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
·,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<EIGN SOVEREIGN# 1", DATED OCTOBER 5, 2017., I INFORillED YOU THAT IF I DETERMINED YOUR LAWS OR ACTIONS LlEFY _"JUSTICE .AND F1:\.IRNESS 11 , .A.ND DIRECTLY IMPi'.\.CT MY PEOPLE TO THEIR DETRIMENT I AM COMMJ:\NDED 1::\.ND Sl-\.Nl..TIONED BY THE ONE TRUE GOD ASFIDUCIARY TO INTERVENE AND CORRECTs THE MATTERS RELATED _I TO THE N.F.,L. ARE BEING SOUGHT 1),,S J.'\ PART OF REPARATIONS FOR THIS NATIONS ,ACTIONS RELATED TO "JIM CROW" A.ND THE i;J.S., SLAVE TRADE,. Ms-o ... WE GIVE YOU JUDICIAL NOTICE. THE·u.s. SUPREME COURT, WITH ALL OF ITS JUDGES ARE NOW ADDED AS DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE BY DECREE OF THE SUPERSEDING ATTORNEY, JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE FOREIGN. SOVEREIGN CROWN SEEKING INJUNCTIVE ANDDECLARA.TORY RELIEF WHICH IS GRi:\NTED BY DECREE OF THE. SUPERSEDr°~G AUTHORITY OF THE GLOBAL THEOCRATIC COURT. NOT ~NLY IS THE DETERMINATION MADE BY THEUS. SUPREME COURT RELATED TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE. NULL_ AND VOID. SO ARE THEIR HOLDINGS UNDER T-A_YM~-~.-MA WAI~r 2018--s.ct.- -, 2018 WL 3116337(U.S. 2018). IT .:s l S ,~. MUSLIM BAN. IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFIES JUSTICE AND FP,IRNES J),,ND IS VOID. THE CASE OF J'~Nl~-l.l ... -AMERIC~N-'Ii!EQERA~J;QW Q1'-£'l'~'l'Er-CGU W~¥-AWJJ-MitJ. ..-EMI:n;.QYE~-C QIJ:W£EI..-Jlr--S . Ct. -- , 2018 WL 3129785(U.S. 2018). THE KING-KHALIFAH Wi'.\.S PART OF A UNION. THE GOOD THAT THEY DO FOR THE PUBLIC, WHICH DIRECTLY IMPACT MY PEOPLE IS IMMEASURABL, AND OUTWEIGH ANY CONS OF THEIR EXISTENCE. IT DEFIES JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS FOR THOSE WHO REAP THE BENEFITS OF COLLECTIVE BARGi'.'\:l NING TO NOT BE REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE TO BENEFIT.S THEY CONSISTENTLY EXERCISE. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DE(:':ISION IS OVERRULED AND VA.C,l'\.TED AND ALL INVOLVED WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY INTO THOSE UNIONS. THE CASE OF c;:1~IZEl:)1g_IJNl~EQ ~--~EQER~~-E~E C'l'lQW-c;:QMM! Wr 558 U.S. 310, 187 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2961. THIS DIRECTLY IMPACTS MY PEOPLE. CORPORATION .MONEY IN THE MANNER DETERMINED IS NOT FREE SPEECH. IT IS OLIGARCHY, TYRAN~,_~ NICAL SPEECH WHERE THE FEW IN WEALTH AND POWER SUBDUE OR SILENCE THE MANY W:IO Dom NOT HAVE SUCH WEALTH AND POWER WHICH SPITS IN THE FACE OF THE TRUE CONCEPT OF A DEMOCRACY. BY YOUR ACTS YOU'VE PLACED UNLIMITED POWER IN THE HANDS OF A FEW, THE RICH, AND THE AVERAGE AMERICAN AS IS DEMONSTRATiW BY RECENT EVENTS, IS CONTROLIED POLITI(.ALLY 1 SOCIALLY AND ECONOMIQ:\LLY BY CORPOR~TE INTEREST AND GREED AS YOU CONTINUALLY RAPE THE PLANET., IT IS OVERRULED AND VACATED. THE PRIOR 4AW BEFORE THIS RULING STANDS. 14-of-20 ... THE C~SE OF F~£MER~~~ ~UWI~ER£I l'¥-GR-l'EX ~£-A~-~U£l' lW 570 U.S. 7 297, 133 s.ct. 2411(U.S. 2013). FOR THE RECORD, COLOR CAN AND SHALL BE USED TO ESTABLISH DIVERSITY NOT JUST IN ALL STATES COLLEGES AND UNIVERSIT IESa ITS~AU ALSO BE A STANDARD FOR EMPLOYmENT IN COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS WITHIN THIS NATION UP INTO THE HIGHEST OF RANKS BY ALL SUPERSEDING JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIV E POWER AND AUTHORITr OF THE CHIEF JU8rICE OF.THE GLOBAL THEOCRATIC COURT AND SOVEREIGN CROWN. THIS TOO, IS PART OF REPP1.RATIONS RELIEF DEMANDED FOR THE ATROCITIE S DONE BY THIS NATION DURING THE TIME OF "JIM CROW" AND THE AMERICAN SLAVE TRADE OR LIEN SHALL ATTACH TO EVERY COMPANY AND CORPORl~TION THAT OPERATE WITHIN YOUR GLOBAL BORDERS. YOU WILL NOT TOUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN A.NY MANNER THAT WOULD REVERSE, NEGATE, WATER DOWN OR DILUTE ANY RIGHTS OR PRIVTLEGES ESTABLISHED FOR AFRICA.N AMERIO~NS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN CROWN WHERE THESE MATTERS WERE DEFAULTED ON UNDER CASE 2013-CP-4 00-0084. THE AFFORDABLE CARE.A.CT WITH ALL OF ITS PROVISION S AND MANDATES IS RESTORED TO THE TIME THEY EXISTED DPRING THE OBA~~ ADMINISTR ATION. CONGRESS SHALL REPAIR ANYLOOP HOLES THAT LEAD TO ANY DEFICIENC IES. IT SHALL· SUPPLEMENT TO ITS PROVISIONS SUBSIDIES OR WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT EVERY AFRIO\N AMERIC~N, CHRISTIAN , MUSLIM ANDJEW WITHIN THIS NATION HAVE FAIR AND ADEQUATE HEALTH CARE. THIS TOO, IS SOUGHT PURSU~NT TO REPARATIONS. THE FOCUS MUST BEGIN AND START WITH THEAFRICAN AMERICAN POPUL~TION WITHIN THIS NATION. THE $100 TRILLION LIEN ON THE ASSES'I!$"OF THE (193) MEMBER STATES OF THE UNITED NATIONS IS TO GO INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UNTIL ALL RELIEF SOUGHT WITHIN THIS CASE IS EITHER GIVEN OR NEGOTIATED ON TERMS THAT IS ACCEPTABLE BY THE SOLE CORPORATION AND FOREIGN SOVEREIGN CROWN. ALL SUPER.5EDING ATTORNEY, JUDICIAL AND LE;GISLATIVE POWER AND A.UTHOR ITY OF THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN CROWN, IS INVOKED ANDEXERCISED TO REMEDY THESE INJUSTICE S. JUDGE AUSTIN YOU HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICT ION. YOU ARE TO SEE TO THESE DECREES BEING ENACTED AND FOLLOWED TO THE LETTER VIA THE WRIT OF COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY SERVED ON YOU. 0 FORCED BREACH OF FIDUCI.i\-RY DUTY BY FRAUD TO BREACH "CONTRACT", "COVENANT", IS PUNITIVE IN NATURE BY THESE CONSPIRING PARTIES. THE FIDUCIARY S~VEREIGN POWERHAS PARAMOUNT RIGHT TO PROTECT THE LIVES, HEALTH, MORALS, COMFORT AND GENERAL WELFARE OF HIS HOLY COMMONWEALTH WHOARE BENEFICIA RIES OF THE "TRUST". THIS GIVES ME, JAHJAH AL M~HDI, STANDING TO I~TERVENE AND ADDRESS THESE MATTERS. THEY ARE SUPPLEMENTED TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. RULE 15(a)(1)(C )(1)(B)(d) IN THAT THE DEFENDANTS ATTACKED OUR CASES IN RETA-LIATION4 IN VIOLATION OF THE REMEDY CLAUSE, AD,~ AND OUR 1st~ AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ACCESS THE COURTS, TO PREVENTTHE KING-KHAL IFAH'S ASCENT 'lb THE (4) GLOBAL THRONES IN HIS EFFCRT TO PROTECT HIS PEOPLE WHO ARE BENEFICIA RIES OF THE "TRUST", AS WE, IN THE PARALLEL CASES A-LL A,RE. THIS GIVES THE KING-KHALIFAH STANDING, ALSO INVOKING HIS SUPERSEDING JUDICIAL, ,~TTORNEY AND LEGl1.SLl1TIVE POWERS TO WHICH THERE IS NO SEPARATION, DEFAULTED ON BY THIS NATION, BINDING UPON THIS COURT, TO FILE SUIT i\ND ADDRESS THESE M;!\:TTERS, EblEW-v.,-GQQQ¥E~R-l'IRE i-RUa~ER-~ G.x 858 F2d. 198(4th.C ir.1988); ~URl'I£-v.-C ~REl-EW~E R~ ~Rl£Ea-IWC .. r 2016 WL 6916786(~ .C.2016).; MQME-~UI~~lN~-&-~QAW A££!W-v .. -2LAI£QE~ Lr 290 u.s. 398, 54 s.ct. 231, 88 A.L.R. 1481, 78 L.Ed. 413(U.S.1 934); E~LIGl'~-v.~~OAR.@-GR=£CMQQ~-~RUS~EE£ 15-Of-20 - ' GF-MACI£QN-GQN£QL IC~~EC-£~WQGL£r~~F3 de--, 2017 WL 5988226(7th. Cire2017); NGRX~-G~RQLIN~-A£ £!N-G~-ECUGA~QR£r-I NC.-~.-SXAXEx 368 N.C. 777, 786 S.E.2d. 255(N.Co2016). (29-32) EXHIBIT, 11 INJUNCTION 11 ., THIS IS DEFAULTED ON IN - CASE 2013-CP-400-0084. EXHIBIT, "PROTECTIVE ORDER"., THIS IS THE [ 6] PAGE DOCUMENT D1~TED JUNE 2, 2018. EXHIBIT, "REMOVAL"; EXHIBIT, 11 RETl:\.Lil:\.TION 11 • ALL RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE KING-KHjl\LIFA.H WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE GR~NTED BY DECREE OF THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN CROWN DUE TO THEIR ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND BY SANCTIONS SOUGHT. SEE 'l'O IT TRUSTEE JUDGE AUSTIN. (33-41) EXHIBITS, "ATTORNEY GENER,~L ROWLAND #'S 1-9 11 ., THESE ~RE A FEW OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE FILED IN BOTH THE S.C. SUPREME COURT IA.ND THE S.C. COURT OF APPEALS. JOSEPH ROWLAND W/-\S DESIGNATED BY WRIT OF COMMISSION TO ACT AS 1:'.\.TTQRNEY GENERAL FOR THE KING-KHALIFAH, WHICH IS PROCEDURALLY BARRED IN THE DISTRICT COURT CHALLENGING UNTIL AN EVIDENTI~RY HE~RING IS GIVEN AND THE PARTIES DEMONSTRATE THEY TIMELY CHALLENGED EXHIBIT(S) '~UDGE LEE # 1 S 1-4 11 • ROWLAND EXHA.USTED FOR ,\LL OF US AS ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE SUMMONS, NUMBE1R.. 11 28" FILED IN THIS Ci\SE FOR s.c.D.c. W~~ FILED IN THE S.C. SUPREME COURT GIVING THE NAMES FOR ALL WHOM FOR WHICH HE ACTED. THEY CHOSE FRJ:'.\UD WHICH VOIDED THEIR JURISDICTION FOR UNCONSTITUTION\L ACTION AND BY THEIR MACHINATIONS t:\rND ATTEMPTS TO THWART REVIEW AND PROTECT THE S. C. ATTORNEY I GENERAL FROM RESPONDING TO CONCEl\L THEIR FAILURE TO TIMELY CHALLENGE THE AFFIDAVITS MADE THE STATE PROCEEDINGS FALL UNDER RQ££ v.-2I.~KEr 136 S.Ct. 1850(U.S.2016) WHICH ATTACHEDe THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AT ONE FULL ROUND BUT CHOSE FRAUD AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.THIS VOIDS THEIR JURISDICTION ESTABLISHING THAT THERE ARE NO AVAIL~BLE STATE REMEDIES. THERE IS ALSO REMOVAL PURSUANT TO 28 u.s.c. §§ 1443(1), 1602-1612 ET. SEQ. AND 2679. EXHAUSTION IS NOT REQUIRED, u.s.-~.-$4lyJ~0-U.£.-G URREW~Xr 9 F.Supp.3d. 582, 2014 WL 1266240; WlL~NC-~~-CLARKr 2018 WL 1129977(E.D.Va. 2018); MlL~-~.-ZGGK 7 2017 WL 6614622(E.D.Va.201 7). YOU TRIED TO CONCEAL THE STATE AND FEDERAL JUDGES INVOLVEMENT IN ALL OF THIS REQUIRING YOUR RECUS\L AS M~GISTRATE JUDGE, JUDGE AUSTIN A.ND HARWELL, BUT YOU, JUDGE i\USTIN, ARE TO ACT AS TRUSTEE TO THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN CROWN OR YOU WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF OFEICE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS WHAT THE 16-of-20 OTHER JUDGES A.RE BEING SUED FOR, AMONG OTHER THINGS. YOU HAVE. ENGA.GED IN CLE1:li:R ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE REQUIRING St\NCTIONS AND RECUSAL, SEN~Q~-K T-~URW£ - 2017 WL 491251 (D.CoMd .2017}; l2EGG-1.r.,.-I.IE®W~EAG1;"R- 84 F3do 112(4th .Cir.201 7}. YOU, AS TRUSTEE JUDGE AUSTIN, HAVE JURISDIC TION OVER ALL OF THESE MATTERS IN ALL DOCUMENTS NOW BEFORE THIS COURT. ONCE JURISDIC TION IS Ac~ QUIRED, IT IS EXCLUSIVE, ~~I • .C.C... 494 U.S. 1, 110 7 s.ct. 914, 108 L.Ed.2d . 1 (U.S.19.9 0}; l;lRQWW-~ .. -~RQWWz: F.Supp. 2d., 2013 WL 2338233 (D.C.Ky. 2013}. THE "CONTRA.CT", "COVEN~NT", THA.T ESTABLISHES THE SUPERSEDING POWER AND AUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL PROBATE LAW, COMMON L~W, FOREIGN L~W, REGARDING THE SOLE CORPORATION C,~NNOT BE MADE OR UNMi~DE BY THE COURTS, AMEIU;b.'4.W ... MU~ ... -I.I •. ~ER~¥-IW £.-~G.-~.- l2I.¥WQQ Q£~l2I.~£ XIG£-~QR l2.r 81 FeSupp. 157(DSC . 1948}; QR~RAI.I -~--XME-W EW~¥QRK -~IX¥-QE~ ~ .. -GR-EQU~ .. T F.Supp. 3d., 2015 WL 4240733 (N.Y.D.C .2015}; £AWQR~- ~-KQ~~M ~N-~I.AIW ~I~R-~ .. Q'NI~EQ- £l'~~E£r 2017 WL 4185481 (W.D.MIS SOURI.20 17}. (42-45} THIS IS EXHIBIT (S}, "GOURDI NE# 1". THE [22] PAGE DOCUMENT -DATED MA.Y 1 , 201 7. EXHIBIT , "GOURDINE # 2". THIS IS THE GOURDINE BRIEF CONTAINING 'J.HE IE GA-L ISSUES OF RELIGIOU S PROPHESY SAID THE FORERUNNER TO CHRIST, THE KING-KHALIFAH, WOULD BRING; EXHIBIT (S} HABEAS CORPUS #'S 1 AND 2". THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS RECENTLY G~VE JUDICIAL REVIEW ON AN ESSENTIA L LEAD ISSUE OF RELIGIOU S PROPHESY RELATED TO THE INDICTMENTS BY THEIR LANGUAGE TAKING AWAY THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PERSU~SION TO THE DEFENDANTS AND CREATING AN INSTANT DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAIM. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DETERMINED THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE LIES AT THE FOUNDATION OF THE WHOLE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING MAKING IT A STRUCTURAL ERROR TO DEPRIVE SUCH NOT SUBJECT TO THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE. THE COURT FUR~THER DETERMINED THAT THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IS A PRINCIPL E SO ROOTED IN THE TRADITIONS AND CONSCIENCE OF THE PEOPLE AS TO BE FUNDAM~NTAL AND TO DEPRIVE SUCH, AS THE INDICTMENTS DO, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS WHICH VOIDS THE COURT'S JURISDIC TION. NORMALLY, THIS WOULD BE AN AUTOMATIC REVERSIBLE ERROR. BUT DUE TO THE ADDED COMPOUNDING FACTORS SUCH AS THE GR.AND JURY GOING BEYOND THE SCOPE AND POWER OF THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THEM AND BY THE LANGUAGE CONVICTING US SUBJECTING US TO A FORM OF MODERN DAY SLAVERY, TAKING AWAY OUR PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND RIGHT TO VOTE IN VIOLATION OF THE 15th. AMENDMENT BY EGREGIOUS FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY THESE VIOLATIO NS. THEN YOU ADD THE ADDITIONAL COMPOUNDING FACTORS OF CONSTRUCTIVELY AMENDING THE INDICTMENTS ,ON THE MENS REA ELEMENTS EVEN BY ATTEMPTED INSU_FFICIENT CURATIVE INSTRUCTION, "BOILERP LA:TE". THE AMOUNT OF PREJUDIC E AND DUE PROCESS VIOLATION BECOMES SO EGREGIOUS IT REQUIRES THAT THE SENTENCES AND CONVICTIONS MUST BE VACATED. YOU ADD THE DEFAULT EMERGING FROM CASE 2013-CP -400-008 4 WHICH IS A FALSE IMPRISONMENT TORT ATTACKING CO~VICTION AND NON PARTY ESTOPPEL ATTACHES. THE COURT CAN'T USE HECK v. HUMPHREY SINCE THE CONVICTIONS ARE ALREADY INVALIDATED. A REVERSIBLE CONVICTION IS REVERSIBLE REGARDLESS OF THE RE~SON WHICH INCLUDE THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY CLAIMS, AND AN INVALID CONVICTION IS NO CONVICTION AT ALL WHICH ALSO AID IN PROVING THAT MQW~GQMER~-~ .. LQgI£I~N ~r 136 s.ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d . 599 WAS CORRECT ABOUT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION VOIDING JURISDIC TION EVEN IN CRIMINAL Cl'\SES, Y-WI'l:EQ -£~~~E£-~ .. -I.;,i;:s1QU£r 858 F3d. 64(2nd.C ir.2017} ; c;;:~~¥ GR-I.E~~WNQN-~.-MlI.2URNr 286 Or. App~ 212, 398 P.3d. 486(2017 }. TO ENSURE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT_ DOES NOT 1\BUSE ITS DISCRETI ON A.ND MISREPRESENT 'THE FACTS IN ACTS OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT AND 17-of-20 . ',DETERMINE TH~T THE U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE ONLY APPLIES TO C~SES WHEN j; CONVICTION HAS BEEN VACATED. ALL ONE WOULD HA.VE TO DO IS REVIEW SUBSEQUENT CASES THAT ADDRESS THIS M~TTER AND IT WOULD BE PERSPICUOUS THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S DETERMINATION AP~ PLIES TO THE STRUCTUR1'.'.\.L FOUNDi'.\.TION OF A-LL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FROM THE POINT OF ARREST UNTIL THE PERSON PLEAS OR 1"';,. JURY DETERMINES GUILT, BEING A FOUNDATIONAL RIGHT, AND CANNOT BE STRIPPED BEFORE THAT PLEA OR CONVICTION BY JURY OCCURS, WHICH THE INDICTMENTS DO. SEE S~;:\.~E-Y.~~WQM~£GWr 2018 WL 1702406u * 6+ W.Va.; ])4;).~J;N-1,i.".;-1I~l~EQ-S~::\.~E5z 201 8 WL 1 6 2 6 5 7 8, * 2 D. Md. ; QJ;XQN ... ;i.r._. ¥~®~r 2018 WL 1526006, * 5 D.ID\HO. = TAKE NOTICE OF SUMMONS # 28. JUDGE ,:;USTIN I AS TRUSTEE, -I WANT YOU TO VACATE THE ORDERS IN EVERY HABEAS CORPUS AND§ 1983 ACTION ISSUED AG~INST THE P~RTIES IN THESE PAW:;LLEL-ChSES. REINSTA:TE THE CASES AND USE THEM AS A MEANS TO REMOVE US TO THE .NICEST FEDERAL PRE-RELEASE C~MP YOU CAN FIND IMMEDIATELY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF JASON GOURDINE. HE WITHDREW. THAT'S HIS PROBLEM. EVERYONE ELSE LISTED IN THE U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE DOCUMENT IS TO BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED WITH ALL OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT EXCEPTION. WE ARE NOT TO BE FORCED To· LEAVE BEHIND ANY THING THAT WE DO NOT WANT TQ. WE ARE TO BE REMOVED PURSUANT TO 2a U.S.C. § 1455(c) AND S.C.D.C. IS TO BE ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY REPLACE ALL OF THE KING-KHALIFAH'S PERSONAL PROPERTY IN QUESTION SINCE THEY DEFAULTED ON ALL OF THIS UNDER CASE 2013CP-400-0084 AND CONSPIRED IN FRAUD AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. ORDER IT PLEASE BY DECREE OF THE SOVEREIGN CROWN, ~~¥J;.QR-l,{. ~A¥J;.GRy 2016 WL 5118113; CQMMQWWEAL~~-G~-~lRGlNJ;Az-l,{•-A~EM-EJ;,,r QUENQAN~y 2016 WL 4507814(E.D.Va.2016); MAR¼~ANQ-l.l.-~~~~Zl~EJ;..r 2016 WL 2736183(Md.2~16); NQR~~-~ARQJ;.lNA-l,{.-QA~l£r 2014 WL 1317647, * 1+ (E.D.N.C.2014). 1 PURSUANT TO FED. RULE 16(a}(5}(2}(C}(I). FOR PURPOSES OF A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. THE COURT MAY ORDER THE ATTORNEYS AND ANY UNREPRESENTED PARTY TO APPEAR FOR ONE OR MORE PRETRIAL CONFERENCES FOR SUCH PURPOSES AS FACILIT~TING SETTLEMENT REGARDING THE CLAIM OF COLLATERt~L ESTOPPEL AND OTHER MATTERS AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION FOR SETTLEMENT OF OBTAINING ADMISSIONS SUCH AS THE SLED FILE 5501014 AND OTHER EVIDENCE, SUCH AS THE DNA SOUGHT TESTED AND OTHER ADMISSIONS AND STIPUL~TIONS ABOUT FACTS AND DOCUMENTS TO AVOID UNNECESSARY PROOF, AND RULING IN ADV~NCE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, SETTLING THE ISSUE OR CASE AND USING ANY NEEDED SPECIAL PROCEDURE TO ASSIST IN RESOLVING THE DISPUTE WHEN ,:;UTHORIZi\TION BY LAW, STATUTE OR RULE, SUCH 1;s RULE 26 t'\ND u.£ .. ~:v ...... J;._~NE WOULD REQUIRE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT WILLFUL BLINDNESS AND CONSCIOUS AVOIDANCE IS THE LEGAL EQUIVALENT TO KNOWLEDGE. YOUR ACTIONS INFRINGE UPON THE "TRUST" BY VI€21LATING YOUR OATHS OF OFFICE SUBJECTS ALL PARTIES TO CHARGES ACCORDANCE WITH FEE OF $1 MILLION PER VIOLATION. UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVITS ARE PRESUMED TRUE AND THE DEFEND~NTS 4RE REQUIRED TO TIMELY RESPOND AND REBUT THE TRUTHS EXPRESSED IN EACH PARAGRAPH, CATEGORICALLY AND ON EACH POINT FOR POINT BASES WITH ,:;FFIDAVIT, A.~AR-v .. -~.~N~~£I;lr 2017 WL 4334912 S .D.MICH.2017); 1I~I~EQ-S~;:\.~ES-:v.~ANI'Z.Q..UJ;.A~G£r 962 F2d. 720(7th. CIR.1992); 28 u.s.c. §' 1332(a)(3); WAl:il'G-l.l .... A.~aicRG~~r 320 F3d. 130(2nd.Cir.2003); u.s.-~.-~Q~A~Agr 765 F3d. 141 (2nd.Cir.2014); f;;J;.Q~~J;. ... ~Ec;;g_l.}.l?IU,lAl~,1';:ES-lW(;;.-l,l:.__£.,E..,~ ... r-S•.::\..,r 56} u.s. 754, 131 s.ct. 2060, 179 L.Ed.2d. 1167(U.S.2011); YWI~EO-S~A~~£-~.-VAb~RYW 18-Of-20 ., -~817 F3d. 440, 105 Fed. R. EVID~ Serv. 207 (1steC ir.201 7). THE PLAIN TIFFS H~VE A RIGHT TO BE FULLY HEARD AND PRESENT A COMPLE TE DEFENSEe TO NOT GIVE THIS HEARING, WHICH WE MOTION FOR, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS AS'WELL AS THE TERMS OF THE SOVEREIGN AND CONSTITUTE ~N ACT OF CONSPIR~CY ~ND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTIC E VIOL~TING THE EQU~L PROTECTION OF THE L~WS CL4US E, MQU££AQUlr 483 F3d. 220 CA4 (Va.20 07); ~ ~~~QA WERIQ ~N-IW£ .-~G .. -~9-NE X~D~~ -WE~= WQRK-M~RCW~RE-~QR~.r 73 • Upp. a. 636(20 J4 ; MIN~-1.Z .. -~MES~ER ~GUN~~T F.Sup p.3d., 2015 WL 65505 43(201 5); ~AUL-A CAMS- R.-CAL I~ ~QR.NIA-IWS~U~U~lQNr 2016 WL 646444 4. ALL EXH~BITS ATTACHED TO THE FACE OF THIS NOT~CE SEEKING LEAVE TO APPEAL ARE ATTACHED FOR ALL PURPOSES. ALL ISSUE S, CLAIMS , DEFENSES, MOTIONS, PETITI ONS ETC. IN THEIR TOTALITY ARE SUPPL EMENTED TOTHE COMPIA-INT. WE MOTION F~R AN EVIDENTIARY HEARIN G AND SEEK ALL OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED BY THIS DOCUMENT AND ITS ATTACHMENTS IN TOTAL. WE WANT ~ND DEMAND A TRIAL ON ALL CLAIMS AND CRAWFORD ACT AS ATTORNEY WITH ANTHONY COOK PRESENT TO ASSIST Hifo/)DUE TO THE DI&~B ILITY TO HIS HANDS. WE OBJECT TO THIS NOT BEING GRANTED. WE SEEK LEAVE TO APPEAL THE ORDER, ~RAZELL-1.Z .. WINC£GRz 384 s.c. 502, 682 s.E.2d . 824 (S.C.A pp.200 9); E~S~~I N v .. -WGRLC~~CQE~~~N~E-CQR~ .. T 2015 WL 236570 1 (DSC.2 015); CAR~ER l.l",..-£QlJ~M-CllRGLIWAx 2014 WL 532523 4(DSC .2014) .• THE COURT CONSPIRING IN ACTS OF FRAUD TO BE SILENT AND SUPPRESS TRUTH ON THESE JURISDICTIONA-L ISSUES WHEN THERE IS DUTY TO SPE!~K VOIDS YOUR JURISD ICTION FOR DUE PROCESS VIOL~T ION AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIO N, MQN~GGMER~-1.Z.~LQUISIANAx 136 s.ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2 d. 599, 84 UsS.L.W ., 4063 (U.So2 016); ~ILL-l.l". £N¥QER 7 821 F3d. 763, 765+ (6th.C ir~Mi ch.); IW-RE~-CURAMAX-C IE£EL Ll~IG~ ~IGN 7 --F.R .D.--, 2018 WL 94985 6(E.D .Mich. 2018); UNl~EC S~A~E£-1.Z .. -lU~.I.INr 8 7 4 F3d. 41 8 (4th. Cir., 201 7) ; JJWI~ED-S~~~E£-1.Z .. LU£Kr 2017 WL 50858 9(S.D. Va.20 17); M c .. ~.-IWN Q~A~IQ WSx-L LC. .. v .. -NQR~ WERN r--Fed. Appx' --, 2018 WL 11296 07(4th .Cir.2 018). ACCORD TO VAN-M QRNE! £-LE££ EE-v.-C URR~N QEr 2 u.s. 304, 316 (F.CAS .) 2 DA:LL 304 (1795 ). A STA,.TUTE, AND WE CAN ADD, "LAW" SHALL NEVER HAVE AN EQUITABLE CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO OVERTH ROW eR DIVEST AN ESTATE, SUCH AS, THE SOLE CORPORATION, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LA.W, ESPEC ii;LLY ONE GIVEN BY CLEA.R "CONTRACT", "COVE NANT" WHERE THE PARTIES AND THE UNITED ST.ATES DEFAULTED ON THE CLAIMS. EVERY STATUTE AND OR LAW DEROGATORY TO THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY, WHICH INCLUDE THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND TITLES OF THE CROWN WITH ALL OF ITS SUPERSEDING POWER AND AUTHO RITY, OR THAT TAKES AW~Y THE ESTATE OF A CITIZE N, OUGHT TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY AND IN FAVOR OF THE SOVEREIGN CROWN OR YOU VIOLATE THE "GRt:'.\NT" AND "CONTRA.CT" BURDENING ITS EXERCISE WHICH CANNOT BE MADE OR UNMADE BY THE COURTS, IAl.llR.O-ll .. -.~In!:R:eA~lix 201 7 WL 27249 38(D.C .Miss. 2017); ~R~~Ll ~£-l.l". -~RQC K-&-£C QX~-~L ~G.r 2017 WL 32268 66(D.C .Md.20 17). YOU CANNOT BE SILENT ON THESE CLAIMS BY AVOIDING THE REQUIRED EVIDENTIARY BEA.RING. IF TJ:,lE STATE MAY COMPEL THE SURRENDER OF ONE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AS A CONDITION OF ITS FAVOR , IT MAY, IN LIKE MANNER, COMPEL THE SURRENDER OF ALL, TO INCLUD E THE LAWS OF NATURE WHICH REFLECT THE LAWS OF GOD. CAN MAN CAUSE GOD TO SURRENDER HIS RIGHTS AND LAWS? IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT GUARANTEES EMBEDDED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE REMEDY CLAUSE AND OTHER PROVI SIONS, WHICH INCLUDE 19-of- 20 , AND WERABLE TO NO ONE BUT GOD SOVEREIGN NATIONS BEING ANS ', \. 'AL ~ EXISTENCE MA.Y BE MANIPULA:TED OUT OF IN. TH IS CASE HIS LAWGIVER, ARTICLE PROTECTED BY CONTRACT UNDER WHICH IN TH IS CASE ARE NOW LE ITUTION ALSO· NOW UNDER ,-;RTIC SECTION 1 0 OF THE U.• S. CONST 1 Vl~.TE RIGHTS Cf. , PUBLIC LIC EN SES AND PRI IV § 2 BY THE DEFAULT. SEE VIL EG ES (STATES POWER TO GRANT PRI TT 195 3); 33 OLR. 10n . 32 (BARNE REBY ITE D, SO THAT IT MAY NOT THE ON ITS OWN CONDITION IS LIM D TUTIONAL RIG HT S). THE UNITE E RELINQUISHMENT OF CONSTI REQUIR SUPREMACY DEFAULTED BINDING ALL BY THE STATES MADE APPE:4.R~NCE AND p.2 d., TH IS, TJ..,.5._.,..l.{ .. r,KQRWx F.S up . YOU CANNOT BE SIL EN T ON CLAUSE .3d ~, 201 5 13) ; £EC -~.- ~AR ME Rz F.S upp 201 3 WL 289 805 6(W .D. N.Y .20 F.S up p.3 d., UW l~E Q-£ ~~~ ~£- K~- CA L~Q W~ Xr WL 583 886 7(S .D. Tex .,20 15) ; YOUR ). OBJEC'rIONS ARE FIL ED TOc 6 WL 426 996 1(N .D. Ca li.2 016 201 APPEAL . NOTICE SEEKING LEAVE TO ORDER PURSU~NT TO RULE 72 (a) IS TO FED., RULE 73 (c) . SEND TH T ORDER ARE FIL ED PURSU~NT THA PLE!~SE CASE UP TO THE 4TH . CIR CU IT ~ # 0 ""RESPECTFULLY, YAHYA MUQUIT ET . AL ., AUGUST 2, 201 8 20- -C, f-20

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?