Maurice Edward, Brahier
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN KENTUCKY DIVISION
| MAURICE EDWARD, BRAHIER,
Plaintiff, vs. Parties, et al, Defendant |
Case No.: CASE: 5:03-CV-258-R
Notices to clerks and judge and others in response to supposed lawful order entered into the court record by one Thomas B. Russel Notice of listing as first evidence concerning possible intent to defraud and or obstruct justice and or other: and or as evidence of war crimes SEE: Anti-terrorism Act 1964 and modifications, etc. and Patriot Act(s) See also: international law concerning war crimes |
I come before this court to place lawful notices upon the record of this case pursuant fraudulent and or apparent deliberate fallacies and or frauds concerning supposed ORDER; entered into this courts record in January of 2004.
NOTICE ONE
The court or judge has attempted to place parties who have failed to provide their duties of office under protection of that official office and official capacity by listing the case defendants as: OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. DEFENDANTS.
Parties whom are actively engaged in or have participated in fraud, refusals or failures to provide duties and or responsibilities of office, and or other crimes have no protection of office, as that protection would only appear upon supplying the function and duty of office. This also applies to judges, magistrates and any others whom might claim to be part of government, state or federal,(see constitutional contracts and oaths of office).
They either supply their duties, functions, and comply with their adhesive oath of office and the law, or they are nothing but parties "wearing false robes". Pretending (holding office under false pretense) to be "officials" and or "officers" and have no lawful right to lay claim to any such protections (though those protections do not exist under this country's rule of law, anyway. For discussion of those issues see the CDROM sent with these NOTICES containing Volumes I and II of In Expose` of fraud, perjury, misdemeanors and Treasonable Acts and Other).
This is a known foundation of law in any country, which has law. I believe this country supposedly still has law as a principle part of it. Therefore the court will address the defendants in their real names, not the supposed official capacity, which they never supplied, hence, have no claim to. I also direct notice that I am well aware that Robert Taft is apparently grandson of a former justice, which just goes to show that name does not bring with it a willingness to actually integrity or lawfulness.
NOTICE TWO
In 1. of this supposed order, this party claiming to be a judge, states "He essentially claims that the Ohio courts' actions were unlawful and that they lacked jurisdiction over the matter." One can now question what exactly the court has used as evidence to support any statement made upon the entire order. GAIL S. BRAHIER VS. MAURICE E. BRAHIER no longer holds lawful or legal authority in The United States of America, I assume this court resides in the nation.
And by the laws, rules, codes and other of this nation, it never did exist, as criminal acts were perpetrated to obtain those judgments and orders.
This is evidenced, as it has been, for over twelve years on and in Ohio's records, to which this court was directed. These facts, to which all the defendants were directed, as was this court as early as 1994, exist there. Harboring, aiding or abetting violators of law is a violation thereof, at both the state and federal level. The sole issues of that supposed action is the recovery of damages, restitution, costs, and fees.
The questionable judge goes on to state: "Plaintiff also evinces his intent "file …." This was official Notice of Intent to the parties. I may chose whether, and where I wish to file from numerous jurisdictions including this court, or Ohio court, or Arizona court, or possibly others such as Washington D.C. (falsely certified as just and lawful to the Internal Revenue Service and elsewhere by parties in Ohio) to bring such action, and possibly including individuals past or present of this court in that action as well.
Which makes this statement by this "judge?" more than questionable, as he has no jurisdiction, presently, to make any comment concerning that issue, it is not before the court, hence done without jurisdiction.
He further muses, about my request for relief from judgments of this court which were caused by this unlawful and illegal and <by law>criminal activity perpetrated by the defendants.
NOTICE THREE
In II., of the supposed lawful order, attempts are made to explain or explain away jurisdiction of the federal courts. Citing numerous "citations" as some sort of basis for questioning my presentation to the court.
I suppose it is now time to NOTICE to this court and judge, that I will not accept or tolerate any further fraud, false statements of law or right, or failures to provide: law and justice; or duties of office; or official capacity, by any of the people's employees. I further advise this court to remember it's obligor status under the constitutional contract which allows it to exist in the first place.
As for the writings concerning some supposed failure to address jurisdiction to this court:
page 2 Motion to transfer, starting at line five (5) I addressed jurisdictional requirements, supplied with prior complaints brought to bar, handled by this court, court of first contact;
at line 11 find prior diversity shown upon the face of this courts own records; to the clerk of this court find- I returned to Ohio so the state could not falsely certify the lawfulness of their unlawful activities again, to other states I might reside in as they did to Kentucky, this court does reside in Kentucky. Hence jurisdictional requirements are satisfied pursuant the courts own inclusions in its order at page 2 heading II at lines 8 and 9 thereunder.
dropping back to line 7 we find that this court also was defrauded by these defendants, their activities are and were unlawful, leaving the supposed orders and rulings of this court without basis in law, which this court must correct, or it continues outside the boundaries of law, furthering unlawful activities, and failing to protect rights;
proceeding to line 12-25 we find (a) constitutional questions (see original complaint mishandled by this court), (b) federal violations of law, which would include any contact by the Attorney Generals or any investigator of the states or United States with the defendants in which they might have misdirected or committed fraud to hamper investigation in obstruction of justice, (c) certification of the action to Kentucky as lawful and just which not only violates federal laws but also violates my rights to be free from strong arm tactics, extortion, coercion, collusion, conspiracy, and other violations of law and rights known to and within the jurisdiction of the courts of The United States of America such as false arrest and imprisonment which occurred both in Kentucky and Ohio. And of course, "No party may claim immunity when engaged in unlawful, illegal and or criminal activities."
In the body of the Motion to transfer I specifically stated the affected state matters are res judicata, finished matters. There is no "supposed", "alleged" or any other term this court can use to describe them. I also indicated, again these were falsely certified, and this courts' own record reflects it was to Kentucky, at least. This court resides in Kentucky, I resided in Kentucky when this was done. Moreover, the Brahier family resided in Kentucky prior to the parental kidnapping. Which satisfies diversity requirements. I reside in Ohio only because of the prior need to keep them from falsely certifying unlawful activities as lawful against me in other states, and due to the twelve years of this false certification, the resultant complete destruction of my worth, my health, ability to work, the false felony, false imprisonments, contempts, and other which have left me destitute
-destroyed, unable to return to Kentucky.
Moreover, my children have been held essential hostage in and by Ohio for, now, thirteen years. I neither had or have desire to live in this corrupt state of Ohio with these conspirators who are so willing to commit criminal acts against the American people.
I reminded the court in the motion of its' responsibilities to the legal system of America, Code of Judicial Conduct and other aspects, perhaps I need to remind the court of the clause concerning "Judges shall hold office only under good behaviour", and oath of office.
The Order references the inclusion "each instance", "each occurrence". Is the court attempting to overrule the supreme court or is this some misdirection away from established guidelines?
All courts must attend to the proper administration of justice.
And lastly, though not limited to only these reasons, when there is no court available within a state to review matters as Ohio's records and this courts own records reflect, federal courts are the proper place to seek relief. Bringing all of the above reasons with "renewed" vigor and import. Moreover, I contacted the United States Attorney General's office and F.B.I. in Ohio, over the course of years, attempting to supply them with the evidence necessary and available at that time. It is doubtful that any party in Ohio would properly handle these matters, as is further evidenced by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals willingness to falsely state or otherwise fail to protect American law and the people of America.
NOTICE FOUR
The judge has claimed on page 3 at 2. that I have failed to specify actions ("unspecified actions") for Rule 60 relief, yet on page 2 of MOTION TO TRANSFER-DAMAGES, Restitution, Civ 60(see footer) filed Nov. 20, 2003 we find those specific cases 5:94-CV-00035, 5:95-CV-201R, 5:95-CV-241J, 5:96-CV-281(P)R at line 21. Leaving this portion of the order without factual basis. Moreover, as there is no supporting Ohio state action to use as a foundation for those supposed judgments and or rulings (removal of Ohio's supposed case leaves Kentucky's cases without any support or foundation as they were done originally at Ohio's request via perjurous affidavit and false certification), they are automatically void, leaving this court with nothing to review except the fact that its' orders have no "basis in law", and no foundation, as they were submitted to this court to protect my rights and the law, and this court chose to ignore its' responsibilities to do so, furthering criminal activities.
The only cases in which this court might have ordered separation in, is a case in which I had requested restitution, or damages, or cost and fees, pursuant to these unlawful activities. However, it is apparent on the face of this courts own records, that though the defendant/respondent parties were afforded opportunity to be heard and benefit of discussion in those actions, they chose to knowingly waive such rights to defense, as they submitted of nothing of worth to the court. Apparently relying on this court to mis-handle the cases or otherwise ignore the terrorism they were applying against one of the people of America. Which it was quite willing to do, based upon its' own records.
One of those cases is 5:94-CV-00035. That case, however, is separately and specifically addressed, in Motion for Civ R. 60 relief. Moreover, the defendants /respondents in that action were (as they were in all actions) afforded benefit of discussion and opportunity to be heard. As the matters are now finalized in the base Ohio state action concerning their failures and otherwise, therefore, my rights and the law were, thereby, obviously violated. To order re-briefing the case would be to attempt reopening a matter in which the defendants have already waived right to submit briefs or anything at all.
I submitted what was necessary in state and federal complaints and or actions and constantly advised the defendants/respondents of their unlawful activities, they did not respond, knowingly and willingly wavering right to defense.
_____
I supplied to this court proposed orders, which were based upon the factual issues and evidence available to the court. I received from this court, an order which I would expect to receive from some second year law student or perhaps would be presented to some of the "ignorant masses" that this government apparently believes exists. I apprise the court, I am not one of those anymore.
If this court wishes to debate law, it will do so in some other case.
If it wishes to review the briefs concerning the breach of contract which this court is in, as are all other courts and governmental offices and officials, it may request such in the Supreme Court of The United States of
America, where it has been briefed by me on behalf of the people, and handle such as a separate case. I advise the court I have other volumes in mind for it. I am merely waiting to see if the Supreme Court will bring itself back into compliance with the contract. If not, we, the people of this nation, will proceed further. This would fall under jurisdiction of the World Court. This court must, however, first bring itself back into compliance with the contract, which it has been in breach of for seventy or so years, before it would handle any other breaches.
In this case, however, 5:03CV-258-R, it will supply its' functions and duties. That is not a request, it is a demand, by one of the people to whom you are obligated.
As is stated in the Motion to transfer, and Motion for Civ 60 relief, and again hereon, this court has and had jurisdiction to prosecute these issues. It has ultimate responsibility to the people of America to uphold the contracts not destroy or ignore them, or protect those who have done so. I appreciate the continued attempts by attorneys, judges, officials and others to protect each other from prosecution, I remind you however, you exist only under contract, and are the peoples' employees. The NEW DEAL, Supreme Court rulings or any Act of congress, did not overrule our contract with you, nor did the fourteenth amendment.
I suggest the court contemplate what constitutes war crimes under international law, before it proceeds, and what might constitute its' prosecution thereunder. Acts of terrorism are not thought of lightly by the World court.
Dated this 25th day of January, 2004
ORDER BY THOMAS RUSSELL in Western Kentucky USDC court, a court without jurisdiction by Law, Rule, and statute.
