FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT -DCUS
WESTERN KENTUCKY DIVISION
| IN RE: MOTION TO TRANSFER
91-DC-000792 GAIL S. BRAHIER v. MAURICE E. BRAHIER --- MAURICE EDWARD, BRAHIER, Plaintiff/petitioner, vs. Robert Taft, et al, Defendants/respondents |
Case No.: CASE: 5:03-CV-258-R
Notices to clerks and court: Notice of objections with specifics defined hereon and elsewhere upon the record regarding fraudulent and or criminal MEMORANDUM and ORDER issued without jurisdiction; other Notices; Notice of Volume IV submitted on CDROM, now part of this case Demand for placement of action in proper court; Demand for criminal complaint and or review of Thomas B. Russel for issuing orders without jurisdiction to do so and other; forms and or other supplied to effectuate complaint and prosecution NOTICE of questions of law submitted to the court, answers to be placed upon the face of the record |
Comes Maurice Edward, Brahier to place notices against various supposed lawful activities that were purportedly taken by a court; and for other reasons.
NOTICE is hereby effectuated that Volume IV of IN EXPOSE' OF FRAUD, PERJURY, MISDEMEANORS, TREASONABLE ACTS, AND OTHER has been submitted on this date via CDROM, to support these Notices, and the action before the court. The court and parties shall take due and proper Notice that there are now five (5) Volumes of this Expose` in the Court records for consideration, support, and other.
NOTICE: the clerks will continue this matter; and will place the issues and record of this case before the proper judge in the proper court, which will answer the questions of law also submitted this date. If no proper court is found, the clerk shall advise me, so I might address these issues to the proper parties to ensure these matters are attended to.
I also demand that investigation of Thomas B. Russell be instituted, for issuing orders from territorial UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; which has no authority to issue or handle matters in this action. Reasons more fully addressed in prior Notices, Expose` Volumes, and hereupon.
_______________
On the thirteenth (13th) day of the third (3rd) month of two thousand and four (2004) I received material/documents from a court alleging to be a lawful MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER from a territorial court of United States [see JURISDICTION-generally- Expose` and hereon]. The action in this court; as properly stated in my previous response to this unlawful activity by UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [USDC] and this party claiming to be competent to act as judge in America; was and is a matter which falls under jurisdiction of district court of the United States of America [DCUS]. For more thorough discussion of such jurisdictions and other materials, see Volumes of the Expose` submitted to this court and existing in the records of this district court of the United States of America.
--
NOTICE OF LODGING OF COMPLAINT: REQUEST FOR PROPER DOCUMENTS TO FILE
I properly advised Mr. Thomas B. Russell of this unlawful activity which he was participating in (see Prior Notices submitted with Volumes I and II of the Expose`- page 3 at lines 16-18), and he has actively and knowingly chose to continue this unlawful activity without jurisdiction to do so, I therefore lodge formal complain in this court, the clerk will place proper Notice of such on the face of the record of this case.
NOTICE, the clerks of this court will advance this formal complaint to such parties as proper and required; and will supply such documents to me and to where you direct it as are necessary for the permanent removal of this party from our judicial system. He openly displays he is unfit to hold a bench, or practice law, or otherwise associate with the judicial system in our nation.
Moreover, he has openly displayed his willingness to commit fraud, usurp jurisdiction, further criminal activities, and other matters shown upon this record, as evidenced by his signature, which are reasonable causes for his removal.
He may consider this his proper NOTICE OF INTENT to bring him as party defendant before whatever court I choose (SEE: 'in this country or before the world'), as I properly advised him might occur in the prior Notices filed January 28 of 2004 (at page 3 lines 14 & 15 "and possibly including individuals past or present of this court." I gave him proper notification he lacked jurisdiction and authority, and he made his conscious decision to continue, violating laws, rules, code, and other.
GENERAL NOTICE:
Apparently, this court intends to commit and or allow further open hostile acts of aggression, and deceit, and apparent treason; and openly further criminal matters in America, as is displayed upon the face of this case.
Just as an observation, it appears the people of the world are rethinking their acceptance of this criminal activity by United States and its minions in their nations as well. It appears, they are becoming rather tired of the conceited, self centered, self serving, self indulgent, egotistical, superior attitude, which they are being subjected too. It appears many of the people of America are as well.
These are just my interpretations, but I think United States and the world are in for even more indications of this, and quite possibly, this intrusive attitude may bring about the demise of this world or at least in its present state. However, why should those involved be concerned with such insignificant and unimportant details like this? The apparent types of supposed 'officials', of which I have come contact in these cases, seemingly believe they have a world and its people to subjugate and conquer. I think the people of the world will eventually deny this, as every previous attempt in history, displays they have.
NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND FRAUD PURSUANT THE SUPPOSED MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER issued March 10 of 2004
Beyond the fact that UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [USDC] has no authority to issue anything in this case beyond perhaps the allowance for waiver of cost and fees [see below and Expose` Volumes], I will address below, some of the deliberate fallacies and deliberately criminally fraudulent inclusions that were presented in that supposed MEMORANDUM and ORDER.
RE: JURISDICTION USDC verses DCUS
"The words "district court of the United States" commonly describe constitutional courts created under Article III of the Constitution, not the legislative courts which have long been the courts of the Territories." [Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union et al. v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 U.S. 237 (1952)]
"The phrase "court of the United States", without more, means solely courts created by Congress under Article III of the Constitution and not territorial courts." [Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union et al. v. Wirtz, 170 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1948), headnote 1]
"United States District Courts have only such jurisdiction as is conferred by an Act of Congress under the Constitution. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, Sec. 2; 28 U.S.C.A. 1344]" [Hubbard v. Ammerman, 465 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir., 1972), headnote 2. Courts]
"The United States district courts are not courts of general jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction except as prescribed by Congress pursuant to Article III of the Constitution. [many cites omitted]" [Graves v. Snead, 541 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1976)]
"The United States District Court has only such jurisdiction as Congress confers." [Eastern Metals Corp. v. Martin], [191 F.Supp 245 (D.C.N.Y. 1960)]
There is a distinct and definite difference between a "United States District Court" and a "District Court of the United States". The words "District Court of the United States" commonly describe constitutional courts created under Article III of the Constitution, not the legislative courts which have long been the courts of the Territories. See Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 U.S. 237 at 241 (1952), 72 S.Ct. 235, 96 L.Ed. 275, 13 Alaska 536.
The term "District Court of the United States" commonly describes Article III courts or "courts of the United States", and not legislative courts of the territories. See: American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511 (1828), 7 L.Ed 242; Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union v. Wirtz, 170 F.2d 183 (9th Cir., 1948), cert. den. 336 U.S. 919, 93 L.Ed. 1082, 69 S.Ct. 641, reh. den. 336 U.S. 971, 93 L.Ed 1121, 69 S.Ct. 936.
Though the judicial system set up in a territory of the United States is a part of federal jurisdiction, the phrase "court of the United States" when used in a federal statute is generally construed as not referring to "territorial courts." See Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1921), 42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627. In Balzac, the High Court stated:
"The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, Section 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court."
The distinction within the dual nature of the federal court system is also noted in Title 18 U.S.C. 3241, which states that the United States District Court for the Canal Zone shall have jurisdiction "concurrently with the district courts of the United States, of offenses against the laws of the United States committed upon the high seas."
"These [territorial] courts then, are not Constitutional courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general rights of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory belonging to the United States.
The jurisdiction with which they are invested, is not a part of that judicial power which is defined in the 3d article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress, in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States. Although admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the States in those courts only which are established in pursuance of the 3d article of the Constitution, the same limitation does not extend to the territories.
In legislating for them, Congress exercises the combined powers of the general and of the State government." [American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton], [1 Pet. 511 (1828)] (format somewhat changed)
"The term "District Courts of the United States," as used in Criminal Appeals Rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, had its historic significance and described courts created under article 3 of Constitution, and did not include territorial courts." [Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201], [headnote 2. Courts]
"Where statute authorized Supreme Court to prescribe Criminal Appeals Rules in District Courts of the United States including named territorial courts, omission in rules when drafted of reference to District Court of Hawaii, and certain other of the named courts, indicated that Criminal Appeals Rules were not to apply to those [latter] courts." [Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201], [headnote 4. Courts]
"Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provisions for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended." [Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201] [SEE also 9. Below and Expose` Volumes generally, and specifically under jurisdictional headings]
On page 1 of the supposed MEMORANDUM at I. SUMMARY, we find that a supposed 'complaint' has been filed. The record reflects no such fact upon its face. The MOTION TO TRANSFER, which is not a complaint, is where the activities of this court lay. The writer(s) of this memorandum claims the documents are "not models of clarity". Laughable! Any party of even limited intellect could deduce what I have presented, both in the documents and the Expose`. The Flesch-Kincaid rating of such are held to a 12th grade level. Perhaps that is to high a level for the members and or agents of this court. If so I apologize. Please advise me of your intellectual and reading skills levels so I may attempt to conform my documents accordingly.
Continuing with the first (1st) page, we find that I supposedly "alleged the Ohio courts' actions were unlawful and they lacked jurisdiction over the matter. sought "damages and other relief" " etceteras. The USDC territorial tribunal is incapable and incompetent to handle these issues. These were the required issues to place upon the face of the record to bring the issues properly before a DCUS court under Motion to transfer. These are the facts, not allegations. The defendant/respondent parties of this Motion, were afforded benefit of discussion and opportunity to be heard, they failed to respond in any fashion. Which means the Motion must be granted, and the issues attended to, in contrast to what has just been attempted by USDC.
On page 2 we find a supposed ORDER to 'show cause' was issued [by USDC], to which I responded with proper NOTICES and two (2) Volumes of the Expose`, concerning the issues supposedly raised by the fraudulent ORDER from USDC. The writer of this memorandum meanders on about some sort of complaint, that the defendants have no protections, the court descriptions of the defendants, blah-blah,,ramble ramble.
The writer properly notes; regarding the Notices: " he maintains that the Court "has no jurisdiction, presently, to make any comment concerning that issue, it is not before the court, hence done without jurisdiction."" Which is a fact, the territorial UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT has no jurisdiction: over the transfer; any complaint I might file; and other matters before this court, as so defined in its jurisdictional limits (SEE: Expose` Volumes, United States Code, Court Rules, and other).
The writer also apparently attempts to explain away the prior 'rulings of the federal courts'' issue; from which this DCUS court must relieve me under extrinsic and extrinsic fraud requirements; claiming USDC considered the matter 'sub note 1 "This request was reviewed and denied"', by a court which lacked jurisdiction to review such matters and issue such orders. Moreover, once the action and records are transferred, the records will properly be before the court to address the full extent of these unlawful activities, hence bringing the ability to completely address these criminal frauds and other activities, under Motions for relief, and complaint.
On page 3 we find that apparently the writer has not read the national constitutional contract, claiming '"good behaviour"(sic)'. I suggest the party review the original contract, historical documents, research materials, and the like. Of course, USDC administrators/magistrate- judges may be removed after review by congress under their new regulations and laws concerning such, but this case is not before USDC.
In addition, on three (3), we find I supposedly failed to identify a contract [" this Court has breached an unidentified contract']. Which is, of course, a blatant fraud and deliberate false statement, based upon the four Volumes of Expose`/memorandum/brief which the record contained prior to this supposed ORDER and MEMORANDUM; two (2) submitted with the original Notices, two (2) additional Volumes submitted with other Notices. Volume I, II, III and VIII supporting the Notices and the matters before the district court. Which specifically address the national constitutional contract and various state constitutional contracts, adhesive oaths, and other issues such as jurisdictions, frauds, collusion, definitions, amendments, etceteras, within the Volumes. Therefore, stating facts based upon the record, in contrast to the MEMORANDUM, we find very specific contracts, which the courts, governments, officials, and others are in knowing breach of. Moreover, all those involved, perpetrating deliberate crimes against the American people, also as addressed within the Expose`. We find that these Volumes expose prior review of some of these facts by the Supreme Court of the United States of America [SCUSA], by congress, and other facts, documents, investigations, cases and other.
On page three (3), we find a heading labeled II. ANALYSIS. This section brings a rehash or further attempts by this USDC court, which has no jurisdiction, to explain away the jurisdiction of any federal courts. We, the people, defined in our national constitutional contract, the limits and extents of the jurisdiction of the national courts. We did not authorize the obligors to change what we determined except to extend this jurisdiction to protect our Rights. Congress may only limit its own 'legislative territorial courts'. Again, I suggest this court, and any one else who attempts to become involved in this case, actually read the entire original constitutional contracts. I also recommend you carefully read the five (5) Volumes of the Expose` now in this courts records, and the others which might be added during the course, here or before the world, and other documents which might apply.
On page four (4) we find I supposedly: failed to 'establish jurisdiction'; 'did not allege federal question'; 'Nor did he establish existence of complete diversity'. Deliberately ignoring the fact that all party defendants are UNITED STATES private subject class citizens, and I am a state Citizen and a National Citizen by birth. Moreover, I am a non-government individual, free from 'federal zone' status and standing. This satisfies the complete diversity 'citizenship' parties before any court. The defendant/respondents are UNITED STATES citizens, whom have violated not only state and federal laws, but also, all known constitutional contracts Rights which I have, and in which this court to date, and USDC agents have actively participated in. Additionally, all opposing parties to date, refusing responsibilities, duties, obligations, and other, as defined in the contracts, law, and other as contained in the Expose`, and exposed upon the face of these records. [SEE: Expose` Volumes for factors in support and review] In fact, based upon the records of state and federal courts and offices, we find they have deliberately: falsely stated law; refused Rights; usurped jurisdictions, and refused to abide by: rules; codes; responsibilities; duties; and, other.
We also find I have supposedly asked this court "to sit in appellate review of Ohio civil action," which has no factual basis. The Ohio 'finding of fact' segment is over, done properly in a 'show of cause'. Ohio has had, since the seventh (7th) month of 2003, to assess and assign damages, recover costs and fees, apply restitution, etceteras, and has done nothing, except to issue orders without jurisdiction, and attempt to extort more money. There was no stay, or otherwise. There is no apparent court available in that state, moreover, apparently no party which intends to uphold law and justice. So this is more than mere fraud by the writer(s) of this memorandum, this is outright criminal intent. This court is allowing parties, whose intent is to destroy American law and justice and America itself, to continue to exist in this nation.
This transfer action, is to bring finality to the unfinished portion (recovery, damages, &c phase) of Ohio action GAIL S. BRAHIER v. MAURICE E. BRAHIER 91-DC-000792, which is not an 'appeal' of that action.
----
I will stop there. The rest of the MEMORANDUM and inclusions, which I did not specifically address, supposedly done in some territorial courts name, are an obvious insult to American law and justice. It therefore leaves the supposed USDC ORDER without any support or authority, in any form or forum.
---------
The matters, properly before this district court, are the recovery of fees, costs, damages, and restitution; from YOUR UNITED STATES private class citizens for violating my primary class Citizens' Rights, and the laws of the states and these United States. There is no option for you. You will do as you are required to do. I do not care how politically in-expedient it might be for you. No one forced you to take these positions and or professions. You sought them out.
---
The other issues; the relief from this courts' fraud based upon fraud perpetrated by two states; you will also relieve me from, as you are required to do. You will bring both states' records before the court for review, so I may properly and fully address those issues.
NOTICE
I now mark on my records, at least fifteen (15) war crimes now perpetrated by this supposed court and its agents and officers in the cases it has supposedly lawfully handled.
NOTICE regarding Notices, and Expose`, and required response
The clerk will supply whatever Notices are required to the defendants and others as might be interested or required, concerning these Notices and Volumes of the Expose`.
This district court of the United States will now issue the orders required to bring the records before it, and issue orders to seize the assets of the defendants/respondents, pending my requested relief.
Dated this 13th day of March, 2004
signature block removed
This district court of the United States will now issue the orders required to bring the records before it, and issue orders to seize the assets of the defendants/respondents, pending my requested relief.
Dated this 13th day of March, 2004
signature block removed
This is the ORDER issued by Thomas B. Russell dismissing the case 03-08-2004
