IN The constitutional Court of Common Pleas in Geauga County
|
GAIL S. BRAHIER, STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiffs, vs. MAURICE E. BRAHIER, Defendant |
|
Case No.: 91DC000792 Judge Forrest W. Burt Motion to dismiss and or otherwise relieve the defendant of supposed contempt and or failure to appear with further relief requested Briefed hereon Plaintiff or representative has 15 days to place refute upon the face of the written record of this court |
Comes now Maurice Edward, Brahier on behalf of the misnomer defendant MAURICE E. BRAHIER to submit motion to dismiss or otherwise relieve Maurice Edward, Brahier (since he is the natural person whom this court continues to falsely arrest and falsely imprison and allows to be selectively and maliciously prosecuted) from the supposed contempt and or failure to appear under which this court purports to continue.
The supposed plaintiff and or her supposed representative(s) and or prosecutor has fifteen days to respond through written, hard copy evidence placed upon the face of the record, or the order/judgment/relief shall issue.
ISSUES<>MATERIALS<>OTHER
On Monday JUNE 9 of 2003 I was brought before the court to show cause and or reason that I should not be found in contempt; such cause was shown.
The county prosecutor (the plaintiffs' supposed representative) of the issue was present, and had sufficient time to both prepare before trial/hearing, and was afforded opportunity to reply/refute/or otherwise during this show of cause, she failed to do so.
As presented to the court in that show of cause:
It was presented that every thing used by the court submitted by the plaintiff Gail S. Brahier was either perjuries, fraudulent, deliberately misleading, falsified, tampered with, or otherwise in violation of law or rules, up to and including the resume` of the plaintiff.
1. The judgment and or orders under which the court attempts to proceed were unlawfully and illegally obtained due to obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, perjury, fraud (intrinsic and extrinsic), conspiracy to commit fraud, and other criminal acts which were indicated by directing the court to wit:
A. review it's own record;
B. my statements to the court concerning the destruction of the Lake County records by the plaintiff (and their false certification under subpoena), and my attempted prosecution (via Geauga County sheriff, Prosecutor Office; the record additionally shows Attorney General, State Police, Supreme Court, and elsewhere) and or other's prosecution of Gail S. Brahier for such;
C. the ensuing perjury committed by Gail S. Brahier and her "boss" (a witness during the supposed original hearing (91DC000792));
D. the handicapping and or disability under which I am now forced to live due to perjuries in affidavit submitted by Gail S. Brahier and Child Support (Lake County) to the State of Kentucky which cause two (2) years of false imprisonment therein (which the Secretary of State of Ohio and the Attorney General of Ohio and the Governor of Ohio and Lake County-Ohio prosecutor and Lake County-Ohio Court and others were supplied with evidence of);
E. the proper showing of cause with irrefutable and or undeniable informations and or evidence to the former prosecutor and child support representative (from whence this supposed contempt and or failure to appear stems), and the failure of that prosecutor to:
1. comply with ethics, laws, Rules, duties and responsibilities of office and profession, and other, wherein she was required to;
a. request dismissal of that action; choosing, instead, to continue selective and malicious prosecution of a victim of criminal acts and actions under unlawfully and or criminally obtained judgment(s) and Order(s);
A. I had provided my duties and obligations under law and rule, I had shown cause to the party requesting such, wherefore I was not required to further appear.
F. the failure of any prior judge in this purported 91DC000792 and it's appeals, to:
1. provide full and adequate equal access, due process and other Rights and Law;
2. proceed properly pursuant to civil rules, rules of court, and other rules required for proper law and justice in America;
3. proceed fully and properly under law, ethics, rules, and law;
G. that no court or judge in America may allow the prosecution of, or continued actions against one whom has had these violations of law, Right, rule, code, statute, and other perpetrated against them; and any court and that any judge whom comes in contact with these unlawful and or criminal activities must make every effort<>take aggressive action against those who have sought to subvert and pervert or obstruct or deny law and justice in America or they fail to provide their duties and responsibilities;
H. that the supposed jurisdiction of this case was falsely and fraudulently obtained. Moreover, the jurisdictional issues upon which the court had jurisdiction, eg. (sic) the criminal activities perpetrated by the plaintiff and other party conspirators were ignored, and the prosecution of those criminal acts was refused or denied; and relief from these unlawfully obtained judgments and orders was denied; all in violation of the laws, statutes, Rules, ethics, due process, and other as is required for and of lawful proceedings in America.
I. that the plaintiff had used the court to obtain custody and other, which she could not have obtained in the home state of Kentucky, due to:
1. the evidence obtainable there concerning her pregnancies and abortions: five (5) pregnancies-three (3) abortions, the last just prior to her removing the children from Kentucky and the ensuing vasectomy which I had to ensure she aborted no more of my children;
2. the fact that the resume (designed to get her a job) she submitted could not be presented to a court due to the fact that those parties had personal knowledge of lawsuits filed against the plaintiff for failing to maintain her parks properly and children being injured;
3. the fact that it should have been obvious to this court that the parties claiming knowledge {in the resume'} of the plaintiff's home life and her concern for her family could not have been known, by most, by those individuals of the resume` due to the hundreds of miles which separated them from the family and the fact that they never came into contact with the family (unless at a convention at which I was the one taking care of the children) in the home, as was evidenced in Kentucky.
J. that the order stems from deliberately unlawful or illegal activities by the prior magistrate and judge due to the factual issues:
1. the magistrate (Mr. Mullins?) was served with questions of law which he was required to place answers to upon the face of the record by rule and law, he chose instead to strike such from the record. A judge or one acting on behalf of a court may not strike questions of law from the record, nor may they fail to answer such questions, it is their responsibility and duty to do so by law and rule, and the responsibilities and duties of office and profession;
2. objection to the striking of the questions was placed in the record; the magistrate struck the objection from the record in violation of law and rule, no judge or magistrate may strike objections to their activities;
3. objection to the striking of the objection to the striking of the questions was submitted to the record which was also struck from the record, which shows beyond refute that this supposed magistrate is unfit to hold judicial power in anywhere in America, he could not strike these objections from the record without deliberately violating due process, the rules of court, the laws applicable to lawful proceedings, and the rights of individuals in the courts of America;
4. The reviewing party (Mr. Inderlied) took it upon himself to render judgment concerning the record of the case stating "no objection had been filed" which is a deliberate falsehood and in violation of law, due process, judicial responsibilities, rule and other. To issue such statements concerning the record he must have requested the record be refreshed with the struck documents, particularly when that was the reason for his review (the striking of documents from the record, failure to provide due process). He, however, did not, in violation of his capacity as judge, rules, Rights, due process, law and justice. He has shown obvious disrespect for his position, the court, and the law, which he purports to provide and protect and preside within.
WHEREAS, these issues (among the numerous other violations of Right, law, rule, code, statute, and other perpetrated upon myself and the children, which appear in this fraudulent action upon the face of the record) are more than sufficient to show cause levied against any purported contempt or failure to appear, the court must therefore dismiss this matter, and bar/forbid further prosecution of Maurice Edward, Brahier pursuant 91DC000792 in protection of law and justice in America, and otherwise relieve Maurice Edward and the children from these criminally obtained unlawful judgments and orders in its duties and responsibilities to the people of the community, the State, and these United States of America.
Contempt may only be founded upon lawful orders and judgments, proper court proceeding, and other lawful acts and actions.
I remind this court I need not resupply (they appear upon the face of the record) the rules, laws, or any other indication or otherwise save that which I already have, it is the responsibility and duty of this court is to ensure justice is served without sale, denial, or delay (Bill of Rights - Constitutions of Ohio and United States of America).
Dated this 14th day of June, 2003
|
signature block removed |
|
CERTIFICATION OF MAILING/DELIVERY
The signatory below certifies he has sent this document C:\My Documents\Courts and BOC\Ohio\Geauga County\Motion to dismiss 06-13-03- GEAUGA COUNTY.doc via regular United States Mail to:
GEAUGA COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE at their last known address, which effectuates serving upon all supposed parties in opposition, as this agency of STATE OF OHIO [defacto government] purports to represent them,
On this 16th day of June in the two thousandth and third year, Anno Domini.
signature block removed
c/o Deerfield Inn
2871 US 35E
West Alexandria, Ohio 381