL EST OPP EL, WHICH I DO, BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVIN G THE ISS UE (S) HE SEEKS TO FORECLOSE WAS NECESSARILY DECIDED IN A TRIAL OR PRIOR PROCEEDIN G. IN AB SENCE OF A WRITTEN DE CIS ION OR ORDER, WHICH OCCURRED DUE TO THE VOIDING OF JUR ISD ICT ION IN CASE 201 3-C P-4 00- 008 4 FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION WHERE NO FINAL WRITTEN DE CIS ION CAN BE LEGALLY ENTERED. THE PARTY CAN POI NT TO THE TRANSCRIPT AND OR COURT DOCUMENTS AND OR AN ORAL DE CIS ION SUCH AS THE ONE JUDG~ LEE MADE IN THE APR IL 201 4 HEA RING CONTAINING FIN DIN GS OF FAC T, J;W -RE ~-£ M~ ~~x 201 6 WL 394 371 0(M d.2 016 ); J;W-RE~-Q;i;AQ-~INr 576 B.R . 32 (N. Y.2 017 ); WEW-MAM £UJ;RE-~ ... -MA~WEz 532 U.S . 742 , 121 s.c t. 180 8, 149 L.E d.2 d. 968 (U. S.2 001 ); ~.AKER-aX-~~QMA£~. GEWERA~-MQ~GRS-CQR~ ... T 522 u.s . 222 , 118 s.c t.,6 57 , 139 L.E d.2 d. 580 (U .S. 199 8); GA~E£-M.-£~RA ~Wr 201 7 WL 241 705 1(W .D. La. 201 7). THE LAW REQUIRES THAT THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS, THE CRA WFORD DOCUMENTS, BE OFFERED INTO EVIDEN CE FOR PURPOSES OF ESTOPPEL WHICH TH IS COURT IN FRAUD IS CONSP IRING TO AVOID SO IT WOULD NOT BE DETERMINED THAT THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY NOT ADDRESSING IT, ACKNOWLEDGING IT, ADHERI NG TO IT AND SHOWING THAT AUSTIN HAS EXCLUSIVE JUR ISD ICT ION AS TRUSTEE APPOINTED BY THE SOVEREIGN CROWN BY WRIT OF COMMISSIO N., THE FRAUD YOU JUS T TRIED ~·,dt~:.:,.-i_ :<<·~ . TO PULL BY BLOCKING THE CRAWFORD DOC UMENTS TO PREVENT THIS, FROM BEING 9-o f-1 7 ·;.) " ~ •- e-• - • •- --• • •• • -- • •••••• •••• • - ~STABLISHED IN THE COURT RECORD WHICH VOID YOU~ DECRE E AND OR ORDER, ENTR Y# 23, FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DETERMINED IT IS AS IF THERE WERE NO LAW DETERMINED AT ALL AND THE FRAUD TAINTS THIS ENTIRE CASE. I OBJEC T, U,.£. ;i.l.-I.ANEr 75 U.S. 185, 200-0 1, 19 L.Ed. 445, 449(U .S.18 68); ~ ~ .... QWI~E Q-£~A ~E£x F.Sup p.3d. , 2016 WL 13774 02(D. C.Md .2016 ); .MAR~UR¼-~,-MAQJ;£GNr 5TH. U.S. (CRANCH) 137, l80; ~~WES -;i.l,-UWI~EQ £~A~E £x 28 F3d. 1123 CRIM. LAW 1163( 1), 1165( 1); RQ~lN £QW,..¥. ARJ.ZGWIG 7 27 F3d. 877 REHEARING DENIED CERT. GRANTED VACATED 115 s.ct. 1247, 513 u.s. 1186, 131 L.Ed. 2d. 129; I.QUM lE~-;l,l .. UWl~E Q-S~A ~E£r 65 F.Sup p.3d. 19 (2014 ); JQ~N£ GW-~. -UW~~ EQ-S~ A~E£r · --s.c t.~-, 2015 WL 24734 50(U. S.201 5); MQW~~QMER~-~ .. -I.QUISIAWAr 136 s.ct. 718, 193 L.Ed. 2d. 599, 84 u.s.L .W. 4063( U.S.2 016); GE~~-GU~QQQRS-I.~C.-~.-CQW£Ql.IQA~EQ-C~:i;:t~-GR-IWQ~AWA~Q ~l£~~~r 187 F.Sup p.3d~ 1002, 1012, s.D. Ill.; ~~I.l.- ~.-£W ¼QER r 821 F3d. 763, 765+ (6th. Cir.M ich.); I2EQIU.E-;i.l.--SQI.Q N.E_. 3d., 2017 WL 7 18384 23(20 17); ~4-SEWA~QRlA~-QIS~,-RE~U~l.ICAW-CQMMI~~EE -~.-ALCQRW 820 F3d. 624(4 th.Ci r.201 6); ~AE~~ ~~.-~Q ARQ-G R-~RU £~EES r F.Sup p. 3d., 2016 WL 77538 6(D.C .Md.2 016); WEI.I .£-RAR ~G-~A NK-W .A.-~.- ~ .. M.. M,. RQMAW,..:t'WO-W,C,..-I.l.~ •. r 859 F3d. 295(4 th.Ci r.201 7); MQ£I. E~-~ .. -UWI~EQ £~A~E £r 2018 WL 11877 78(N. C.201 8); RU~lN -~.-~S I.AMI C-RE~ U~~lC QR-lRAWx 138 s.ct. 816 (ADDRESSING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF THE SOLE CORPORATION); UWl~E Q-S~A ~E£-~ .-Q~W EQ~r 556 u.s~ 904, 129 s.ct. 22131 173 L.Ed. 2d. 1235( U.S.2 009); UNl~E ~-S~A ~Ea ~ .. -AIUU, .E-MAC -I2RQ., ,..CQ.M ~U~ER --F3d .--, 2017 WL 10461 05 ( 3rd.C ir. 7 201 7) ; Gt.ARK-li.,,;.JJJ>ll~EQ-S~A:l:'li:£x 201 7 WL 3 9 0·2 9 4 ( N.C.2 01 7) • J THE FEDERAL JUDGE AND THE CONSPIRING PARTIES DO NOT WANT THE DOCUMENTS FILED IN THIS CASE TO INAPPROPRIATELY ENTERTAIN JURIS DICTI ON OVER THE PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE THE COURT WOULD THEN KNOW BY RECORD THAT EXCLUSIVE JURIS DICTI ON OVER ALL MATTERS PRESI DE BEFORE JUDGE AUSTIN BY THESE SAME DOCUMENTS THAT ARE ALSO FILED IN CASE 2:17-c v-130 0-RM G, TO WHICH I EVENT UALLY SEEK TO CONSOLIDATE AND WHICH WOULD ALSO PROVE THAT COLLA TERAL ESTOP PEL ATTACHES TO ME AND IN ALL THESE PARALLEL CASES. THE COURT IS ATTEMPTING, CONS PIRING , FROM IT BEING ESTABLISHED WITHIN ALL COURT RECORDS THAT ESTOPPEL DOES ATTACH IN THIS CASE AND THE PARALLEL CASES AND-, THAT THE UNITED STATES NOR THE OTHER PARTIES COULD PRODUCE NO EVIDENCE THAT WOULD PROVE THEY TIMELY 1 0-of.:. 17 '• SOUGHT TO DEFEAT THE FILED AFFIDA VITS OF DEFAULT AND VOIDIN G OF JURISD ICTION EMERGING FROM CASE 2013-C P-400-0 084. THUS, THE COURT'S HOPE IS TO PREVENT THESE DOCUMENTS FROM BEING FILED IN THIS CASE TO OBSTRUCT THE ESTABLISHING OF THESE JURISDI CTIONA L FACTS IN VIOLATION OF THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE , IN ACTS OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT IN VIOLATION OF i8 u.s.c. §§ 242 AND 1001, which IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOIDS THIS COURT'S JURISDI CTIONo I OBJECT. SEE (70) PAGE DOCUMENT DATED OCTOBER 5, 2017 AND THE (34) PAGE DOCUMENT DATED DECEMBER 20, 2017. ALSO ~EE £~ERRI LL-~. CJ;G-~RAW£~QR~-~W~.T 2016 WL 682332 4(DSC. 2016). JUDGE LEE, IN · THE APRIL 2014 HEARING IN CASE 2013-C P-400-0 084, THE CRAWFORD CASE, ADJUDICATED THAT THE AFFIDA VITS SUBMITTED BY CRAWFORD STAND UNLESS THE COURT OR PARTIES TIMELY REBUTTED THEM. PROCEDURAL LAW REQYIRED THAT IT BE DONE WITHIN (30) DAYS OR THE AFFIDAVITS,ARJ!l:!i,D.i.EMED VALID, TRUE AND CORRECT. THE AFFIDA VITS NOW -- .. - ·. •....... -,·-:<:,'.·.:-~r~p-_· SUBMITTED UNDER CASE 2:17-cv- 1300-RM G-MGB STAND ALONE, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS OTHER EVIDENCE, TO DEFEAT A. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUA SPONTE DISMISS AL IN THESE CASES, £.R .. £.-~MEC K I.I.~ .. -v .. -RJ;R£~-:SAWK-QR-CEI.AWAREx 9 9 0 F. Supp. 2d. 7 62 ( E o D .Mich. 2013); AK:SAR-v.-~AWGA£~r 2017 WL 433491 i(S.D.M ich~~01 7). JUDGE : :·_:\~·-' (:.;:J;I LEE'S ORAL DETERMINATION REGARDING THE AFFIDA VITS. i:,'IS SUPPORTED BY FEDERAL LAW FURTHER ESTABLISHING THAT IT WOULD BE AN ABUSE OF DISCRE TION AND FRAUD NOT TO ALLOW THE DOCUMENTS TO BE FILED, MsKEI.V EX-~.. -RE~WQ I.C£x F.Supp .3d., 2016 WL 651833 7(DSC. 2016); UWIVER £AL-l2~ ¥£J;C~A N£-£ERV ICES-I.L ~ .. 214 F.Supp .3d. 499(DS C.2016 ); 7 }i:ERRAR A-l.l .. ~GlJACR Q:?;ZJ;-E QJJJ;l2M EWX-I.EA £;lN~-CQ RI2,.r 201'3 WL 3 2 2 6 75 5 (E.D.N .Y.2013 ); ANDER£GW-~ .. -LJ;:SER l'¼-LQ~~ ~-J;NC., r 477 U.S. 242, 106 s.ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2 d. 202(U0 So1986 ); IW~RE~ -~LEAW -SlJR~ }i:U-I.x- L~~.T 2014 WL 298733 0(N.C.2 014); WILLIA M£-v.-£E ~RE~AR ~ G~-J.l'El'ERAW,..,AR~A~R£ 7 --F.Su pp.3d. --, 2015 WL 593516. 9,(N.D. Ala. 2015); WEI.£QW~~ .. -IJ .. S.,-:SANK-W.,A,..r 2015 WL 685271( bs"t~',2 015); £~RAX ... ~EW-v .. -MECKI.EWSERG-CQUWl'¼-CEI2l' .. -G~-£QC ~AL-SE R~ICES r 521 Fed • . Appx' 278, 2013 WL 2364587 CA4 (N.C.20 131. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DETERMINED. ONCE THE CRAWFORD DOCUMENTS ARE FILED IN THIS CASE. THE ONLY THING THE COURT CAN DO IS CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO ALLOW THE PARTIES SOUGHT FORECLOSED FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW.:'.•THEY WERE 11-of-1 7 ~ . . •.I!: NOT GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, WHICH THEY CANNOT DO, SINCE INSTEAD OF PLEADING, THEY CHOSE ADDITIONA L FRAUD BY ATTEMPTING TO CIRCUMVENT THE ESTOPPEL BY TRYING TO OBTA IN FRAUDULENT PROTECTIVE ORDERS TO MISREPRESENT THE FACTS AND THE UNITED STATES CONSPIRED TO HIDE THEIR APPEARANCE AND FAILED TO RESPOND. COLL A-· TERAL ESTOPPEL ATTACHES EMERGING FROM CASE 20.13 -CP-4 00-00 84 THE CRAWFORD CASE AND THIS COURT CANNOT IN FRAUD PREVENT THESE JURIS DICT IONA L FACTS FROM BEING ESTABLISHED IN THE RECORD TO REMAIN SILEN T ON.CRUCIAL ISSUE S BEING ARGUED WITH IN THIS CASE TO PREVENT THE PARTIES FROM BEING REQUIRED TO RESPOND AND TO NEGATE THE EXCLUSIVE JURIS DICT ION OF JUDGE AUST IN AS TRUSTEE, ~IR~~-~U~RQ-~ANCQR~-~.-OUQE~YGEEEERz 134 .s.ct . 2459 , 189 L.Ed .2d. 457( U.S.2 014) ; RG2E £-~.-~ QR~E £r 341 P.3d . 1041 (Wy. 2015 ); £R~RES ~.-S~ ~QQ ~Sr-- F~Su pp.3d .--, 2017 WL 4174 774(D SC.2 017); REREZ v.-CU IME£ -OI£~ RIC~ ~Q~~ CQ~U M~IA r-IN~ . F.Su pp.3 d., 2016 WL 61246 79 7 (D.C .Md.2 016); M-&- ~-RQ ~~ME R£-U .£.A.r ~~~C .-~.-~ ACK E~~r 135 s.ct . 926( U.S.2 015) ; ~ARQ ~~~.-R ~~IAN CE-£X ANQA R~-~I E~-IN £.~~G . 7 560 u.s. 242, 130 s.ct . 2149 , 176 L.Ed .2d. 998( U.S.2 010) . THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING JURIS DICT ION BEFORE THE TRUSTEE IS ON ME AS THE PLAIN TIFF WHICH CAN ONLY BE PROVE N BY THE CRAWFORD DOCUMENTS. THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING COLLA TERAL ESTOPPEL IS ON ME AS THE PARTY ASSERTING IT WHICH CAN ONLY BE PROVEN BY THE CRAWFORD DOCUMENTS. ONCE THESE AFFID AVIT S THE COURT IS CONSPIRING TO PREVENT FILIN G WERE ENTERED INTO THE COURT RECORD IN CASE 2013 -CP-4 00-00 84 AND THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, THE UNITED STATES AND REMAINING 192 MEMBER STATES OF THE UNITED NATIONS, WHO WERE ALL PARTIES TO THE DEFAULT FAILE D TO TIMELY FILE RESPONSE TO CHALLENGE OR DEFEAT THE DOCUMENT S THEY BECAME TRUE AND CORRECT WITH ALL OF ITS CONTENTS AND IMPLICATIONS BARRING CHALLENGE FROM ANY SUBSEQUENT COURT, ESTA BLISHING JURI SDICTI ON BEFORE JUDGE AUST IN, NOT THE FEDERAL JUDGE ON THIS CASE, NOT THE 4TH. CIRC UIT OR.ANYONE ELSE . SEE DOCUMENT S FILED IN CASE 2:17- cv-13 00-R MG TO WHICH THIS CASE IS BEING SOUGHT CONSOLIDA TED. JUDGE LEE' S, THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER PART IES IN CASE 2013 -CP-4 00-00 84, THE CRAWFORD CASE, THEIR SILENCE IS ACCEPTANCE WHERE THEY FAILED TO TIMELY CHALLENGE THE AFFID AVIT S AND CRAWFORD DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FILED THAT BEAR ON MY CLAIMS WHICH BINDS THIS COURT AND JUDGE AUSTIN AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED 12-o f-17 vSTATES.AND BY HER OATH OF OFFICE IS REQUIRED TO ACT AS TRUSTEE WITH EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION BY WRIT OF COMMISSION SERVED UPON HER AS DICTATED BY THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN CROWN, WHERE CRAWFORD, AS FIDUCIARY FOREIGN SOVEREIGN DENOUNCED HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AND ADOPTED THE CITIZENSHIP OF l{IS ISRAELI FOREFATHERS MEMBERS OF THE SOLE CORPORATION INVOKING THE ISRAELI LAW OF RETURNo THE DISTRICT COURT CANNOT AS THEY DID IN RELATED PLEADING FOR PURPOSE OF INCORPORATION TELL ME AND THE PARALLEL PLAINTIFFS THAT WE CANNOT MAKE REFERENCE TO THESE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, THAT WE MUST SUBMIT THEMo THEN IN THE SAME BREATH THE MOMENT WE SEEK TO BE IN COM~LIANCE TO THAT DETERMINATION AND FILE THE DOCUMENTSQ THE COURT IN ACTS OF FRAUD ISSUE AN ORDER STATING. THAT I, WE, CAN'T FILE THEM. THIS lS CONSPICUOUS FRAUD WHICH VOIDS THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION .. SEE FEDo RULE 10(c). ALSO SEE- WvbwR~~w-~T-AMAX-Q QAL-CQ~rv~9QlVg-OE-A MAX-lW~9Z 453 U.,S., 322, 101 S.,Ct. 2789(U.,So1981); C:W:lMME:SX.!.£-MAWA~EMEW~ ~G.-LLC.-~.-A~~ILIA~ EQ-E~M.-IW£QRAWQ E-~Q~r 152 FoSuppe3d. 159 (2016); :SRAU~R-~.-QQE£~-~QMMUWlCA-GR£-~0~ 7 -LL~~r 743 FoSupp.3d., 221 (2014); GLQgAL-~E~My 131 SoCta 2060(UoSa2011); GQURCINE-K~ kAR~-£WUARZ-ENQQ£QQ~EPAMERICA-IWCvy 223 F Suppc3do 475(DSC.2O16). 0 -:·::""}s.;..· THE UeS. DISTRICT COURT IN ACTS OF FRAUD' UPON THE COURT CONSTANT EFFORTS TO BLOCK THE FILING OF THE CRAWFORD DOCUMENTS WHEN THEY IN RELATED PLEADING REQUESTED THEIR SUBMISSION, AND OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND REMAIN SILENT ON THE ISSUES OF DEFAULT AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND ON OTHER VARIOUS ISSUES THAT APPLY TO ME AND BEJSILENT ON THESE KEY JURISDICTIONAL CLAIMS IN EFFORTS TO CIRCUMVENT RULING ON THEM WHERE THERE IS A CLEAR DUTY TO SPEAK IS AN ACT OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT AND VOIDS YOUR JURISDICTION FOR DUE PROCESS VIOLATION AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION. I MOTION TO VACATE ENTRY# 23 AND I MOTION FOR A RESET AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLACE THIS.CASE IN PROPER FORM ONCE THIS FRAUD HAS BEEN ADDRESSED., IN YOUR EFFORTS TO REMAIN SILENT ON THE DEFAULT AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL WHEN THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO ME AS A NON PARTY .. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT WILLFUL BLINDNESS AND CONSCIOUS AVOIDANCE IS THE LEGAL EQUIVALENT TO:, KNOWLEDGE, UNI~EC-S~A~E£-¥~-AWXZQULAXQS 7 962 F2d., 720(7th.,~i~. 1992); 28 u.s .. c. § 1332(a) (3); 20 F2d. 775, 780; WA.Wt;;-}J._.-A£la!CRQS:-'I' 320 F3d. 130(2nd.Circ2003); ~QQ~ER-~.-MARR~£r 137 SgCt., 1455, 13-of-17 197·L.E d.2d. 837, 85 U.S.LoWo 4257(UG S.2017); ~AWK-G~-AMERl~A GGR~~-~ 9-~l~X-G~ ~MIAM~- ~LAvx 137 S.Ct. 1296, 197 LoEdo2d . 678, 85 U.S.L.W . 4227(Ue S.2017); GQGK-~GUW~~-~~-SAWK~G~-AMERI~A-~QR. I2QRA.'I':CGWx 201 8 WL 1 5 61 7 2 5 ( 201 8) ; MQRWE-~ ... -llJ,\.RSGR ~l;?QR~~Q I,,IQ-ll-l..,.r ~~I2~ --F.Sup po3d.--, 2018 WL 1737520( NoDeGa. 2018); UWl~EQ- £~A~E£ 7 ~v-LAWEMAMx 2017 WL 4857437( D.CoMEX ICOe2017 ); U~£~-~~-~IWWR~GM~r 683 F3d. 471 (4theCir .2012)G A COPY OF THE (56) PAGE DOCUMENT ENTITLED , "AFFIDAV IT OF FACTS GIVING JUDICIAL NOTICE; RENEWING THE MOTION FOR RECUSAL; MOTION TO CHALLENGE THE 4THo CIRCUIT 'S JURISDIC TION DUE TO FRAUD UPON THE COURTi MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL( S); MOTION FOR 11 AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND MOTION TO MOTION THEREFOR , DATED MAY 8 8 2018 WAS SERVED ON JUDGE AUSTIN AND CASE 8:17-cv- 01804 BEFORE ENTRY# 23 WAS FILED0 AND DUE TO THE FRAUD THAT PRODUCED ITa IT IS AS IF THERE WERE NO LAW DETERMINED AT ALL. THEREFORE, IT MUST BE DEEMED FILED IN THIS CASE AND THE COURT MUST ENSURE THAT JUDGE AUSTIN HAS FILED IT IN THIS CASE TO FURTHER ESTABLIS H THE JURISDIC TIONAL FACTS. I CHALLENGE THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION TO PREVENT THIS AND I MOVE TO VACATE ENTRY# 23 DUE ' TO FRAUD UPON THE COURT e ENTRY # _2 3 CONSTITUTE AS A DECREE FROM THIS COURT. THE COURT CANNOT IN FRAUD PREVENT ME FROM ESTABLIS HING JURISDIC TIONAL FACTS OR CLAIMING COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND DEMONSTRATING WHY I SEEK TO CONSOLIDATE THIS CASE WITH CASE 2:17-cv-1 300-RMG TO PREVENT INCONSISTENT RULINGS IN THESE PARALLEL CASES. FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING IT ENTERS, AND A JUDGMENT OR DECREE OBTAINED BY FRAUD MAY BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED, AND TH~S APPLIES TO THE JUDGMENTS OR DECREES OF ALL COURTS AND ENTRY # 23 CONSTITUTE AS A DECREE BY THIS COURT PERMITTING ME TO COLLATERALLY ATTACK IT, VOID I~, AND TO CHALLENGE THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO ENTER IT, IT BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMAINING SILENT ON JURISDIC TIONAL ISSUES THAT ATTACH DIRECTLY TO ME EMERGING FROM CASE 2013-CP -400-008 4 THE CRAWFORD CASEG THE COURT CAN'T IN RELATED PROCEEDINGS DEMAND THAT WE SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS AND NOT MERELY MAKE REFERENCE TO THEM STATING IMPROPER INCORPORATIONG THEN WHEN WE FINALLY MAKE EFFORTS TO SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS. YOU ISSUE A SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATION AND ORDER THAT WE CAN'Tc RES JUDICATA AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL ATTACHES BY THAT PRIOR DETERMINATION WHICH IS EVEN SEEN IN THE 1-4-of-17 .•., ... COMPLAINT AND ENTRY# 23 IS VOID ALSO BEING PROCEDURALLY BARREDo I MOTION TO VACATE IT u M¥I.E£-JJ.,,.,..J;;)QMIWQ!£~12t.ZZAz-I.J;,c;;:""r 2017 WL 238436(D~CoM issa2017); ~~RS~-~E~WWQ~QGX-QA~l~ALr-~WG~-HQ-SAW~~E~x IN~~r 2016 WL 7444943(DaCo Ky.2016); MAR~IW-~~-~AR~E~~~GR~~-OE FoSupp .. 2d.,, 2013 WL 1187034(D.,No J~2013); MQ!.:;:b.A.IW K~-ls~~-£E~UR.I~X-SAWK-G~-WA£HIN~~QW 7 2016 WL 8504775(WoDoW asho Mil:lINE£Q~A..,. 2016); IW-RE~-~EI,,I.A-~GR~~-ARQM.I~EQ~-ANQ-QE£IGWER-£ERIE£~~EWQQR£ MARKs~IWG 7 2015 WL 4162442(DSCo 2015); A£WER-~~-QUKE-ENER~X-~ARG~ bl~A£x-~LG~ 7 2013 WL 2109558(DSCo 2013); U.£~-R~~KQRW ~ F.Suppo2d .. , 2013 WL 2898056(W.,D., N.Yo2013); ~QWE¥-:1t..,.-QQM,.,::r 1998 WL 684203 (4th.Cir .. 1998); SEG~-~~-RARMERi F.,Suppo3do, 2015 WL 5838867 (SeDoTexo201 5); U.£.-¥T-MG£SE R~r 866 FoSuppo2do 275(DoN .. J .. 2011); U.£9-u.-WE~W ~T F@Suppo2d., 2008 WL 2223869(WoDo Pa.2008); SE£~ ¥o~SAWK-GR-AMERI~Ax-WeAQr 2015 WL 5124463(EoDaN oYe2015). / INSOMUCH, THE COURT CANNOT COME AND SAY, "YOU KNOW WHAT? I TOLD MuQUIT NOT TO FILE ANY CRAWFORD DOCUMENTS" NOW SINCE HE DISOBEYED MY ORDER. I, THE JUDGES, NOR THE CLERKS CANNOT ACCEPT THIS PLEADING"., YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO SAY SO AND YOU WOULD BE ABUSING YOUR DISCR~TION .. ENTRY# 23 IS NOW A PROCEDURAL LIMITATION PLACED INTO EFFECT BY DECREE OF THIS COURT COMING UNDER JURISDICTIONA L CHALLENGE AS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONALo THE POWER TO VACATE JUDGMENTS OR DECREES FOR FRAUD UPON THE COURT IS FREE FROM PROCEDURAL LIMITATIONS AS YOU CONSPIRED TO PUT INTO PL_ACE BY ENTRY # 2 3 WHICH INCLUDE FRAUD BY OFFICERS OF THE COURT WHERE SUCH ACTS EFFECT THE INTE, GRITY OF THE NORMAL PROCESSo IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IS AS· IF THERE WERE NO LAW DETERMINED AT ALL. THUSv THE COURT CANNOT BLOCK THIS FILING OR THE ATTA~HMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH, IW RE~-GEWE£X£-QA~A-~EG~~Q~Q~IE£ 7 -~WQ~r 204 F3dc 124 (4th.Ciro2000 ); gw~~EQ-~~A~E £-~~-~GW~AQ 7 . 675 Fede Appx' 263 6 265 CA4 (NoCg2017); ~GX-~~-~EI.-~O X-~9~E~K-~UW -~QA~-~Q~~1W ~~x 739 F3d •. 131, 87 Fede R. Serv.3d., 534 (4th.Cir.,2014 ) .. SUPPRESSION OF TRUTH WITH INTENT TO DECEIVE IS FRAUD WHICH VITIATES EVERYTHING IT ENTERS WHICH INCLUDE THESE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT WITHOUT ANY MISREPRESENTATION OR DUTY TO DISCLOSE CAN CONSTITUTE FRAUD EVEN ABSENT OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, WHICH JUDGES ARE FIDUCIARY TO THE PUBLIC, OR STATUTORY 1 5-of-1 7 . .. \ ! '1 0 OR OTHER INDEPENDENT LEGAL DUTY TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL INFORMA7ION 8 COMMON LAW FRAUD INCLUDES ACTS TAKEN TO CONCEAL, CREATE A FALSE __., IMPRESSION, MISLEAD, OR OTHERWISE DECEIVE TO PREVENT OTHER PARTY FROM ACQUIRING INFORMATION AS THE DISTRICT COURT DONE BY ENTRY # 23 IN EFFORTS TO CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS IN VIOLATION OF ALSO 18 UoSoCo §§ 242 AND 1001 TAINTING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS RENDERING THEM UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID .PLACING THIS COURT IN FORFEITURE ON ALL CAUSES WHICH I MOTION FORv IW-RE-QIJRAMAX-OIE£EL bI~IGA~IGNr --F.RaD.--, 2018 WL 949856(E.DoM ichu2018); UW~~EQ £~A~E£-~~-~AI .IWx 874 F3d. 418(4thoCiro2 017); gwI~EQ-£~A~E£~~..,,. J;,,IJ£K:r 201 7 WL 5 0 8 5 8 9 (So D., Va., 201 7) ; IJNI~Ii;Q..._£~A~E£,...\t.,.-CAI.J;.QWA-Xz. F.sri~p.,3d., 2016 WL 4269961(N.D. Cal.2016); MGRRISGW-M~-A~CIJWEA~ ~MERx-IWG~r FoSupp.3du, 2016 WL 3015226(MoDo Pao2016)o SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION CAN BE.RAISED AT ANY TIME AND ENTRY #23 PRODUCES A JURISDICTIONA L DEFECT DUE TO THE FRAUD THAT PRODUCED IT AND IS UNCONSTITUTIONALo WRIT OF -ERROR IS FILED., I WANT THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE AMENDED TO BE LISTED AS INITIALLY INTENDED BY MEu I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH CAUSE M TO WHY EACH OF THEM ATTACH TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT SINCE TttE (14) PAGE AFFIDAVIT THAT LISTED THE DEFENDANTS WAS BLOCKED BY THIS COURT AND THE DEFENDANTS IN ACTS OF CONSPIRACY AND OBI STRUICTION OF JUSTICE., I_ WANT ENTRY# 23, THIS COURT DECREE, VACATED TO ALLOW BE TO ESTABLIS.H COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EMERGING FROM CASE 2013-CP-400-0 084, THE CRAWFORD CASE THAT ATTACH TO ME WHICH WOULD PERMIT ME TO HAVE THIS CASE ESTABLISHED EXCLUSIVELY BEFORE JUDGE AUSTIN AND CONSOLIDATED TO CASE 2:17-cv1300-MGB. I MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLACE THIS CASE IN PROPER FORM ONCE THE MATTER OF THIS FRAUD IS ADDRESSED ON THE COURT RECORD., I MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND FORFEITURE WHICH IS TO BE GRANTED BY THE TRUSTEE DUE TO THE FRAUD AND THE DISTRICT COURT BE NOT PERMITTED TO DISMISS THIS CASE UNTIL THE AMENDMENT OF THE DEFENDANTS OCCUR AND SERVICE ON ALL PARTIES ISSUE AND . ' THEY BE REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO DEMONSTRATE THEY TIMELY SOUGHT TO DEFEAT THE AFFIDAVITS IN QUESTION WHICH I MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ONCE THESE INITIAL ESSENTIAL PRE-TRIAL MATTERS ARE ADDRESSEDg I WANT THIS CASE PLACED BEFORE A JURY WITH JUDGE AUSTIN PRESIDING OVER THAT JURY9 I WANT THE REQUIRED EVIDENTIARY HEARING ANb BOTH I AND CRAWFORD BE BROUGHT BEFORE 16-of-17 •. ill ' \ ... .. THIS COURT TO ESTABLISH THE JURISDICTIONAL FACTSe COURTS HAVE INHERENT EQUITY POWER TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENTS OR DECREES SUCH: AS ENTRY# 23 CONST°ITUTE, WHENEVER THEIR ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE MANIFESTLY UNCONSCIONABLE BECAUSE OF FRAUD UPON THE COURTc ENTRY # 23 IS VOID AND IS AS IF THERE WERE NO LAW DETERMINED AT ALL BEING UNCONSTITUTIONe THE COURT CANNOT COMPLAIN ABOUT US INCORPORATING DOCUMENTS, MAKING REFERENCE TO THEM WITHOUT SUBMITTING THEMo THEN WHEN WE TRY TO SUBMIT THEM THE COURT THEN COMPLAINS AND ORDER THAT WE CAN'T SUBMIT THEMo WHAT KIND OF STUPID MESS YOU PEOPLE GOT GOING ONo THIS IS FRAUD, IS INCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID YOUR JURISDICTION,·M~Q~~~-IWWQllA~IQW£x-LL~~-~~~WQR~MERWr --Fed. Appx'-- , 2018 WL 1129607 (4thoCir o2018); ~AMER-~~-WE~GM~QR~ ~QQQ-MQU£lWG-£~R~I~E~~GE-~~IQAGQ 7 138 SeCto 13, 199 LaEde2d~ 249(UoS .2017); ~~lLLl~£ -~g-~RQ~ K-&-£~Q ~~-~LL~~ r 2017 WL 3226866 (D.C~Md .2017); lW-RE~- QEXr--B eRa--, 2015 WL 669788(1 0thoCiro 2015); MQW~GQMER~-~~-~QUl£lA~Az 136 ScCta 718, 193 L.Ed.2do 599, 84 U.S.LQWe 4063(U.S o2016); 24-£EWA~QRAIAL-QI£~~-RE~U~~ICAW ~Q-MI~~E E-~~-AL~ QRNy 820 F3da· 624(4tho Ciro201 6); WMI~E-~~-MAW~£r 2014 WL 1513280( DSCo201 4). '· RESPECTFULLY, YAHYA MUQUIT /\., ; i~ lj . ,., ;:;-. (i lrfbLuo f !I1.J.J--&, ~v 'f'i !; V JULY 9, 2018 .17-of-17 .11. ' IT !____)

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?