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)
·,i,-.
.,..,_ ••.
.....'!;_
,,,,
1.'
•
.,
-t .
'
•
l
h --
1,, )
- ,' t1
•
l
•
THE UNITED STA-TES DISTRICT COURT
THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH C~ROLINA
" · RECEIVED
U.>DC, CLERX GREENVILLE. SC
YAHYA. MUQUIT ET. AL., #318455
~-\
,
-
2018 AUG -8 PH 3: 20
\
c/~ 8;17-cv-01804-RBH-JDA
PL1-;INTitF( S)
(~·
'
. ,)
~ .-
Vs.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
JUDGE ROBERT E. HOOD ET. AL.,
DEFENDANT ( S)
,
/
WE,_ YAHYA MUQUIT ET. AL., DO HEREBY CERTIFY, THAT WE H~VE M~ILED
I
AND OR SERVED A COPY OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS GIVING JUDICIAL
NO-lICE; MOTIO,N FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT; MOTION
TO INTERVENE DUE TO,FRAUD UPON THE COURT, CHALLENGING THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION; MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING;
MOTION RE-ASSERTING THE DEMAND FOR A. JURY TRI!\L; NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE AND INTERVENTION; NOTICE SEEKING LEl~VE
TO APPEAL PURSUANT TO FEDe RULE(S) 5g1; 15 a)(1 )(C)(1)(B)(d);
1 6 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( 2 ) ( I ) ; . 1 8 ; 1 9 ; 2 0 ; 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ; 3 8 ; 3 9 ; AND 7 3 ( C )
AND MOTION TO MOTION THEREFOR,
(20) PAGES DATED AUGUST 2, 2018
ON THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT BY U.S. MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID BY
PL~CING IT WITH ITS ATT~CHMENTS IN THE INSTITUTION MAILBOX ON
JULY 2, 2018. IT IS DEEMED FILED ON THAT DATE, ~QU£~QW-~--~~~Kr
2 8 7 U.S. 2 6 6, 2 7 3- 7 6, 1 0 8 S. Ct. 2 3 7 9 ( i 9 8 8) •
RESPECTFULLY,
JULY 2, 2018
Y~HYA MUQUI ET. AL.,
THE UNITED ST~TES DISTRICT COURT
THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
{_I·
• __ )
YAHYA MUQUIT #318455
C/~ 8:17-cv-01804-RBH-JDA
PLi'UNTIFF ( S)
AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS GIVING
JUDICIAL NOTI_CE; MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE
COMPL~INT; MOTION TO INTERVENE
DUE TO FRAUD UPON THE COURT,
CHALLENGING THE DISTRICT
COURT'S JURISDICTION; MOTION·
Vs.
)
FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING;
)
MOTION RE-ASSERTING THE DEMAND
FOR A JURY TRI~L; NOTICE
OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
AND INTERVENTION; NOTICE
)
SEEKING LEAVE TO .APPEAL
)
PURSUANT TO FED. RULE(S)
5.1; 15(a)(1)(C)(1)(B)(d);
16(a)(5)(2)(I); 18; 19; 20;
2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( b ) ( 1 ) { B ) ; · 3 8 AND
39 AND MOTION TO MOTION
JUDGE ROBERT Eo HOOD ET. ALo,
THEREFOR
DEFENDA.NT(S)
/
TO: THE 4TH. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
THE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT ET. AL.,
YAHYA MUQUIT ET. ,AL.,_ THE UNDERSIGNED AFFIANT ( S),
HEREINAFTER, THE AFFIANT ( s) DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY. $W.E:_f\~,i}fi?ND OR
~FFIRM AND OR DECLARE AND OR STATE ~S FOLLOWS:
THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ENTERED ORDER,
f
-of-20
. '
ENTRY# 28 ON JULY 23, 2018e THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT RECEIVE THE
DOCUMENT UNTIL JULY 26, 2018. THIS GIVES THE PLAINTIFF (14)
DAYS UNTIL AUGUST 8, 2018 TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO IT AND APPEAL
IT PURSU!\NT TO RULE 73(c) AND 28 U.S.Ca § 636(c)(3) . EVEN THOUGH
A M~GISTRATE JUDGE DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ENTER~ FINAL JUDGMENT ON A CASE. TH~T JUDGE DOES HAVE JURISDICTI ON TO ENTER A
FIN~L JUDGMENT ON ALL NON DISPOSITVE PRETRIAL OR OTHER SUCH
PRELIMIN/':\RY MATTERS. THEREFORE, THE ORDER, ENTRY# 28, MUST
BE DEEMED AS A FINAL ORDER ON THE ISSUE OF RECUSAL; CRAWFORD
JOINING AS PARTY OR ACTING AS ATTORNEY FOR MUQUIT; ON THE ISSUE
OF A.MENDING THE DEFENDANTS. IN THIS Ci\SE; ON PA.GE LIMITS; ON
THE RIGHT OF MUQUIT TO ESTABLISH COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AS A NON
PARTY; THE RIGHT TO HAVE PLR;~ PLACED BEFORE A JURY AND NOT A
JUDGE AND CLASS ACTION CERTIFICAT IONo THEREFORE, THIS- DOCUMENT
WITH ITS ~TTACHMENTS CONSTITUTE A NOTICE SEEKING LE~VE TO APPEAL
FOR BOTH YAHYA MUQUIT AND Lf.\WRENCE CRAWFORD WHERE HIS SIGN~TURE
IS SIGNED FOR THIS PURPOSE VI,1~ THE ATTACHMENTS ON THE FACE OF
THIS DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO FED. RULE 73(c) AND 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
(3), ~GRKGRWGG-Vw-~ELWlGr 2017 WL 4898260(D oC.Md.201 7); EQNWER
vy-KlLMQREr 2017 WL 1057633, * 11 N.D.~lao; £~RQWG-v .-U.£.r
57 F.Supp.2d . 908, 1999 WL 543737 (N.D.Calie 1999); IN~ELLIGE ~~
VERI~IC~~ IGN-S¥£~EM £r-LLC.-~.- MICRQ£Q~ ~-CGR~~r F.Supp.3d ., 2015
WL 846012(E. D.Va.2015 ); MGW~GQMER~-v.-IW~ERN~L-R~~ENUE-SERVlCE 7
--F.Supp.3 du--, 201~ WL 953331(D. D.C.2018); IN-RE.-WMQ LE-£ALE
GRGQER¥-~RGQUC~S~AN~I~RUS~-LI~IG~~lGWz 8A9 F3d. 761, 96 Fed.
R. SERV.3d. 1207(8th. Cir.2017) ; ~LIL~~K~X I~A-~.-U.£. -~ANK-NA ~IQNAL-A£ £GCI~~IGN r 2016 WL 4992464(N .D.Cal.201 6).
INSOMUCH, JUDGE ~US~IN ENTERED ENTRY# 28 ASSERTING TH!\T
THE COURT NOR CLERK CAN FILE ANY DOCUMENT SUBMITTED OR SIGNED
BY CRA.WFORD OR A.NY DOCUMENT TH!\T EXCEED (20) PA.GES. NOTWITHSTi\NDING, WE ARE CHALLENGING THAT ORDER, ENTRY# 28, VIi\ THIS NOTICE
SEEKING LEAVE TO APPEAL AS WELL AS CHALLENGING THE DISTRICT
COURT'S JURISDICTI ON TO ENTER IT DUE TO FRr.\UD UPON THE COURT.
THE ORDERS OR DECREES OF ALL COURTS CAN BE COLLATER!\LLY ATT~CKED
FOR FRAUD UPON THE COURT WHICH IS FREE FROM ALL PROCEDURAL LIMITATIONS WHICH ENTRY# 28 IMPOSES. THEREFORE, THE COURT AND JUDGE
AUSTIN ARE REQUIRED TO FILE THIS DOCUMENT WITH ITS ATTACHMENTS
WITHOUT RESTRICTIO NS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THIS APPEAL,
M¥LES-Vw- QGMIWG!£ -~IiZ~x-LL~ ~r 2017 WL 238436(D. C.Miss.201 7);
EIRS~-~ECM NGLGG¥-CA ~l~~~7-lNGw -V~-~~NC~E C7-IWCw7 2016 WL 7444943
(D.C.Ky.20 16); ~¥NE-v~-UN I~EQ-S~~~E Sr FoSupp.3d ., 2016 WL 1377402
(D.C.Md.2 016); V~E~~-v~-S G~RQ-G~-~ RUS~EESr F.Suppe3d ., 2016
WL 775386(D.C .Md.2016); IN-RE.-OE ¥r--B~R.-- ,. 2015 WL 669788(10 th.
Cir.2015) ; WELL£-~ARGG-~ANK 7 -N.~.-v.-~.M .M~-RGMA N-~WG-W. C.r
LLC.r 859 F3d. 295(4th.C ir.2017); MILEQRQ-v.-MIQQLE~GNr 2018
WL 348059 (DSC.2018 ); MQ£bEX-v. -YWI~EQ-5 ~~~E£r 2018 WL 1187778
(W.D.N.C. 2018).
FURTHERMORE, ANY ATTACHMENT NOW FILED WITH THIS DOCUMENT
IS OFFICIALLY ATTACHED TO THE NOTICE SEEKING LEl~VE TO APPE~L.
IT IS AUTOMATIO~LLY FILED WHEN PLACED IN THE INSTITUTIO N MAILBOX
.PURSUANT TO ~ggs~QW-v .-L~~Kr 287 u.s. 266, 273-76, 108 s.ct.
2379 (1988). SINCE ALL DOCUMENTS ARE OFFICI~LLY ATT~CHED TO
THE FACE OF THE NOTICE SEEKING L~~VE TO APPEAL. THE NOTICE SEEKING LEAVE TO ~PPEAL IS AN EVENT OF JURISDICTI ONAL SIGNIFICAN CE.
THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTI ON IS DIVESTED TO EVEN RETURN
THE DOCUMENTS BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY ALTERING OR
2 -of-20
.
,
'
KING
LEAVE TO APPEAL. A NOTICE SEE
,.AMENDING THE NOTICE SEEKING
ERED
ITS ATTACHMENTS, CANNOT BE . ALT
VE TO APPEAL, WHICH INCLUDE
LEA
I
.
.
T CONCLUDE THE
~TED. THE FEDERAL JUDGE mNNO
, AMENDED OR VAC
IS.
T BE PERMITTED TO BE FIL ED AS
CASE. THUS, THE PLEADINGS MUS
THING
REGAIN JUR ISD ICT ION TO DO ANY
TBE DIS TRI CT COURT WOULD NOT
TRI CT
A MANDATE. THEREFORE, THE DIS
UN TIL THE 4TH . CIR CU IT ISS UES
WITH ALL OF ITS VARIOUS ATTACH
RT MUST ACCEPT THI S DOCUMENT
COU
TO AP OF THE NOTICE SEEKING LEA.VE
MENTS AS FIL ED BEING A PART
MA GgQ
. 247 (2n d.C ir.1 996 ); U.£ .-v. -C~
PEAL, u.s .-v. -RQ GE RS r 101 F3d
.3d .
KL A¥M ~N- v.-Q 2~M ~r 142 F.S upp
302 F3d . 35 (2n d.C ir.2 002 );
CE
~gRQ~E~G~IJMl.N-~ECUNlCl.L-SERVl
404 , 407 n. (4t h.C ir.2 001 ); NOR
.;
.r 201 6 WL 334 634 9, * 5 E.D .Va
.-v. -Q¥ NC QR ~-lN ~ER N~~ lQN ~L- LLC
lNG
.
. 246 (4t h.C ir.2 014 ); MYN~ER-~
QQ E-v .-~Y SLl C-C l~J; g~w r 749 F3d
RG LIN ~-- F.S upp .3d .--, 201 7 WL
~GWN-OR-MQCKSVlbLE 7 -NG R~ M- C~
GR Kr
.. -GQ NSQ LlQ l.~E Q-G ~S- GO .-G~ -~E W-¥
422 110 9 (N. C.2 017 ); NEW~GN-v
d. 538 (U. S.1 922 ); 2~XGY-SgQRES
u.s . 165 , 42 s.c t. 264 , 66 L.E
258
C.F la.
upp .3d ., 201 4 WL 410 176 1 (D.
£.N .~. 7 -LL G.- v.-2 YR NW EbL r F.S
£-lN G. 7
GIE S-IN £•-v .-XA G~W ~RE -SG LU~ lGN
201 4); EAG LE5 VlE W-~ EG ~NQ LG
(20 13) .
F.S upp .2d ., 201 3 WL 120 716 68
CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIM E,
SUBJECT MATTER JUR ISD ICT ION
COURT SHALL NOT FAI L TO TAKE
CANNOT BE WAIVED BY US ~ND THE
UNCONN'S FRAUD RENDERING THE CASE
NOTICE WHICH OCCURRED BY AU STI
MAGIERS AND HER JUR ISD ICT ION AS
STITUTIONAL AND VOIDS THE ORD
S
UIRED TO ACT AS TRUSTEE. THI
STRATE JUDGE. SHE IS STI LL REQ
2~L
GRIJ~G-Q~LA~LYX-v.-A~Ll.5-GLQ
IS JUR ISD ICT ION ~L CH~LLENGE,
(u. s.
s.~ t. 192 0, 158 L.E d.2 d. 866
GR GU ~r- L-~ .r 541 u.s . 567 , 124
; U.S .
~ES 7 65 F.S upp .3d . 19 (20 14)
200 4); LQI JMl E~- v.-U Nl~ EQ- £~A
US
WL 215 666 6 (DS C.2 007 ); SES ELl
v.~ ~lS Q~ LE r F.S upp .2d ., 200 7
d.
~ERr 133 s.c t. 817 , 184 L.E d.2
v,.-AYSIJRN-REGlGNl.L-MEQJ;Gl.L-CEN
IE£
lN-R E~- GEN E£¥ 5-Q A~l .-~E CM NG LGG
81 u.s .L. W. 405 3(u .s.2 013 );
627 ,
NRl .Q 7
ir. 200 0); YNl ~Eb l-S~ l.~E S-v .-CG
z-U lG. r 204 F3d . 124 (4t h.C
017 ); ~GX-EX-REI,,,..-RQX-v .. -ELK
Fed . "\.ppx' 263 , 265 CA4 (N. C.2
675
(4t h.
. 131 , 87 Fed . R. SER V.3 d. 534
-GG l.b~ GO ,..-l NG, z 739 F3d
RYN
Cir .20 14) .
L FIN D:
INSOMUCH, HERE THE COURT WIL
THESE ME THE ATTORNEY
(1) EXH IBI T, "JUDGE LEE #1" .
3-o f-2 0
· '
'tEfTERS AND SCHEDULING ORDERS FROM CASE 2013-CP-400-0084, 2294.
TAKE NOTICE OF PAGE(S) 2, 3, 7, 9i AND 10. YOU WILL SEE THE_
NAMES OF PAUL GUNTER AND KRISTY KHOL APPEAR ON THESE PAGES.
NOTE PAGE (3). IT IS PERSPICUOUS THAT THESE ARE FEDERAL AGENTS
OR EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE
A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT E-MAIL DESIGNATION. IT DOESN'T MATTER
WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED. THE U~ITED STATES
DID BY FAILING TO RESPOND, WHICH BINDS THIS COURT AND ALL STATE
PARTIES BY THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE. WITH THE AID OF THE STATE PARTIES THEY HID THEIR APPEARANCE AND FAILED TO PLEAD SUBJECTING
THEM /::\ND ALL:l~t;t@trifa TO THE DEFAULT WHICH BINDS THIS COURT AND
JUDGE AUSTIN AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE
PARTIES BY THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE. VOLUNTARY 7-\-PPEARANCE BY A- PARTY
IS EQUIVALENT TO SERVICE. AN APPEARANCE MAY BE EXPRESSLY MADE
BY A PARTY, SUCH THAT THE COURT ACQUIRES JURISDICTION OVER THE
PARTY, BY A FORMAL WRITTEN OR OR/\L DECLARATION AS THE UNITED
NATIONS DID FILED IN THIS Ci".\BE, OR RECORD ENTRY; BY THESE DOCUMENTS FILED IN THIS CASE WE HAVE RECORD ENTRY, OR IT ~~y BE
IMPLIED BY SOME.ACT DONE WITH THE INTENTION OF APPEARING AND
SUBMITTING TO THE COURT'S JURISDICTION. THE RECEIVING BY THE
UNITED STATES VIP:,. ITS AGENTS OF PLE,~DINGS FROM THE COURT IS
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF APPEARING AND SUBMITTING TO THE COURT'S
JURISDICTION, £~E~RW£~S~WK-W~~!-~££!W-v.-gREEWWOO Q-~~I.L£y-L•~·r
373 S.C. 331, 644 S.E.2d. 793, REHEARING DENIED CERT. DENIED
(S.C.~pp.2007); SRAW~~~S~WKIWG-AWQ-~R~U£~-~G.-~.-~UW~r F.Supp.3d •.
, 2015 WL 2173047(DSC.2015).
PLE~SE TAKE NOTICE OF PAGE(S) 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19
AND 20. IT IS CONSPICUOUS THAT THE KING-KHALIFAH FILED 11 A:FFIDAVITS OF FACTS". JUDGE LEE MADE AN ORAL DETERMINi:\.TION OF LAW
AND FACT AND STATED, "MR. CR?\-WFORD YOU FILED THE DOCUMENTS AS
AN AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BUT YOU ALSO PLACED THE WORD "MOTION"
IN THEM. IF THE WORD 11 MOTION 11 IS IN THEM. I Ht~VE TO RULE ON
THEM. IF THE WORD "MOTION" IS Ti:\.KEN OUT OF THE DOCUMENT. THEY
DO NOT HAVE TO BE RULED ON~ THEY STAND UNLESS TIMELY REBUTTED
BY THE COURT OR PARTIES". THIS ORAL DETERMINA-TION Ml~DE BY JUDGE
LEE IN THAT APRIL 3, 201 4 HEARING IS ALso· SUPPORTED BY FEDERi;L
IAW. SEE MGKELVE~-~.-RE~WQL~Sr F.Supp.3d., 2016 WL 6518337(DSC.
2016); GL~W~GW-vT-QGLSEX 7 F.Supp.2d., 2013 WL 1786416 (DSC.
2013); QEL-ZQ~~G-Vv-UWlVER£AL-~~~£I~lAWS-£ER VICE£ 7 -LL~. 7 214
F.Supp.3d. 499(DSC.2016); ~ARRAR~-v.~QUAQRQZiI-EQUl~MEW~~LEASlWG
CQRI?. 7 2013 WL 3226735(EoD.N.Y.2013); AWQERSGW-v.-I.~SER~X-LQSS¥
INC9T 477 u.s. 242, 106 s.ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d. 202(U.S.1986);
lW-RE~-CI.EAN-~URN-FUEI.£ 7 -LI.~. 7 2014 WL 2987330(N.C.2014); WlI..
LlAMS-v~-SE~RE~AR~-G~-~E~ER~W£-A~FAlR S 7 --F.Supp.3d.--, 2015
WL 593 5169 ( N.D .Ala.201 5) ; l)UI.I.ER .... v.--I?ZU~.RlSllr F. Supp. 2d., 201 3
WL 1868028(Va.2013).
IN ABSENCE OF p,. WRITTEN DECISION ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE
FOR PURPOSES OF ESTOPPEL PARTY CAN POINT TO THE TRANSCRIPT.AND
OR COURT DOCUMENTS AND OR AN ORAL DECISION SUCH AS THE ONE JUDGE
LEE M~DE IN TH~ APRIL 4, 2014 HEARING CONTAINING FINDINGS OF
FACT, IW-RE-SMI~Mr 2016 WL 3943710 (Md.2016); IW-RE~-QI~G-~IWr
576 B.R. 32 (N.Y.2017); WEW~MAM~£MIRE-~.-M~IWEr 532 U.S. 742,
121 s.ct. 1808, 149 L.Ed.2d. 968(U.S.2001); SAKER~2~-~~QMAS
v.-GENER~~-MQ~QR£-~QR~.T 522 u.s. 222, 118 s.ct. 657, 139 L.Ed.2d
580 (U.S.1998); GA~E£-~.-£~RA~Nr 2017 WL 241705l(E.D.La.2017).
4-of-20
11
(2) EXHIBIT , "JUDGE LEE # 2 ., THIS IS THE [92] PAGE 1\FFIDAVIT OF F~CTS** *, FILED MAY 13, 2014. THE KING-KHALIFAH AND
I
ANTHONY COOK THEN FOLLOWED JUDGE LEE S OR/".\.L DETERMIW\TION AND
11
THEN RE-FILED THE DEFAULT DOCUMENT, EXIiIBIT , "JUDGE LEE# 2 ,
AS AN AFFIDAV IT OF FACTS WITHOUT THE WORD "MOTION" IN IT AS
WAS DETERMINED BY JUDGE LEE. THIS DOCUMENT SAT IN THE COURT
RECORD UNCHl!\.LLENGED BY THE PARTIES SINCE. ITS FILING UNTIL THIS
PRESENT DA.TE.
JUDGE LEE # 3". THIS IS THE [ 1 52] P1\GE
DOCUMENT FILED OCTOBER 1, 2015. THE KING-KHALIFAH AND ANTHONY
COOK THEN FILED EXHIBIT , JUDGE LEE # 3", EXPU-HNING HOW JURISDICTION GAN BE VOIDED FOR UNCONSTITd1:i1T6N1\L ACTION AND t'.!\DDRESSING
( 3) EXHIBIT ,
11
THEIR OTHER FRAUD IN THAT OCTOBER 1, 2015 FILING.
(4) EXHIBIT , "JUDGE LEE# 4"o THIS IS THE [31] PAGE AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS FILED DECEMBER 1, 2015. THEREAFTER, THE OCTOBER
1, 2015 HEARING. THE KING-KHALIFAH AND ANTHONY COOK THEN FILED
EXHIBIT , 11 JUDGE LEE# 4", A.S A.N AFFIDAV IT OF FACTS WITHOUT THE
WORD "MOTION" IN IT. JUDGE LEE, THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS MISSED
THE [30] DAY WINDOW TO CHALLENGE TH/\,T DOCUMENT.SO THEY ATTEMPTED
: · :_. ·:::;;~1~:r,·
,
FRM]D TO OBTAIN FR~UDULENT PROTECTIVE ORDERS To· MISREPRESENT
THE FACTS AND TO CIRCUMVENT THEIR FAILURE TO TIMELY RESPOND
WHICH WERE VOID AB INITIO DUE TO REMOVAL, WHICH FURTHER VOIDED
THEIR JURISDIC TION BY THIS ADDITIONAL FRAUD BEING UNCONSTITUTION~L. THEY DID NOT APPEAL OR SEEK TO CHALLENGE THE FILINGS
WHICH MAKE THEM VALID. JUDGE LEE, THE COURT, NOR THE DEFENDANTS
. . :·. ·:·:·:.·1~·~.J.:.,
:.
·.
CHALLENGED THE DOCUMENTSe THEIR SILENCE IS ACCEPTANCE BEING
UNCONTESTED AFFIDAV ITS OF FACTS, N~L .. R... ~ ... -1.{.--AMAX-CGAI.-CQ,.,..,..,.QUl,..
'
QR-AM~X-IWC .. r 453 u.s. 322, 101 s.ct. 2789 (U.S.198 1); CMIMME~¥!£
..
M~W~GEMEN~-CG..--LLC .. -~ .. -A~~lI.lA ~ED-~ .. M -IW£UR~WCE-CG,.x 152 F.Suppe
3d. 159 (2016); ~~UER-~ .. -QUE£~-CQMMUWlCA~GR£-CQ,.~LI.C,.. 7 743
F.Supp.3 d. 221(201 4); GLQ~~~~~ECMTz 131 s.ct. 2060 (u.s.201 1).
(5) EXHIBIT , "RA.NDOM MASS KILLING S". THIS DOCUMENT SUBSTANTI1\TES THAT NOT EVEN THESE CLAIMS M.?.\DE IN THE DOCUMENTS
REIF-\.TED TO THE MASS KILLINGS CAN BE DEEMED FRIVOLOUS DUE TO
THE RECENT INVESTIGATION DONE BY THE F.B.I. RELATED TO THIS
ISSUE WHICH A.ID TO SUPPCiRT THE CLAIMS IN Ci~SE 2013-CP -400-008 4
5-of-20
'THOUGH THE DEFAULT STILL VALIDATED THEM. IT CAN NO LONGER BE
CONSIDERED A CONCLUSORY CL~IM.
(6) EXHIBIT, "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN'.""--NOT!" •. THIS IS THE
[85] P~GE DOCUMENT DATED OCTOBER 2, 2009e THIS PROVES WE ARE
NOT ASSERTING A "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" CLj\-IM, OR ARE WE ARGUING,
"THEOCRATIC LAW". IT IS FOREIGN LAW DEFt:\ULTED ON UNDER RULE
44 OF S.C. RULES OF CIV. PRO., AS WELL AS FEDERAL PROBATE L~W,
ALSO COMMON LAW AND CONTRACT LAW NOW PROTECTED UNDER ~RTICLE
1 SECTION 10 AND ARTICLE IV§ 2 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.,
( 7 ) EXHIBIT,
JANUARY 9, 2013.
11
0084 # 1 " • THE [32] PA:GE COMPLf-\,INT DATED
( 8) EXHIBIT,
NOVEMBER 10, 2012.
11
0084 # 2". THE [73] PAGE COMPLAINT Df.lt-TED
( 9 ) EXHIBIT,
JULY 25, 2012.
11
0084 # 3". THE [96] PAGE COMPLAINT DATED
11
(10) EXHIBIT, "UNITED NATIONS# 1 ., THE [42] PAGE UNITED
N~TIONS DOCUMENT DATED JULY 1, 2009.
( 11) EXHIBIT, "UNITED NA.-TIONS # 2 11 • THE [ 21 ] PAcGE FOLLOW
UP UNITED N~TIONS DOCUMENT D~TED DECEMBER 25, 2009.
(12) EXHIBIT, 11 2010-CP-17-081
D~TED JANU~RY 28, 2010.
11
•
THE [41] PAGE COMPLAINT
(13) EXHIBIT, 11 0084 # 4 11 • THE [19] PAGE COMPLAINT IN
OR THAT M~KE UP Ct:\SE 2006-CP-400-3568.
(14) EXHIBIT, 11 0084 # 5 11 ., THE [38] PAGE COMPLAINT THA-T
MJ~KE UP CASE 2006-CP-400-3569.,
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE. CASES 2006-CP-400-3567, 3568, 3569
11
ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL CASE NUMBERS. SEE EXHIBIT, "RAGE# 1 •
THEY CRIMIMLLY DISMISSED THESE (3) CASES IN THE STATE COURT.
THE FEDEFAL COURT IN KENTUCKY REOPENED THEM AND REMANDED THEM
CRE~TING THESE NEW CA-SE NUMBERS IN 2008. THEREFORE, COLLATER~L
ESTOPPEL ATT~CHES AND THEY CANNOT BE DISMISSED OR CALLED FRIVOLOUS BEING PETITIONED REMOVED TO THIS CASE PURSUANT TO 28 u\,s.,c.,
§§ 1443(1), 1602-1612 ET. SEQ. AND 2679.
(15) EXHIBIT,
NOVEMBER 22, 2010.
11
0084 # 6 11 • THE [38] PAGE.DOCUMENT DATED
ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS MAKE UP CASE 2013-CP-400-0084.
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL ATTACHES TO ALL OF THESE CLAIMS WHICH IS
WHY THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE MUST BE PERMITTED AMENDED TO
EST~BLISH THE JURISDICTIONAL FACTS. WE OBJECT. THE CASE WAS
INITIALLY FILED TO LIST ALL OF THESE DEFENDMTS BUT THE COURT
IN ACTS OF FRAUD LISTED THEM INCORRECTLY TO MAKE THE CASE APPE~R
FRIVOLOUS. THE CONSPIRING JUDGES i.\TTl!CKED MUQUIT' S P,.ND THE OTHER
PARALLEL PLAINTIFFS DUE PROCESS MATTERS TO PREVENT THESE CLAIMS
FROM ENTERING THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS. THE [180] DAY ISSUE
ARGUED IN THE MUQUIT C~SE'IS CLEARLY SEEN IN EXHIBIT, "R~GE
# 1 11 • THE COURT CANNOT IN ACTS OF FRAUD Ci!\.LL THESE CLAIMS FRIVOb,-of-20
r,
'LO'US WHERE THEY A-LL WERE DEFAULTED ON WITHOUT FIRST GIVING THE
REQUIRED EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO FURTHER ESTABLISH THE CLAIM
OF ESTOPPEL AND GIVE THE DEFENDANTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
A NON PARTY TO THE A:CTION C~N CLAIM ESTOPPEL. JUDGE- AUSTIN ABUSED
HER DISCRETION IN ACTS OF FR.AUD UPON-THE COURT BY BLOCKING THIS
FILING To AID_ HERt6ttoRTS A-VOID SUIT A.ND To NEGATE HER EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION AS TRUSTEE. THE DOCUMENTS MUST BE PERMITTED TO
'-BE ENTERED INTO THE COURT RECORD TO ESTABLISH THE ESTOPPEL WHICH
IS A JURISDICTIONAL CU\IM WHICH CANNOT BE WAIVED ONCE ASSERTED
AND THE DOCUMENTS BE NOW FILED IN THIS CASE. THEY HELD THESE
STATE CASES IN LIMBO SINCE 2005 VOIDING THEIR JURISDICTION FOR
UNCONSTITUTION\L ACTION, ~E£~-v.-2~WK-O~--AM ERICA-W,~. 7 2015
WL 5124463(E.D.N.Y.20 15}; WGRKMAW-~.-CIX¥-G~~£¥R~CU£E 7 2015
WL 300435(N.D.N.Y.201 5}; ~EAS~IE-~Q~5-Yw-MGW£~ER-EWERG~-CG. 7
2015 WL 736078 (S.D.N.Y.2015).
WE OBJECT TO ANY CLAIM OF FRIVOLOUS. ONCE THESE DOCUMENTS
ARE FILED IN THE COURT RECORD THE COURT MUST SERVE THE DEFENDANTS
AND CONDUCT A HEARING TO ADDRESS THE CI.AIM OF ESTOPPEL BEFORE
ANY SUCH CLAIM CAN BE MADE DUE TO THE DEFAULT, THEIR FRAUD,
OBSTRUCTIVE AND DILATORY BEHAVIOR PLACING THEM IN FORFEITURE,
~
u.£.-v.-~ANEr 75 u.s. 185, 200-01, 19 L.Ed. 445, 449 (U.S.1868};
LQQWE¥-v.~CI~¥-G~-WI~MIWG~GW-QE~. 7 723 F.Supp. 1025 (D.C.Del.
1989); IW-RE~-RIGGLEx 389 B.R. 167 (D.Coloa2007); IW-RE~-~UWQICK 7
303 B.R. 90 (E.D.Va.2003). THE COURT IS BARRED FROM RAISING
ANY ISSUE WHICH WAS ADJUDICATED IN A FORMER SUIT AND ALL ISSUES
WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THAT FORMER SUIT. THE ESSENTIAL
ELEMENTS OF RES JUDIO~T~ OR ESTOPPEL ARE IDENTITY OF PARTIES,
WHICH IS WHY IN FRAUD THEY LISTED THE DEFENDANTS INCORRECTLY,
IDENTITY OF SUBJECT MATTER WHICH IS WHY AUSTIN BLOCKED THE FILING
OF THESE DOCUMENTS, AND ADJUDICATION IN A FORMER SUIT AS IS
DONE VIA EXHIBITS, "JUDGE LEE #'S 1-4" AND EXHIBITS, "0084 ET.
AL.,". ONCE A-COURT HAS DECIDED AN ISSUE, SUCH AS THE ESTABLISHING OF THE VA.LID I TY OF THE FILING OF THE AFFIDAVITS OF F1"!\CTS,
WHICH IS AN ESSENTIAL FACT AND LAW NECESS~RY TO ITS JUDGMENT.
THAT DECISION PRECLUDE RELITIGATION OF THE ISSUE AND EVERYTHING
RELATED TO IT, IN
A SUIT ON
A- DIFFERENT C~USE OF /\CTION INVOLVING
A P~RTY TO THE FIRST CASE, IN-RE~-~U¥ 7 552 B.R. 89 (DSC.2016);
R~¥-GRQU~~M~WA~E MEW~r-IW~.-VT-£~HE IQERr--F.Supp.3d.--, 2018
7 -of-20
WU 655595(EoD.Pa.201~); £~R~-X-WIJ;,£QWr-~~~EL~~W'I'y-V•-~a~RI..E£~QW
GQUW~¥-£QMQQ~-Ol£~RlG'I'-RE£~QWQEW~r--SoE.2d.--, 2017 WL 1075196
(S.C.2017); ~~RQWIGK-K.-2~NK-GR-~MERIC~-W.~~T 2016 WL 3563083
(DSC.2016); KEARWE¼-v.-~QLE¥-AWO-I..ARQIWER-LL~~r 2016 WL 5405552
(2016).
(16) EXHIBITS, "RAGE #'S 1-3 11 • THE [34] PAGE DOCUMENT;
THE INTAKE SHEET FROM SLED FILE# 5501014; THE TESTING DNA CASE
04-385. THESE TOO, A.RE A PART OF THE PLEA.DINGS IN CASE 2013CP-400-0084. THE [34] PAGE DOCUMENT AND CASE WAS ONE OF THOSE
REMANDED FROM THE FEDERAL COURT ESTABLISHING CASE 2006-CP-4003567 AND RE-FILED ESTABLISHING O~SE 2013-CP-400-0084. IT IS
DEFAULTED ON. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL ATTACHES. WHAT THE HECK IS
A QUESTION MARK DOING BY THE WORD 11 TMUM/.\. 11 IF THE KING-KHALIFAH' S
CHILD DIED FROM AN ALLEGED BEATING!!! THIS IS WHERE THE EVIDENCE.
OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE IS RELl~TED TO THE KING-KHALIF,;H THAT MUQUIT
AND THE PARALLEL PLAINTIFFS TRIED TO OBTAIN AND FOR WHICH THEY
AT'I'A:CKED OUR DUE PROCESS MATTERS TO PREVENT IT FROM SURFACING.
LOOK AT PAGE [17] OF THE [34] PAGE DOCUMENT. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL
SOURCE OF THE [180] DAY RULE AND ISSUE WHICH WAS MODIFIED IN
EXHIBIT, "JUDGE LEE # 2". THE DOCUMENT ESTABLIS.HING THE DEFAULT
IN CA.SE 2013-CP-400-0084. COLLATERM, ESTOPPEL ATTACHES TO THE
MUQUIT CASE J\S A NON PARTY WHERE JUDGES AUSTIN AND HARWELL SAT
UPON AS WELL AS THERE BEING AN EXISTING BRADY VIOLATION IN THE
CRAWFORD CASE THEY CONSPIRED IN CONCEALING IN ACTS OF FRAUD
UPON THE COURT BECAUSE WE SOUGHT TO AID HIM AND HE SOUGHT TO
AID US. THIS REQUIRES THEIR RECUSAL, BUT JUDGE AUSTIN IS !D'a'tl.l
REQUIRED TO REMAIN As TRUSTEE, WJ;I,,I,,J;~MS-l.r,.-~i:WW.5¥I..},G\.WIAr 1 3 6
s.ct. 1899, 195 L.Ed~2d. 132, 84 u.s.L.W. 4359(U.S.2016); UWI'l'EQ
£rAXE£-Vw-QUIWQWE£r 2016 WL 4413149, * 6+ (S.D.W.Va.2016); 28
u.s.c. § 455; I,,;J;'I'EK¥-V..-U~'I'EQ-£~.l;\,~E--r 510 u.s. 540, 114 s.ct.
1147(U.S.Ga.1994); KGI.GN-IWQU£~RIE£~INC,-~w-E,I,.-Oy~QWX-Q@-WEMQYR
&-t;;;G-r 748 F3d. 160 CA4 (Va.2014); IW~J?:.E ... -£¥W~~x .. 1n~.II.I.I~W-GQRQRJi...
'l';!;GWr 2016 WL 7177615 (D,.Md.2016).
.,
RULE 15(a)(1)(C)(1)(B)(d) PROVIDES: A PARTY, MAY AMEND
ITS PLEADING ONCE AS A MATTER OF COURSE. AN i:;MENDMENT TO A PLEA.DING RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WHEN
THE AMENDMENT ASSERTS~ CLAIM OR DEFENSE TH~T ~ROSE OUT OF THE
CONDUCT, TRANSACTION, OR, OCCURRENCE SET OUT--OR ATTEMPTED TO
BE SET OUT IN THE ORIGINAL PLEADING. ON MOTION /'\ND REA:SONABLE
NOTICE, THE COURT MAY, ON JUST TERMS, PERMIT A P~RTY TO SERVE
A SUPPLEMENT PLEADING SETTING OUT ANY TRANSACTION, OCCURRENCE
OR EVENT THAT HAPPENED AFTER THE ~~TE OF THE PLEADING TO BE
SUPPLEMENTED. THE COURT MAY PERMIT SUPPLEMENT~TION EVEN THOUGH
THE ORIGINAL PLEADING IS DEFECTIVE IN STATING A CLAIM OR DEFENSE.
ALL CL!\IMS, ISSUES, DEFENSES, CAUSE OF ACTION, MOTIONS, PETITIONS
ETC., THAT ARE ARGUED WITHIN ANY DOCUMENT NOW ATTACHED TO THE
FACE OF THIS PLEADING ARE MOTIONED SUPPLEMENTED TO THE ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT. THIS IS NOW OFFICIALLY GRANTeD BY EXERCISE OF THE
SUPERSEDING i!\TTORNEY, JUDICIAL .AND LEGISLATIVE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN CROWN. THE JUDGES CANNOT BRING
US Be;FORE THIS COURT IN VIOLATION OF THE TERMS IN WHICH WE DIC~~TE. ALL NON FRIVOLOUS ISSUES MUST NOW BE ADDRESSED AS IS OUTLINED WITHIN ALL DOCUMENTS NOW BEFORE THIS COURT, 'l'QI.2ER~-v.
£~EVEN£GWr 635 F3d. 646 (4th.Cir.2011); RQX-v.-UIGE 7 563 U.S.
82 , 131 s.ct. 2205(u.s.2011 >; ~1J~:&,ti:.W-v .. -12;i;1.~,nH~I..\;;~s;R 7 563 u.,s.
170, 131 s.ct. 1388, 179 L.Ed.2d. 557(U.S.2011); 28 u.s.c. §
1602-16012 ET. SEQ ••
8 -of-20
(17 & 18) EXHIBIT(S), "4TH.CIRCUIT WITHDRA.WN 11 • THIS IS
THE [56] PAGE AFFIDAVIT DATED MAY 8, 2018 WHICH
w~s
PREVIOUSLY
SERVED ON 'IHE 4TH. CIRCUIT AND JUDGE AUSTIN; foND EXHIBIT,
"TRUSTEE", THE [26] PAGE M~NDAMUS THA:T ESTA-BLISH CASE 16-2299.
WE OBJECT TO JUDGE ~USTIN, IN CLEAR ACTS OF FRI\.UD STl'\:TING THE
4TH. CIRCUIT CASES WERE DISMISSED FOR F~ILURE TO PROSECUTE.
BY THESE DOCUMENTS IT IS CLEAR THE CASES WERE VOLUNTARILY WITHDRAWN FOR 'IHE SOLE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING ALL CASES BEFORE
HER AS TRUSTEE. THIS FRAUD, REMAINING SILENT ON THESE M~TERI/~L
FACTS IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 AND 1001, Ti:\.INTS THE
ORDER(S) RENDERING THEM UNCONSTITUTION!~L ,d\.ND VOID. JUqGE AUSTIN
CONSPIRED TO DIVIDE HER LOYALTIES AND CIRCUMVENT HER DUTY TO
ACT AS TRUSTEE IN VIOL,l~TION OF HER OATH OF OFFICE AND FEDERAL
LAW, ~IF~M-'JiW:J;RQ,-2GW~GR.P 11.. ,_:i;;n,n;~EJA:~mE:i'Ji:'ERr 134 s.ct. 2459, 189
,.
L.Ed.2d. 457(U.S.2014);FG2E£-llw-~GR2E£r 341 P.3d. 1041, 2015
Wy. 3 i
JAN., 2015; ~R1J£~EE5-G~-QAR'L'H~~-v,,, -WG~H;}WARDr
17 U.S. 518, 1812 WL 2201.
°'REFERRING BACK TO THE BRA.DY VIOIA.TION IN THE CRt'\WFORD
CASE FOR THEY ATTACKED MUQUIT AND THE PARALLEL PL!-;INTIFFS TO
PREVENT THAT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE FROM BEING REVEALED
WHICH IS ALSO DEFAULTED ON UNDER CASE 20l3-CP-4O0-0084. FAILURE
TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL EVIDENCE SUCH AS THE SLED FILE AND THE
MIRANDA FORM RELATED TO THE CRAWFORD ALLEGED STATEMENT M~DE
AT TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF S.C. CODE ANN.§§ 19-1-80, 19-1-90
OR TEST THAT DNA IN VIOLATION OF S.C. CODE.ANN.§§ 17-28-350,
17-28-70, 17-7-25A.ND 23-3-635 IS FRA.UD A.ND THEY ATTACKED OUR
DUE PROCESS RIGHTSTO ACCESS TO THE COURTS IN RETALIATION IN
VIOLATION OF_ 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a)(b) OF ADA BECAUSE WE AIDED
HIMl~ND HE AIDED USIN THE FREEEXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROTECTED RIGHTS. THE EVIDENCE IN QUESTION IS SUFFICIENT TO
UNDERMINE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE VERDICT, AND ALL OF THIS IS
DEFAULTEDON UNDER CASE 2013-CP-400-0084. THE SUPPRESSION OF
EVIDENCE BY THE PROSECUTOR FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED UPON REQUEST
VIOLATES DUE PROCESS, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOIDS JURISDICTION
WHERE THEEVIDENCE IS MATERI~L TO GUILT OR PUNISHMENT, IRRESPECTIVE OF GOOD OR BAD F~ITH OF THE PROSECUW~, WEARR¥-v.-~AINr
136
s.ct.
~
1002, 194 L.Ed.2d. 78 (U.S.2016); tl'NI'I!E.Q~£'I'A'I!ES-v-.-
:, •• '.!_
.:fl',
·
q,· -of-20
( 1 9) EXHIBI T, "NEW JERSEY ". THIS IS THE [ 2 7] P,AGE AFFIDA VIT DATED JANUi\RY 1 6, · 201 8., WE OBJECT 'IO THE PLRA AND . OR /\EDP~
BEING USEDTO SEPARATE US OR BAR US FROM SEEKING CLASS ACTION
CB"g-TIFICA.TION OR US BEING REQUIRED TO E)(H\UST VIP. THESE PROVISIONSe THESE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FED. RULE 5.1 CONSTITUTE
A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO A STATlJrE .AND NOTICE , CERTIFI CATION
AND INTERVENT.rON. THIS DOCUMENT AS WELL AS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
R!~ISE THAT CONSTITUTIONiiL CHALLENGE AND FEDERAL QUESTION THAT
IS TO BE Pil~CED BEFORE A JURY UNDER FEDERI\L RULE(S ) 38 AND 39 • .
FOR THE JUDGE TO MAKE USE OF THESE PROVISI ONS IN HER DETERMINATIONS WHEN THEIR UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS BEING QUESTIONED, WHICH
IS A M1\TTER FOR THE JURY, NOT THE JUDGE, IS AN.ABUSE OF DISCRE . TION, AN 1::\.CT OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT, WHICH VOIDS YOUR JURISDICTION FOR DUE PROCESS VIOLAT ION. WE OBJECT . RULE 38 PROVIDES
THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY AS DECLqRED BY THE 7TH. AMENDMENT
TO THE CONSTITUTION OR AS PROVIDED BY FEDERAL STATUTE IS PRESUMED
TO rHE PARTIES INVIOLA.TE. ON ANY ISSU'E TRTABLE OF RIGHT BY JURY,
A PARTY MAY DEMAND A JURY TRIAL FILING IT IN ACCOROONCE TO RULE
5(d) WHICHWE DID. THE COMPLAINT DEMANDED JURY TRIAL. A PROPER
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL ON AN ISSUE MAY ONLY BE WITHDRAWN WITH
OUR CONSENTWHICH YOU DON'T HAVE. WE OBJ~CT . THE ISSUE OF PLRA
AND OR AEDPA MUST BE PIACED BEFORE A JURY BEFORE THE COURT CAN
MAKE USE OF IT. FEDER.AL QUESTION EXIST. DO THESE LEGISLA TIVE
PROVISI ONS DISPROPORTIONATELY TARGET AFRICA N AMERICJ\NS TO THEIR
DETRIMENT AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE EVIDENCE G~THERED BY MICHELLE
ALEXANDER 1::\.ND THE DOCUMENTARY "1 3 11 WHI~H AIRED ON PBS IN VIOLt\TION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION? AS PROVIDED BY FED. RULE 39 A
.:fURY TRIAL IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, NOT A JUDGE. THIS
\OIDS YOUR ORDER( S) BY YOUR FRAUD; WEI.~. ...a..AN K-NvA T-V,..
Ft\Rl\G- 2016 WL 294456 1 (N.C.20 16); WEJ;;rQI.E-l.Z'..--bI:l/.UU,.E£~GN-bGU:ITT:¥
£~E~IFF -GFFIC Er 2014 WL 215523 5(DSC. 2014); BAI.I.-¥ ... -aX~I.Eb R~FX
I:l©l,i\E.£7-J;,,Lb.-7 Fed. Appx' 7 2 0 CA4 (Va.201 4) ; ~GNE¥- ¥ .. -I.as;:u;,I
.E
BANK--W ~X!'.'.-A£ £!NT 36 F.Supp .3d. 657(DS C.20.14 ); bGGI2ER -1t .. -IiARIU£
137 s.ct. 1455, 197 L.Ed.2 d. 837, 85 u.s.L.W . 4257(U .S.2017 ); 7
B~
~
.
~-GF-A MERJ;b A-bGR1 2 ... -V ... -MIA.ll4I -FI.t~...., 137 s.ct. 1296, 197
L Ed.2d.
6 78 1 85 U.S. L. W., 42 2 7 (U.S. 201 7) ; QQIJN~¥-GR~<:;:GGK-l.Z' ...... B~I~rK-AM~RI<;::\.
bG~~ ... 7 2018 WL 156172 5(2018 ).
(20-24) EXHIBI T, 4TH. CIRCUIT FRAUD #1". THIS IS THE
[10] PA.GE AFFIDA VI1 DATED JANUARY 12, 2018; EXHIBI T, 11 4th. CIRCUIT FRAUD # 2". THIS IS i-m2 [20] PAGE 1\FFIDA VIT DA.TED MARCH
28 1 2018; EXHIBI T, 11 4TH CIRCUIT FRAUD# 3 11 • THIS IS THE [14]
PA.GE AFFIDA VIT DATED JULY 2, 2017; EXHIBI T, 11 1140 # 1". THIS
IS THE [ 23] Pi\GE AFFIDA.VIT Dt\TED JULY 8, 2017; EXHIBI T, "WOOTEN
AND MA.RCHi::\.NT FRAUD". THIS IS THE [24] PAGE AFFIDA VIT DATE D~
FEBRUARY 26, 2018. w~ OBJECT TO ANY REFERENCE TO O\SE 9:17-cv 1140-TL W-BM BEING USED BY THIS COURT EX"CEPT TO RENDER THEM VOID.
ALL P.7\RALLEL CASES INVOLVED BY THIS ACTION ARE BEING COLIATERALLY
ATTACKED FOR FRAUD UPON THE COURT. i\USTIN BLOCKED THESE ~
FILINGS TO PROTtii:CT HER COHORTS FROM SUIT AND TO MAKE THE CASE
APPE!~R FRIVOL OUS. THE.$E CAUSeS ARE NOW SOUGHT SUPPLEMENTED TO
THIS CASE. YOUR ACTIONS' REQUIRE SANCTIONS WHICH WE MOTION FOR,
AS WELL AS RECUSAL, ~I.IJE-£ .K{-~R~ ~EI.-AN Q-TGIJR £7-I.L~. -v.-AL-~ A¥¥ARr
--Fed. Appx'- -, 2015 WL 1451636 CA4 (Va.201 5); BAR~QW-v.-~OLGA~E
~::\.LMQ ~~~s~~G .x 772 F3d. 1001, 90 Fed. R. SERV.3 d. 85 CA4
(Md.
2014).
(25-28) EXHIBI T(S), "FOREIGN SOVEREIGN #'S 1 A.ND 2".
10--0f-2 0
. , THIS IS THE [ 70] PAGE AFFIDAVIT tJATED OCTOBER 5, 2017 AND THE
[4] PAGE f.\FFIDAVIT DATED DECl=MBER 20, 2017. THESE TWO DOCUMENTS
WERE. PREVIOUSLY SERVED ON THE COURT IN PRIOR PLEADING; EXHIBIT(S).
, "INTERVENTION AND APPEi\-L NOTICE". THIS IS THE [ 11 ] P1".\:GE DOCUMENT DATED JULY 28, 2018 AND THE NOTICE SEEKING LEAVE TO APPEAL
FOR CR~WFORD AND HIS MOTION TO INTERVENE. IT IS ATTACHED TO
THE FACE OF THIS OOCUME~T AND SUPPLEMENTED TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT TO ESTA-BLISH HIS SIGNATURE A.ND INTENT TO JOIN IN APPEAL
,'\ND INTERVENE; EXHIBIT 1 "LEGl'-\.L COUNSEL.-". THIS IS THE [ 4 0] PAGE
DOCUMENT Di'.\TED JANUi'.\RY 1, 2018. PURS'Ul\.NT TO FED. RULES 18, 19,
2.0 AND 24 I, LAWRENCE L. CRAWFORD, AS NOTED
B''f
MY SIGNATURE
ON THESE~TT~CHMENTS TO THE ~~CE OF THIS DOCUMENT, MOTION TO
·
INTERVENE AND ALSO t~CT AS LEGAL COUNSEL FOR MUQUIT. THUS, WE
OBJECT TO ANY CLi'UM MUQUIT O:'.\.N MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT CRAWFORD.
I BRING THE COURT I S i'.\TT~Ni ION TO P,i]-\.GE ( S) [ 3 9] THROUGH [ 5 9] OF
THE [70] PAGE DOCUMENT DATED OCTOBER 5, 2017. I, JAHJAH AL MAHDI,
GIVE-ALL PARTIES JUD!CIAL NOTICE. I AM OFFICIALLY INVOKING ,AND
EXERCISING ALL SUPERSEDING 1:;TTORNEY, JUDICIAL ,-;ND LEGISLATIVE
POWER OF THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN CROWN BINDING UPON THIS COURT
1:;ND NATION BY THE DeFAULT EMERGING FROM O~SE 2013-CP-400-0084.
UNLESS THE DISTRICT COURT OO•NDUCTS A HEARING AND THE PA:RTlES
DEMONSTRATE THEY MADE TIMELY CHALLENGE TO DEFEAT EXHIBITS, "JUDGE
l.EE #'S 1-4" THIS COURT IS BARRED FROM CHt-".\LLENGING THIS. A STA:TE
MAY NOT EXCLUDE A PERSON FROM PRACTICE OF IAW AS WAS LEGALLY
PETITIONED FOR, OR OTHER OCCUPATION, SUCH AS LAWGIVER OF GOD,
IN A M1'\NNER ·oR FOR REJ-;SONS THJ:;T CONTRi~VENE THE DUE PROCESS OR
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LA.WS CLlWSE. SUCH ACT WOULD DEMONSTRATE
AN INVIDIOUSLY DISCRIMINATORY ANIMUS BEHIND RELIGIOUS AND RACIAL
HATRED AND IT WOULD VIOLA.TE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS
UNDER M~£~ER~lEGE~~~E~$~C~-~1:Q,.._~~-GG~QR~ QO-GlVIL-RI~~~£-~QM,!l~~~Q~7 2018 WL 2465172, 18 Cal. DAILY Op. Serv. 5293(U.S 2018),
ILLEGALLY FORCING THE KING-KHALIFAH TO BREA.CH HIS FIDUCIARY
DUTY WHEN I, Y,'l.HYA MlJQUIT 6 WANT HIM AS MY COUNSE,L OF CHOICE.
SEE. £.lRE£-K.-£GMQQ~£r--F.Supp.3d.--, 2017 WL 4174774{DSC 2017);
R~~gi~~-~~u.M~S~~.~~RIC~.QE.CQLUM2I~x -IWG .. r F.Supp.3d., 2016
WL 6124679(D.C.Md.2016); SCMWARE~vT-~Q~RQ-G~-EX~M.-OR-iW~;g
u.s. 232 77 s.ct. 752,
(U.S.1957); ~~@~3¥rrn~I~~Nr
QR-W,..M-,z.
796
64 A.L.R.2d. 288, 1 L.Ed.2d.
353
2017 WL 3710066(D.C.Nev.
2017); VIR~IWI~-~Q4RQ-GR-MEQlGlNE-~T-ZAGKRl£ GNz 67 Va.
11-0f-20
...
Ap'p. 461, 796 S.,E.2d. 866(2017); QQE-ll,..-RQt;;EJ1L~r 139 F.Supp.,3d.
120 (D.c.c.2015); ~Q~J;.£-11 ... -VlRGINIA.-2,a,._Qii:~~A.R-EX~.MlWER£r 811
F.Supp.2d. 1260(E.D.Va.2011). IT IS MUQUIT'S AND CRAWFORD's
P0SITION THAT THE DEFAULT ,ACTS AS A LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW
WITHIN ALL (50) STATES AND.WITHIN (193) COUNTRIES DUE TO THE
UNITED NATIONS ALSO BEING" P~RTY TO THE DEFAULT.
THEREFORE, W~ OBJ~CT TO ANY CLAIM THE CLERK IS NOT TO
SEND.CRA.WFORD COPIES OF PLEADINGS FROM THIS COURT. I, LAWRENCE
CRAWFORD, AM "LEGALLY" ATTORNEY ON THIS CASE, SINCE I PETITIONED
FOR THIS RIGHT UNDER CASE 2013'-CP-400-0084' AND WON UNLESS THIS
COURT CONDUCTS A HEARING TO DETERMINE OTHERWISE AS THE LAW REQUIRES OR THIS COURT IS P~OCEDURi\LLY BARRED FROM CHALLENGING
THIS. IT WOULD CREATE A STRUCTURAL ERROR AND VOID THIS COURT'S
JURISDICTION FOR DUE PROCESS VIOLATION. WHEN A DEFENDANT IS
DENIED THE RIGHT TO SELECT HIS OWN ATTORNEY, THE PRECISE EFFECT
OF THE VIOLATION CA:NNOT BE ASCERTAINED, AND BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WILL, AS A RESULT, FIND IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOW TH;\T
THE ERROR WAS ffi~RMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THE ERROR
IS DEEMED STRUCTURAL. A VIOLATION OF THE 6TH. AMENDMENT RIGHT
TO EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION OR VIA THE APPLICABLE STATUTE IS
NOT COMPLETE UNTIL THE DEFEND•:\NT IS PREJUDICED. MUQUIT w,is PREJUDICED BECAUSE YOU BLOCKED ENTRY OF THE DOCUMENTS BY CRr~WFORD
THAT MUQUIT NEEDS TO ARGUE THE ESTOPPEL AS A NON PARTY. THIS
VOIDS YOUR JURISDICTION FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION. RULE 24
PROVIDE THAT ON TIMELY MOTION THE COURT MAY PERMIT ANYONE TO
INTERVENE WHO CLAIMS AN INTEREST RELATED TO THE PROPERTY OR
TRANSACTION TH.AT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE .ACTION, AND IS SO SITUATED
THAT DISPOSING OF THE ACTION MAY AS A PRACTICAL MATTER IMPAIR
OR IMP.EDED THE MOVANT' S ABILITY TO PROTECT ITS INTEREST I UNLESS
EXISTING P1\RTIES ADEQUATELY REPRESENT THs'\T INTEREST. MUQUIT
(::ANNOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE KING-KHALIFAH'S INTEREST AS FIDUCL~RY WHICH IS EVIDENT BY JUDGE AUSTIN CONSPIRING TO BLOCK THE
FILING OF THE ESTOPPEL DOCUMENTS. I, LAWRENCE L. CRAWFORD, BY
THIS DOCUMENT WITH ITS ATTACHMENTS, MOTION TO INTERVENE AND
ACT IN THE CAPACITY I LEGALLY PETITIONED FOR AND WON BY DUE
PROCESS L,~W, WEAVER-ll-.-MA££A~~U£E~~£x 137 s.ct. 1899, 198 L.Ed.2d
420, 85 u.s.L.W. 4433(U.S.2017); ~~REJ;,~-ll .. -~GRWx--Fed. Appx 1 --, 2017 WL 4176224(3rd.Cir.2017); ~QKE-ll.-£~A~Ex--S.W.3d.-' 2017 WL 5321216~
WE GIVE THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES JUDICIAL NOTICE. PLEASE
BE ADVISED. THE (4) THRONES OF THE RE-ESTABLISHED GLOBAL THEOCRATIC STATE IS COMPRISED OF ALL OF CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM AND ISLAM
WtTH ITS ADHERENTS AS WELL AS AFRICA AND A.LL OF ITS DIASPORA.
I, JAHJAH AL MAHDI, AM THE "BLACK MESSI/~H" FORETOLD TO COME
BY GOD'S HOLY PROPHETS. JUST LIKE THE CITIZENS OF YOUR GLOBAL
Nt:::i,.TIONS ARE BOUND WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT BEING BORN OR NATURALIZED
wlVTHIN YOUR BORDERS. SO /\RE MY PEOPLE _AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE
GLOBAL THEOCRATIC STATE IF THEY ARE OF AFRICAN DESCENT OR IF
THEY ARE OF CHRISTIAN, MUSLIM OR JUDAISM IN ..TI:IEIR FAITH AND
1:\DHERENCE. THESE ,:;RE THE TERMS OF "CONTRACT" , 11 COVENANT" NOW
PROTECTED UNDER ARTICLE 1 SECTION 10 ~ND ARTICLE IV§ 2 OF THE
U.~. CONSTITUTION. THIS, TOO, IS WRITTEN WITHIN THE KING-KHALIFAH.
DECLARATION OF SOVEREIGNTY WHICH IS OUR CONSTITUTION AND IS
DEFAULTED BY THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER (192) MEMBER STATES
OF THE UNITED NATIONS. THUS, THE KINGDOM OF "IRON" WRITTEN AND
FORETOLD IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL CHAPTER (2) VERSES (41) THROUGH
12-of-20
·ey~J
( 4tJ) IS LEGALLY ESTABLISHED BE:FORE THIS COURT. "THE BRA.NCH",
I
FIDUCIARY KING-KHALIFAH, LAWGIVER AND HIGH PRIEST, WRITTEN IN
THE BOOK OF ISAIAH 11:1-6 AND ZECHARIAH 6:12-13 OFFICIALLY MAKES
APPEARANCE ON THE COURT RECORD, WHICH CANNOT BE CHALLENGED DUE
TO THE DEFAULT EMERGING FROM C~SE 2013-CP-400-0084 UNTIL THE
REQUESTED EVIDENTIARY HEARING TAKES PLACE AND THE DEFENDANTS
DEMONSTRATETHEY TIMELY SOUGHT TO CHALLENGE THE AFFIDAVITS IN
QUESTION.
INASMUCH, THE N.F.L., WITH ALL OF ITS OWNERS, ARE BEING
ADDED AS DEFENDANTS FOR ATTACKING MY PEOPLE, THE AFRICAN AMERICAN
PLI\YERS, INA.CTS OF RETALIATION BECAUSE THEY SOUGHT TO EXERCISE
THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS OF "FREE SPEECH" BY
KNEELING DURING THE PLAYING OF THE NATIONAL ANTHEM BEHIND RACIAL
ANIMUS. THEY ARE BEING SlJED FOR $1 TRILLI ON IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES
OR THE OWNERSHIP OF (l{) N.F.L. TEAMS, SPECIFIC.ALLY, THE MIAMI
DOLPHINS, THE NEW YORK GL~NTS, THE SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS, AND
DALLt\S COWBOYS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING Tt-J:IEM TRi\NSFERRED TO
AFRICAN AMERICAN OWNERSHIP. YOU HAVE 70% AFRICAN AMERICAN PLAYERS
BUT NO AFRICAN AMERICAN OWNERS OF THESE TEAMS YOUR NATION GET
FILTHY RICH OFF OF? THIS DEFIES JUSTICE AND Fi\IRNESS. LETS FIX
THIS. LET THE AFRICAN AMERIO:;NS OF THIS NATION GET THAT. ALL
PROFITS OVER WHAT IS NECESSARY TOMl:\.INTAIN THESE TEAMS WILL
GO TO THE HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLECES AND UNIVERSITIES AS WELL
AS TO HIG:I SCHOOLS AND DEVELOPMENT IN MAJORITY BLACK NEIGHBORHOODS TO BETTER THEIR EDUCATION AND LIVING. THE KING-KHALIFAH
gAVE YOU JUDICD::\L NOTICE VIA EXHIBIT "TRUSTEE" THAT YOUR I.Ji;ws
/~RE NOT SOLELY YOUR OWN, THA.T THE ONE TRUE GOD IS THE ORIGINAL
FOUNTAIN OFALL u\W AND SUCH RIGHT TO ESTABLISH LAWS WAS GIVEN
10 YOUR GLOBAL NATIONS f\S A "GRANT" WITH RESTRICTIONS WHICH
YOU CONTINUALLY VIOLATE, GIVEN VIA ABRJ:\.HI\-M WHO IS THE FATHER
OF MANY NATIONS AS A MEMBER OF THE SOLE CORPORATION BY THE DECREE
OF.THE ONETRUE GOD WHO COMMANDED THAT YOUR LAWS MUST BE "JUST
AND FAIR" AND NOT VIOLATE HIS SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE EARTH. I
INFORME.D YOUTHAT I WOULD LEAVE YOUR NATICN.5 A.LONE AND NOT INTERw,.m
·
FERE YOUR LAWS OR EXERCISE OF SOVEREIGN POWER UNLESS YOUR ACTIONS
DEFY "JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS" WHICH IS THE ESSENTI1\L TERMS OF
THE "GRANT" GIVEN WITH RESTRICTIONS TO YOUR NATIONS. THESE CLAIMS
/'.:I.RE AN INTRINSIC PART OF THE DEFAULT 1'\S IS SEEN IN THE [ 70]
13-(Jf-20
.... .
o
I
'•
PAGE DOCUMENT, EXHIBIT, "FOl
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?