theatre.academia.edu
Open in
urlscan Pro
13.32.27.124
Public Scan
URL:
https://theatre.academia.edu/StevenTalbertWilliams/Slip-Law-Proposals
Submission: On March 14 via api from US — Scanned from DE
Submission: On March 14 via api from US — Scanned from DE
Form analysis
3 forms found in the DOMGET https://www.academia.edu/search
<form class="js-SiteSearch-form DesignSystem" action="https://www.academia.edu/search" accept-charset="UTF-8" method="get"><input name="utf8" type="hidden" value="✓"
autocomplete="off"><i class="SiteSearch-icon fa fa-search u-fw700 u-positionAbsolute u-tcGrayDark"></i>
<div class="select2-container select2-container-multi" id="s2id_autogen1"><input class="js-SiteSearch-form-input SiteSearch-form-input form-control select2-input" data-main-header-click-target="search_input" name="q" placeholder="Search"
type="text" value="" autocomplete="off" autocorrect="off" autocapitalize="off" spellcheck="false" id="s2id_autogen2">
<div class="select2-drop select2-drop-multi select2-display-none js-SiteSearch-results SiteSearch-results bootstrap DesignSystem">
<ul class="select2-results"> </ul>
</div>
</div>
</form>
POST https://www.academia.edu/sessions
<form class="js-login-form" action="https://www.academia.edu/sessions" accept-charset="UTF-8" method="post"><input name="utf8" type="hidden" value="✓" autocomplete="off"><input type="hidden" name="authenticity_token"
value="q3ssdTTQv2Gwr1SoLlHP3sE/KErieo6cusfqQdGYZBNU+AiwQh8GCxt1GehtgkzEG+Ux0CX6AKe9zD+Huxs8zQ==" autocomplete="off">
<div class="form-group"><label class="control-label" for="login-modal-email-input" style="font-size: 14px;">Email</label><input class="form-control" id="login-modal-email-input" name="login" type="email"></div>
<div class="form-group"><label class="control-label" for="login-modal-password-input" style="font-size: 14px;">Password</label><input class="form-control" id="login-modal-password-input" name="password" type="password"></div><input type="hidden"
name="post_login_redirect_url" id="post_login_redirect_url" value="https://theatre.academia.edu/StevenTalbertWilliams/Slip-Law-Proposals" autocomplete="off">
<div class="checkbox"><label><input type="checkbox" name="remember_me" id="remember_me" value="1" checked="checked"><small style="font-size: 12px; margin-top: 2px; display: inline-block;">Remember me on this computer</small></label></div><br><input
type="submit" name="commit" value="Log In" class="btn btn-primary btn-block btn-lg js-login-submit" data-disable-with="Log In"><br>
</form>
POST https://www.academia.edu/reset_password
<form class="js-password-reset-form" action="https://www.academia.edu/reset_password" accept-charset="UTF-8" method="post"><input name="utf8" type="hidden" value="✓" autocomplete="off"><input type="hidden" name="authenticity_token"
value="q3ssdTTQv2Gwr1SoLlHP3sE/KErieo6cusfqQdGYZBNU+AiwQh8GCxt1GehtgkzEG+Ux0CX6AKe9zD+Huxs8zQ==" autocomplete="off">
<p>Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.</p>
<div class="form-group"><input class="form-control" name="email" type="email"></div>
<script src="https://recaptcha.net/recaptcha/api.js" async="" defer=""></script>
<script>
var invisibleRecaptchaSubmit = function() {
var closestForm = function(ele) {
var curEle = ele.parentNode;
while (curEle.nodeName !== 'FORM' && curEle.nodeName !== 'BODY') {
curEle = curEle.parentNode;
}
return curEle.nodeName === 'FORM' ? curEle : null
};
var eles = document.getElementsByClassName('g-recaptcha');
if (eles.length > 0) {
var form = closestForm(eles[0]);
if (form) {
form.submit();
}
}
};
</script>
<div>
<div class="grecaptcha-badge" data-style="bottomright"
style="width: 256px; height: 60px; display: block; transition: right 0.3s ease 0s; position: fixed; bottom: 14px; right: -186px; box-shadow: gray 0px 0px 5px; border-radius: 2px; overflow: hidden;">
<div class="grecaptcha-logo"><iframe title="reCAPTCHA"
src="https://recaptcha.net/recaptcha/api2/anchor?ar=1&k=6Lf3KHUUAAAAACggoMpmGJdQDtiyrjVlvGJ6BbAj&co=aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVhdHJlLmFjYWRlbWlhLmVkdTo0NDM.&hl=de&v=MuIyr8Ej74CrXhJDQy37RPBe&size=invisible&cb=vnuw59vu69m7"
width="256" height="60" role="presentation" name="a-eg7nvkjuoiqq" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-top-navigation allow-modals allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox"></iframe>
</div>
<div class="grecaptcha-error"></div><textarea id="g-recaptcha-response" name="g-recaptcha-response" class="g-recaptcha-response"
style="width: 250px; height: 40px; border: 1px solid rgb(193, 193, 193); margin: 10px 25px; padding: 0px; resize: none; display: none;"></textarea>
</div>
</div><input type="submit" data-sitekey="6Lf3KHUUAAAAACggoMpmGJdQDtiyrjVlvGJ6BbAj" data-callback="invisibleRecaptchaSubmit" class="g-recaptcha btn btn-primary btn-block" value="Email me a link">
</form>
Text Content
Skip to main content Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer. To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser. Academia.edu uses cookies to personalize content, tailor ads and improve the user experience. By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. To learn more, view our Privacy Policy.× * Log In * Sign Up * Log In * Sign Up * more * * Job Board * About * Press * Blog * People * Papers * Terms * Privacy * Copyright * We're Hiring! * Help Center * less STEVEN T. (TALBERT) WILLIAMS Moscow Art Teatre School, Acting, Undergraduate +1Moscow Art Teatre School, Acting, UndergraduateSUNY: New Paltz, Theatre Arts, Alumnus United States Supreme Court+65 ................................................................ EXTEND BROWSER WINDOW -> … more 7 Followers2 Following3 Co-authors20,800Total Views ; FollowFollowing * CV * * * * * 36 * all * 14 [*****] SUMMARY OF TRIAL * 10 [*****] PROMOTIONS * 2 [***] JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (Plausibility Standard) * 9 [*] MOTIVE?: Housing Crisis FIDELITY & ENT. PROF. * 3 [*] MOTIVE?: CIPOLLA's (Fidelity) & N.Y.P.D. THEFT * More * 19 [***] Plausibility Standard (Responsive Pleadings) * 1 [**] Domestic Housing Terrorism * 5 [**] Nanobiotechnology/ Nanorobotics * 2 [**] Injunction (STOLEN by U.S. S.Ct.), 19-5405 * 10 [*] BLACK LIVES MATTER, Socioeconomic Police Abuse * 8 ALL U.S. SUPREME COURT QUESTIONS * 6 Missing Motion To Direct, 137 U.S. 1611 (2017) * 10 6 (Six) IGNORED U.S. S.Ct. Trials - Certioraris * 4 U.S. S.Ct. Letters/Applications * 1 [***] Comp. (Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.)) * 1 [***] Brief (Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.)) * 4 [*]ADR PROPOSAL: SEMI-SAFE HARBOR ECONOMIC BENEFIT * 15 [*] Settlement Offer (ADR/Injunctive Relief) * 24 [***] SURROGATES COURT (SCNY) ESTOPPEL * 2 Probate, Williams 20-451 (#2013-3538, Sur. Ct. NY) * 0 Appeal Letter (Chief Judge, Senators), 16-189(2nd) * 3 [****] IGNORED COMPLAINTS (U.S.D.O.J.), 2022 * 34 [****] IGNORED INTERVENTION (USAG/NYAG) * 8 [****] IGNORED INTERVENTION, N.Y.A.G. 18-cv-12064 * 6 [*] INTERVENTION, Missing Exhibits 19cv11547(SDNY) * 33 [***] NYAG, RENT OVERCHARGE COMPLAINT (Appendices) * 26 [****] IGNORED INTERVENTION, 20-451cv(2nd Cir.) * 0 [****] Affidavits of Threat To Life (Pun. Damages) * 8 ***** PROMISSORY JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL ***** * 1 PLAUSIBILITY STANDARD, Williams v. United States * 4 Slip Law Proposals * 14 Trade Secrets * 0 [***] Highlighted Protective Orders * 1 [*****] Highlighted Supp. Briefs (U.S. S.Ct.) * 1 [*****] Highlighted Petitions * 1 [*****] Highlighted Motions * 4 [*****] Highlighted Affidavits * 4 Antitrust Juris., Am. Comp., 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.) * 4 [****] HIDDEN Petition for Redress, 15cv5114(SDNY) * 5 NEW EVIDENCE Presented to Court, 16-189 (2nd Cir.) * 0 ALL DOCKETS * 43 ***** DOCKET, Williams v. U.S., 15-cv-5114 (SDNY) * 148 ***** DOCKET, Williams v. U.S., 16-189 (2nd Cir.) * 0 ***** DOCKET, Williams, 19-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.) * 3 ***** DOCKET, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir.) * 0 Deposition as Comp. (Civ. P. 5d),15-cv-5114 (SDNY) * 8 Incomplete Orig. Comp., Williams,15-cv-5114(SDNY)) * 0 Letter, Pretrial Conf. (Comp.), 15-cv-5114 (SDNY) * 0 Motion to Discover, 15-cv-5114 (SDNY) * 0 Petition, In Camera Conference, 15-cv-5114 (SDNY) * 1 Extraordinary Expense Allowance, 15-cv-5114 (SDNY) * 0 Affidavit, Civil Appeal, 16-189 (2nd Cir.) * 0 Hidden Petition for Leave to U.S.S.Ct.,16-189(2nd) * 0 Hidden Petition for Leave (Appendices),16-189(2nd) * 0 Hidden Petition for Leave (Exhibits), 16-189 (2nd) * 0 Enjoining Claims Against S.D.N.Y., 16-189 (2nd) * 0 Enjoining Claims, MTA/TAB/S.Ct.KingsCo,16-189(2nd) * 0 Enjoining Claims, N.Y.P.D. (O.A.T.H.), 16-189(2nd) * 0 Supp. Brief, Damages (Prelim. Judg.), 16-189(2nd) * 0 Reinstatement/Recall/Rehearing, 16-189 (2nd) * 0 Reconsideration, 16-189 (2nd Cir.) * 3 Aff. of Comp. (Parts), Williams,18-cv-12064(SDNY) * 0 Hidden Redress Petition, 19-cv-11547 (SDNY) * 8 Hidden Documents of 19-cv-11547 (SDNY) * 1 2nd Cir.Letter, Non-Text Searchability, 20-451(2d) * 1 Reconsideration,Williams,19-39(2d),19-5398(US SCt) * 1 Reconsideration,Williams,19-240(2d),19-5399(USSCt) * 7 Denied U.S. S.Ct. Certiorari, 137 U.S. 1611 * 3 U.S. S.Ct. Questions, Docket No. 19-5398 * 1 U.S. S.Ct. Questions, Docket No. 19-5399 * 4 U.S. S.Ct. Questions, Docket No. 19-5405 * 6 U.S. S.Ct. Questions, Docket No. 19-6227 * 1 U.S. S.Ct. Questions, Docket No. 19-6565 * 2 Supp. Brief - Joint Appendix,19- 6227(U.S. S.Ct.) * 4 Supp. Brief, Sanctions Upon Hon. Stanton, 19-6227 * 3 Supp. Brief, Sanctions (Aiding, Abetting), 19-6227 * 1 Supp.Brief, Sovereignty of Steven Talbert Williams * 3 Supp. Brief, U.S. S.Ct. Rules 12.6, 12.7 & 15.3 * 1 Complaint (Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.)) * 1 Brief (Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir.)) - Plausibility * 1 Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. U.S., et al. [*****] SUMMARY OF TRIAL U.S. Sup. Ct. Ignores Nano-Robotics & Estoppel (REOPEN MY CASES) (Promissory Estoppel), Steven T. Williams (Pro Se) U.S. Sup. Ct. Ignores Nano-Robotics & Estoppel (REOPEN MY CASES) (Promissory Estoppel), Steven T. Williams (Pro Se), 2022 U.S. Sup. Ct. Ignores Nano-Robotics & Estoppel (REOPEN MY CASES) (Promissory Estoppel), Steven T.... more U.S. Sup. Ct. Ignores Nano-Robotics & Estoppel (REOPEN MY CASES) (Promissory Estoppel), Steven T. Williams (Pro Se), 2022 U.S. Sup. Ct. Ignores Nano-Robotics & Estoppel (REOPEN MY CASES) Antitrust funding human experimentations? A Computer for the World & Council for Code Writing - - - Please Help w/ NEWS MEDIA (Promissory Estoppel) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 11 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact NYS Attorney General File #: 21-022897 (email - during COVID evacuation), "ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.))," State of New York Office of the Attorney General (May 4, 2021), Division of Regional Affairs NYS Attorney General File #: 21-022897 (email - during COVID evacuation), "ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.))," State of New York Office of the Attorney General (May 4, 2021), Division of Regional Affairs, 2021 "ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd ci... more "ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.))" State of New York Office of the Attorney General (May 4, 2021), Division of Regional Affairs "Dear Steven Talbert Williams: "On behalf of Attorney General Letitia James, I am writing to notify you that we have received your correspondence... "Very truly yours, "James Sfiroudis... "Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection... "cc: NYC Department of Homeless Services" ------------------------------------------------- VERDICT "State of New York "Office of the Attorney General... "May 4, 2021 "Re: Our File Number: 21-022897 "Subject: ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.)) "On behalf of Attorney General Letitia James, I am writing to notify you that we have received your correspondence. "We appreciate your alerting us to this matter. We believe the agency shown below may be able to assist you and we are forwarding your correspondence there. "If you do not receive a response in the near future, please follow up directly with that agency. I suggest you attach a copy of this letter or, if appropriate, mention that you are adding new information. "Thank you for writing to our office. We will keep your correspondence on file for future reference. "Very truly yours, "James Sfiroudis... "Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection "cc: NYC Department of Homeless Services..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact New York State Reconsideration LETTER (Appellate Division), Matter of Avrom R. Vann, PC, No. 2022.1176 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.); Matter of Avrom R. Vann, Esq., No. 2022.1177 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.) Reconsideration (Appellate Division), Matter of Avrom R. Vann, PC, No. 2022.1176 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.); Matter of Avrom R. Vann, Esq., No. 2022.1177 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.), 2022 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, State of New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Dated November 1... more ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, State of New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Dated November 1, 2022 "Dear Mr. Williams: "We have completed our review of your complaint against the above-named attorney. As explained below, we have concluded that no investigation or action is warranted. "Specifically, there is an insufficient basis to conclude that Mr. Vann or his firm violated the New York Rules of Professional Conduct in your civil action. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact New York State Reconsideration Request (Steven Talbert Williams), Matter of Avrom R. Vann, PC, No. 2022.1176 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.); Matter of Avrom R. Vann, Esq., No. 2022.1177 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.) Reconsideration Request (Steven Talbert Williams), Matter of Avrom R. Vann, PC, No. 2022.1176 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.); Matter of Avrom R. Vann, Esq., No. 2022.1177 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.), 2022 Reconsideration Request (Steven Talbert Williams), Matter of Avrom R. Vann, PC, No. 2022.1176 (N.... more Reconsideration Request (Steven Talbert Williams), Matter of Avrom R. Vann, PC, No. 2022.1176 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.); Matter of Avrom R. Vann, Esq., No. 2022.1177 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.) "I, Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, provide this letter of reconsideration for the matters of: (i) Avrom R. Vann, PC, No. 2022.1176; and (ii) Avrom R. Vann, Esq., No. 2022.1177 demanding the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division (First Judicial Department) to see Chief Attorney Jorge Dopico’s conclusion “that no investigation or action is warranted[ ]” (Id. at Appendix 1, Mr. Dopico’s letter to Mr. Williams) and that “there is an insufficient basis to conclude that Mr. Vann or his firm violated the New York Rules of Professional Conduct” as being unjustified and a form of conspiratory estoppel, based upon axiomatic evidence of Mr. Avrom R. Vann, Esq.’s and Avrom R. Vann, PC’s (“Vann, PC”) claimed malpractice, not only presented to the Supreme Court of New York, but also to the Federal Courts of New York and the Supreme Court of the United States. Such claimed malpractice is claimed to have induced antitrust claims (under the Clayton Act and Sherman Antitrust Act) against financial institutions and departments of the U.S. Government; where such antitrust claims are said to be directly connected to the reinvesting of securitized assets of Mr. Williams’ mother’s estate into the community of Mr. Williams’ tenancy, which perpetuated an illegal act of eviction (see ST OWNER, LP v. WILLIAMS, No. 52069/12 (N.Y.H.C.)) and further civil rights claims against Mr. Williams’ upon his displacement and homelessness. "Mr. Williams is verified as being the named “alternate Executor” to the estate of Linda Williams (“DECEDENT.” See S.C.P.A. §1805) (See Exhibit 3, ¶3 of the “Last Will & Testament of MRS. LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS,” Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al. (“Williams”), 19-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.). See also Williams, 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-6227 (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.). See also ESTATE OF LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS, File No. 2013-3538 (S.C.N.Y.)) and named sole beneficiary to the irrevocable testamentary instrument (12 C.F.R. §330.13) of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (See Exhibit 1 of Williams, 19-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), ¶1, 2(a), 2(b)), where Mr. Vann and his firm Vann, PC are claimed to have committed acts of legal malpractice, maliciously avoiding duties to attend to the probate of DECEDENTs’ estate under U.S. Const. Am. 11, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), 37, EC §5-8 and DR §9-102 of the American Bar Association’s Code of Professional Responsibility. Further claims against Mr. Vann and his firm are enforced under: E.P.T.L. §§5-1.1-A(6)(1)(F), 7-1.5, 7-1.9, 7-2.6(a)(2), 10 (“part 6.5”), 10-9.2(c)(3); S.C.P.A. §§1404(5)(a)(1), 1406... Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact LOCATION, Steven Talbert Williams (2015 to present) LOCATION, Steven Talbert Williams (2015 to present), 2022 2015 to 2017 - Richard Tucker Park, Lincoln Center (Stolen Certiorari & Exhibits) 2018 to Pres... more 2015 to 2017 - Richard Tucker Park, Lincoln Center (Stolen Certiorari & Exhibits) 2018 to Present - 111 E. 12th St (NYC) (After Stolen Hand Truck at Lincoln Center) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Testimony of Steven Talbert Williams - NYC Rent Guidelines Board Public Hearing (June 13, 2022 & June 15, 2022) Testimony of Steven Talbert Williams - NYC Rent Guidelines Board Public Hearing (June 13, 2022 & June 15, 2022), 2022 Testimony of Steven Talbert Williams NYC Rent Guidelines Board Public Hearing (June 13, 2022 &... more Testimony of Steven Talbert Williams NYC Rent Guidelines Board Public Hearing (June 13, 2022 & June 15, 2022) Good evening distinguished justices, public representatives, litigants, members of the Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town (“PCV/ST”) Tenants Association and the general public. My name is Steven Talbert Williams. My mother, Linda Paula Streger Williams, working as a secretary for the New York Times, moved into the community of PCV/ST in the early 70’s. I was added to the lease as an occupant to the apartment of 449 E. 14 th St., Apt. 7d, NYC 10009 (“Building 449”) in the year 1989. I was, as claimed, illegally evicted as a rent-controlled tenant, as evidenced in the Housing Court trial of ST Owner, LP v. Williams, No. 52069/12 (Chan)(JHS)(NYHC), where the owners filed their Petition Non-Payment of Rent against myself and my father (absent from trial) as being rent-stabilized. As claimed, on the day of eviction, having never been provided a summons, my key card was disabled my top lock was broken and a Marshal’s notice was on the door stating all the property was removed from my apartment. My mother and I were the only names associated to the renter’s insurance policy for Building 449. In the year 2000, my mother was diagnosed with Ovarian Cancer. She designated myself sole beneficiary to the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST. In the year 1986m Tishman & BlackRock purchased the community of PCV/ST with tenants anticipating ownership of their apartments. The new owners increased rents and my parents began living paycheck to paycheck, barely making ends meet. With the increase in Major Capital Improvements (MCI’s), I witnessed many childhood friends either evicted or moved. Prior to the Maiden Lane Deed-In-Lieu of Foreclosure auctions, Tishman & BlackRock pursued legal action against the Dizengoff tenants for fraud concerning rent-stabilized succession (see ST Owner, LP v. Dizengoff, et al., No. 08113861). After the tenants lost the trial, the owners performed financial, criminal and medical background checks on all tenants. The owners acquired all financial records of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST, containing accounts from UBS, Fidelity and Pershing, LLC. Many tenants were given notices of the owner’s intent to evict them from their apartments, due to not being their primary residence. My mother provided the owners evidence of her occasional medical treatments near her country house in Pennsylvania and was able to remain in the community of PCV/ST as the primary tenant. From 2008 to 2009, Pershing Square Holdings Grp. (“PSH”), with UBS as custodians, began contractual agreements to ser up an Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) in anticipation of using the company’s subsidiaries (PCV/ST Owner, LP; ST Owner, LP; and PCV Owner, LP) for the community of PCV/ST. When my mother passed away in 2010, the owners of PCV/ST lached upon providing a renewal lease, as stipulated within 9 NYCRR §2522.8. See ISC §3420(a)(1) (“insolvency of the insured's estate”), in reference to the mentioned renter’s insurance policy. Upon my mother’s death, the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST went unattended to by my mother’s successive lawyer. As a result, I was never notified of the Trust’s assets; where, consequently, UBS, as one of the Trust’s accounts, stole my mother’s account and used it within their overall assets. I was never notified, as stated within 12 U.S.C. §92a(k)(1), by the financial institution through a “notice of intent to revoke the authority of the association.” The Trust account was seized and UBS, with PSH, used my mother’s Trust assets to purchase PCV/ST. With CW Capital Asset Mgmt. (“CWCAM”) as interim owners to PCV/ST, they made numerous MCI’s in anticipation of the property’s sale. As stated, I was evicted by CWCAM in 2012 without ever being offered a renewal lease or summons to go to court. For the past six (6) years I have been: (i) denied my right by the federal court to seek redress against the owners of PCV/ST; (ii) denied by financial institutions of my mother’s Trust; and (iii) denied representation by my mother’s attorney. Within the appellate trial of Williams v. U.S., et al., 16-189 (2nd Cir.) was when I obtained evidence of UBS reinvesting my mother’s Trust assets into PSH and PCV/ST. My claim was amended within the Nature of Suit from Civil Rights/Other (for antitrust claims against the U.S. aiding and abetting Civil Rights claims surrounding my claimed illegal eviction) to Antitrust (under the Sherman Antitrust Act), incurring acts of Domestic Housing Terrorism; where the owners of PCV/ST are claimed to have utilized insider trading to rid elderly and rent-stabilized tenants (especially those with beneficial assets), obtaining financial gain in recuperation of loss from the housing crises and to lower the amount of elderly and rent-stabilized tenants in order to eliminate the J-51 exemption status, in compliance with the Department of Housing & Community Renewal’s original FACT SHEET #36. I attempted to provide defendants a settlement for a revolving account, where an associated trust would be made for rent-stabilized tenants facing a threat of eviction. When entering into the appellate trial of Williams v. U.S., et al., 16-189 (2nd Cir.), I sought enjoining of District Court employees. I utilized the sanctions claim for a settlement offer where damages may be used for a public benefit. Since my eviction and federal trials (depicted below), I have been unable to place any of my mother’s beneficial assets or accounts into my name. I have also been unable to obtain employment. I currently have six (6) prima facie cases ignored by the United States Supreme Court for claims of promissory estoppel, where the federal courts have denied myself the right to have a discovery conference prior to trial. See Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al.: (i) 137 US 1611 (2017); (iv) 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.); (ii) 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.); (v) 19-6227 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Mandamus); and (iii) 19-5399 (U.S. S.Ct.); (vi) 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) The pursuit of financial gain by financial institutions has reached the point of obsession. Owners are illegally claiming beneficial assets and raising rents through MCI’s, have given financial institutions (as landlords) the ability to conspire any act of supremacy. Defining the use of MCI’s may determine what a Two-Hundred ($200) to Four-Hundred ($400) increase may be every four (4) to six (6) years, however, tenants are still vulnerable to destitution. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 578 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact NYC Rent Guidelines Board Public Hearing (June 15, 2022) - Steven Talbert Williams (Testimony) NYC Rent Guidelines Board Public Hearing (June 15, 2022) - Steven Talbert Williams (Testimony), 2022 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZsai4_vqSI......................... NYC Rent Guidelines Board... more https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZsai4_vqSI......................... NYC Rent Guidelines Board Public Hearing (June 15, 2022) Steven Talbert Williams (Testimony) See June 15 (STW Testimony): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZsai4_vqSI - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6htpXFlUdr0 - - See also June 13 (STW Testimony): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZsai4_vqSI See also Final Vote, June 21: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0jFdeDfV7M See also @StevenTalbertW1 (Twitter) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Alleged Housing Ct. Settlement Offer; Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.) (Comp., Doc. 2, pg117) Alleged Housing Ct. Settlement Offer; Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.) (Comp., Doc. 2, pg117), 2022 Alleged Housing Ct. Settlement Offer Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al.... more Alleged Housing Ct. Settlement Offer Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017): See Complaint, Doc. 2, Williams, 15-cv-5114: "PLAINTIFF stated to HON. STANLEY: 'If I had it my way, I'd sue them for 25% of their annual profit, taking 5% for myself and give the other 20% to a find dedicated to people in rent stabilized apartments in prevention from ever having this happen again.' [unverified, not verbatim]" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact PUBLIC HEARINGS (NYC Rent Increases), Steven Talbert Williams (Providing Testimony) PUBLIC HEARINGS (NYC Rent Increases), Steven Talbert Williams (Providing Testimony), 2022 - PUBLIC HEARING - (NEW YORK CITY GUIDELINES BOARD) STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ... more - PUBLIC HEARING - (NEW YORK CITY GUIDELINES BOARD) STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS - ATTENDS - PROVIDING TESTIMONY OF PCV/ST MCI INCREASES & DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM JUNE 13TH Public Hearing (In-Person Public Testimony) Time: 5:00 P.M. – 9:00 P.M. *Location: Jamaica Performing Arts Center Auditorium, 153-10 Jamaica Avenue Jamaica, NY 11432 *Public can livestream meeting via YouTube feed but must participate in-person. JUNE 15TH Public Hearing (In-Person Public Testimony) Time: 4:00 P.M. – 9:00 P.M. *Location: Main Theater at Hostos Center for the Arts & Culture Hostos Community College/CUNY, 450 Grand Concourse Bronx, NY 10451 *Public can livestream meeting via YouTube feed but must participate in-person. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 82 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Appellate Statement of the Case (HIDDEN), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Appellate Statement of the Case (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Doc. 71, "MOTION, to proceed in forma pauperis,... FILED. Service date 02242020," Doc. 71.1, "LR ... more Doc. 71, "MOTION, to proceed in forma pauperis,... FILED. Service date 02242020," Doc. 71.1, "LR 24.1 STATEMENT" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), dated February 24, 2020, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.): "I STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF (alleged Cestui Que), state the dismissal of Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY) is claimed unconstitutional, due to the District Court laching upon the pursuance if discovery, when in relation to antitrust claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act (see the COMPLAINT, referencing the Post-Filing Delayed Review, Parallelism, and Parallel Plus doctrines. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 556, 570, 679 (2007), 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-67, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 5901: “ 'only a [com]plaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Id., at 556… “ 'parallel conduct is… much like a naked assertion of conspiracy in a [15 U.S.C. ]§1 complaint… ‘[T]he complaint must contain… [‘]a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of an illegal agreement[’ (‘Id. at 1965’),]… especially so in light of the potentially enormous expense of discovery in such a large antitrust case, which would imbue even a largely groundless §1 claim with… ‘in terrorem...settlement value[’ (‘Id. at 1966’)’].' "See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 'the Court found it necessary first to discuss the antitrust principles implicated by the complaint.' Id. supra 553-554). See also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 6814. See also Matter of Iqbal (at 678), citing Matter of Twombly, 'a court must proceed ‘on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)[.’]' "The unconstitutional dismissal, as claimed, was allegedly the same cause for previous dismissals in the District Court and other Federal Courts, due to the claimed laches to pursue the discovery of a valid contract for the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST and a valid claim for assets within the trust over the amount of $75,000 for a trial to be initiated. See Williams v. United States, et al., 15cv5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir.), 137 U.S. 1611(2017)(Index No. 16M111, denying 'Motion To Direct The Clerk To File The Petition Out Of Time')(U.S. S.Ct., Mar. 15, 2017) (COMP., App. M), where, within the District Court, PLAINTIFF allegedly made a valid antitrust claim (under the Sherman Antitrust Act) in complaint’s jurisdiction under '15 U.S.C.A. §26' (Id. at ¶21) . See also Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv1264(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir.) (denied on appeal) (COMP., App. O), 19-240(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir.) (man. denied) (COMP., App. P), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir.) (man. denied) (COMP., App. Q), 19-5398(U.S. S.Ct.) (pet. denied) (COMP., App. R), 19-5399(U.S. S.Ct.) (pet. denied) (COMP., App. S), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.) (pet. denied) (COMP., App. T), 19-6227(U.S. S.Ct.) (man. denied) (COMP., App. U), where PLAINTIFF initiated mandamus actions, attempting to hold the District and Appellate Court justices and employees liable for sanctions (attempting to settle immediately for revolving accounts within would provide for a public benefit to Americans)." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 95 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A (Statement of the Case), Doc. 228, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A (Statement of the Case), Doc. 228, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2016 Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A (Statement of the Case), Doc. 228, Cestui Que Steven Ta... more Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A (Statement of the Case), Doc. 228, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): " [T]his deposing affidavit as a claimed factual testimony of relevant events surrounding an alleged conspired antitrust, economic espionage... and racketeering... scheme, via the corruption of enterprises[,]... violating various provisions of PLAINTIFFs’ rights set forth within the U.S. Constitution[,]... including various provisional antitrust statutes[,] such as the Clayton Act[,... and] Sherman Antitrust Act... " It is claimed, such scheme was perpetrated so as to deter PLAINTIFF from the acquisition of beneficial assets within an Individual Retirement Account... through the inducing of a claimed illegal eviction of PLAINTIFF from a rent stabilized dwelling[ ]... of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town... The claimed illegal fiduciary acquisition of the IRA by the controlling entities (PERSHING (B.N.Y.), UBS, and FMR) is said to have occurred after PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial assets of the trust went insolvent during the final years of the 2000–2010 U.S. housing crisis, further utilized by UBS in... an Initial Public Offering... of P.S.H.[,] acquiring ownership of a mezzanine mortgaged loan of PCV/ST (TRUST2007-C30 of B.O.A.), as such Commercial Mortgaged-Backed Securitized ('CMBS') loan was the leading investment loan in a series of tranches... " [O]wners of PCV/ST profited from real property assets (malicious raising of rental prices), but... additionally utilized such reinvested assets to invest within a gambling casino corporation (P.N.K.); whereby... BLACKROCK,... 'control[led] ‘9.65%’ of beneficial assets in Pinnacle[ (P.N.K.)], as such was amended upon the onset of the 2010[.]' In essence, the assets of the PCV/ST community and within Trust LPSW,... were returned to BLACKROCK. " But why then would the property of PCV/ST be further sold to the financial entity of BLACKSTONE GRP., through the claimed illegal use of municipal bonds[?]" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.1 (History of the Case: Summarized), Doc. 229, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.1 (History of the Case: Summarized), Doc. 229, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2016 Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.1 (History of the Case: Summarized), Doc. 229, Cestui Q... more Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.1 (History of the Case: Summarized), Doc. 229, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "1.... MR. LAURENCE D. FINK (CEO of BLACKROCK),... felt obligated to continue good financial relations with BLACKSTONE,... as the real property of PCV/ST was seen as a 'gift' of sorts, where the investments of the community [are] further alleged to be a property of substantial profit... "2.... [T]he entire scheme is claimed to have originated from the end of the 19th Century... [War savings Bonds] "3.... [A]ccumulated foreign debt... [led to] levying of income tax,... [through] the Revenue Act in 1921,... to utilize even higher rates in sales tax upon wealthier U.S. Citizens and corporations to stabilize the nation’s debt;... "5... [W]hich further led to tax-exempt bonds utilized by corporations... within affordable congressional housing Acts,... utilizing such tax- exempt securitized bonds (and other tax-exempt investments), with the sixty year limitation, utilized within the community of PCV/ST... [ ]directly associated to the rent stabilization laws of the early 1970’s[ ]... "10.... [T]he shepardizing of Revenue Acts of 1918, 1921 and 1932 led to the utilization of tax-exempt bonds within C.W. (B.N.Y.) RMBS’s[;]... as such use of tax-exempt bonds after World War I and the Great Depression, accruing extreme amounts in foreign debt,... "11. It is alleged, it was the 'debt' portion of bond investments which Congress wished to avoid through enacting the TIA[;]... keeping the government, as a federal corporation, solely liable and avoiding the intervention by private enterprise... "12.... B.O.A. is the controlling financial institution in ownership of the CMBS trusts associated to the community of PCV/ST[,... and] additionally the parent corporation for Decedents’ IRA associated to Trust LPSW... [T]he Retirement Board of the Policemen Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, is stated as having their investments under... the CMBS trusts and BONDHOLDERS associated to the community of PCV/ST (namely CALPERS and CALSTRS), but also to the New York State Retirement System (in control of police retirement funds), claimed to be directly connected to claims of enterprise corruption associated to the D.H.S. (N.Y.P.D.), M.T.A. (N.Y.P.D.) and W.P.P.D. as named defendants. Such affiliated institutions incurred a severe loss in assets due to the Housing Crisis, where the replenishment of assets were desperately needed... "13.... PCV/ST (during MetLife’s ownership and after the enactment of rent stabilization laws), seemed nothing more than a lucrative investment to strive to acquire... "14.... [T]he PCV/ST property is alleged to have been specifically desired by BLACKSTONE,... " a.... claimed to have conflicted with future events of the housing crisis, specifically those related to the 'Maiden lane II' and 'Bids Wanted In Competition' ('BWIC') auctions[,]... where BLACKROCK further utilized such acquired investments (obtained through the enactment of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008) within the community of PCV/ST and within a check clearing firm of Trust LPSW, JP MORGAN, where assets were attempted to be replenished from the housing crisis... "15.... [I]t was through the securitized investments and upgrades to the PCV/ST community which BLACKROCK found as an attractive quality, and where such investments could then be transferred to BLACKSTONE... "16.... [T]he use of Decedents’ IRA assets within the bail-out of the PCV/ST community[,] from the previously mentioned defaulted mortgage by P.S.H[,]... laid the proper setting... to eventually eliminate the use of tax- exempt bonds... and to further provide the newly renovated property... as an intended 'gift' to... BLACKSTONE;... "17.... [T]he use of SNB’s provided the newly acquired owners the allowance to distribute the originally acquired tax-exempt bonds of 1942, or prior, to foreign markets... via Eurobonds; thereby eliminating the restrictions placed upon MetLife as a Redevelopment corporation through the enacting of local New York State Redevelopment laws..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3 ("Letter of Emergency to the United States Supreme Court"), Doc. 231, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3 ("Letter of Emergency to the United States Supreme Court"), Doc. 231, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3 - HIGHLIGHTED PASSAGES FROM “LETTER OF EMERGENCY TO T... more Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3 - HIGHLIGHTED PASSAGES FROM “LETTER OF EMERGENCY TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,” Doc. 231, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): PART A. 3 – HIGHLIGHTED PASSAGES FROM “LETTER OF EMERGENCY TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3.a ("Letter of Emergency[;]... Emphasis on Economic Espionage & Enterprise Corruption"), Doc. 232, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3.a ("Letter of Emergency[;]... Emphasis on Economic Espionage & Enterprise Corruption"), Doc. 232, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3.a - HIGHLIGHTED PASSAGES OF THE “LETTER OF EMERGENCY ... more Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3.a - HIGHLIGHTED PASSAGES OF THE “LETTER OF EMERGENCY TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:” EMPHASIS ON ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE & ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION, Doc. 232, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): PART A.3.a – HIGHLIGHTED PASSAGES OF THE “LETTER OF EMERGENCY TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:” EMPHASIS ON ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE & ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 3 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] PROMOTIONS [*****] Seeking JOURNALISTS - REPORTERS Seeking JOURNALISTS - REPORTERS, 2022 Job Type: Contract (Consortium & Non-Disclosure Agreement) Pay: 10,000 - 5,000,000/ann. Seekin... more Job Type: Contract (Consortium & Non-Disclosure Agreement) Pay: 10,000 - 5,000,000/ann. Seeking news media for full article and publicity for: ***PLAUSIBILITY STANDARD*** Williams v. United States, et al. UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DENIED right to have a discovery conference (post-filing delayed dismissal doctrine, "plausibility standard," Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (2007)). See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, (2007) (Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 425 F.3d 99 (2005)). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678 (2002). See also Cryer v. Commissioner of IRS, Dock. No. 8118-09 (U.S. T.C., 2013). See also 55 Fordham L. Rev. 1165 (1987). See also 9 Fed. Ct. L. Rev. 79 (Spring 2016). See also 110 Mich. L. Rev. 393 (2011). See also 60 Fordham L. Rev. 257 (1991). See also “Twombly’s New ‘Plausibility’ Standard for Complaints[:] A New Special Pleading Rule for Antitrust or Complex Case Plaintiffs, or for All Plaintiffs?” See also “Tightening Twiqbal: Why Plausibility Must Be Confined to the Complaint.” Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Government of the Lao People's, No. 10 Civ. 5256, "sanctions... for [ ] misconduct in discovery[.]" See Brief (Doc. 129), Id. at 37, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir.) See U.S. S.Ct. Docket Nos: (i) 137 US 1611(https://t.co/VlOXKCoeuY); (ii) 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.) (https://t.co/6TjoGTt5ov); (iii) 19-5399 (U.S. S.Ct.) (https://t.co/Ze2UkaMbew); (iv) 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.) (https://t.co/I79cTtqMEH); (v) 19-6227 (U.S. S.Ct.) (https://t.co/JGmAvGmrQB); and (vi) 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) (https://t.co/zFVWeryInb) Williams v. USA, et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.) (Comp., https://t.co/vKzuYmMXJu), 20-451(2nd Cir.)(denied on appeal) (Brief, https://t.co/6vXy8bwkUC) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact News Media - I was DENIED my rights to a DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (Part 1) News Media - I was DENIED my rights to a DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (Part 1), 2022 DISCOVERY CONFERENCE: The Post Filing Delayed Dismissal Doctrine (for Post Filing Delayed Review... more DISCOVERY CONFERENCE: The Post Filing Delayed Dismissal Doctrine (for Post Filing Delayed Review) is the only reference to a claim for the Sherman Antitrust Act (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)); however, the Federal Courts usually dismiss cases based upon Rule 8(a) and its “law or fact” provision. The Plausibility Standard (for Rule 8(a)) is analyzed through: (i) BELL ATLANTIC CORP. v. TWOMBLY, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), “plausibility standard,” where “only a [com]plaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss;” (ii) ASHCROFT v. IQBAL, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, 679 (2007), 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 2007 U.S. LENS 5901, “a court must proceed ‘on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact);’” and (iii) ERICKSON v. PARDUS, 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007), “a pro se prisoner’s conclusory allegation... was sufficient to satisfy the new ‘plausibility’ stan[dard (‘Id. at 2200’).] The Court cited both Twombly and ‘the liberal pleading standards set forth by Rule 8(a)(2)’ to support this result[ (‘Id.’)... T]he standard is all but an engraved invitation to judicial activism[.]” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact News Media - I was DENIED my rights to a DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (Part 2) News Media - I was DENIED my rights to a DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (Part 2), 2022 DISCOVERY CONFERENCE: The Post Filing Delayed Dismissal Doctrine (for Post Filing Delayed Review... more DISCOVERY CONFERENCE: The Post Filing Delayed Dismissal Doctrine (for Post Filing Delayed Review) is the only reference to a claim for the Sherman Antitrust Act (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)); however, the Federal Courts usually dismiss cases based upon Rule 8(a) and its “law or fact” provision. The Plausibility Standard (for Rule 8(a)) is analyzed through: (i) BELL ATLANTIC CORP. v. TWOMBLY, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), “plausibility standard,” where “only a [com]plaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss;” (ii) ASHCROFT v. IQBAL, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, 679 (2007), 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 2007 U.S. LENS 5901, “a court must proceed ‘on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact);’” and (iii) ERICKSON v. PARDUS, 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007), “a pro se prisoner’s conclusory allegation... was sufficient to satisfy the new ‘plausibility’ stan[dard (‘Id. at 2200’).] The Court cited both Twombly and ‘the liberal pleading standards set forth by Rule 8(a)(2)’ to support this result[ (‘Id.’)... T]he standard is all but an engraved invitation to judicial activism[.]” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES" (HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS), Doc. 2, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.) "PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES" (HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS), Doc. 2, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 2015 "PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES" (HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS) (COMPLAINT), Doc. 2, Cestui Que Steve... more "PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES" (HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS) (COMPLAINT), Doc. 2, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017): THE REASONING OF THE PETITION: - To address antitrust claims of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST which caused Civil Rights claims - Antitrust claims are presented within PRELIMINARY CONFERENCES (DISCOVERY CONFERENCES) - To address PRETRIAL HEARINGS for claimed prima facie evidence against: (i) NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE for laches to remand to a superior court the trial of People v. Steven Talbert Williams, Index 2012NY089333; and (ii) Public Officers of the METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (a claimed DELAY to adjudicate upon an UNCONSTITUTIONAL Kings County (Brooklyn, NY) S.Ct. JUDGMENT (which excluded an index number). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES Nature of Suit: Civil Rights / Other (Antitrust) "This petition is... to be presented to Congress, as such is in enforcement of the Petitioner's First Amendment rights. This document is in accordance with its use as a complaint, as regulated by Civ. R. 27(a)(4)[ ] and... Civ. R. 27 (b)(3)... "[A] requested pretrial conference has been established, by way of Civ. R. 16,... [i]s requested within the attached 'Letter to the Clerk[']... "1. The Petitioner, under 42 USC 1983, by way of Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Laws & Regulations ('CPLR'), states this redress is caused, primarily, by the events which proceeded after the disputed eviction[,]... evidenced through ST Owner LP v. Steven Williams; Eugene Williams [Index No. 529069/12]... " (e) He claims such eviction was due to the insolvency of the Estate of Linda P. S. Williams, which pertains to the [PCV/ST ]owner's having knowledge of the decedent's... trust fund and firms and with a renter's insurance fraud, whose policy was placed on the dwelling unit of 449 East 14th street, apartment 7d New York, NY 10009. " (f) He claims this eviction is the cause to all alleged offences of this petition and should be investigated thoroughly to prove such. "2. This petition, the Petitioner states, is in relevance to a false imprisonment within the Montgomery County Correctional Facility ('MCCF')... " (b) He states, such matter shall have to be addressed after the requested enjoining of the estate going to probate... "3. As a matter of jurisdiction, the Petitioner states this petition shall deal first and foremost,... with a class action suit with... police officers who provided an allegedly illegal accusatory instrument, for which is mentioned in the attached, incomplete, deposition supporting this petition. "4. As a matter of jurisdiction,... this petition shall deal secondly with the neglect of the District Attorney ('D.A.') of the county of New York surrounding the case of People v. Steven Talbert Williams Index No. 2012NY089333... "PART II - REASON FOR IMMEDIATE ADJUDICATION FOR GRIEVANCES... "[5]. The Petitioner, as a process of immediacy, insists allowance by the SDNY to expedite the proceeding of the Transit Adjudication Bureau[,]... as opposed to addressing the abandoned [dismissal ]motion and adjournment of... People v. Steven Talbert Williams[, ]Index No. 2012NY089333[ ]... " (a) He insists the court enjoin the two proceedings... "[6]. The Petitioner states the TAB trial concerning an accusatory instrument,... has been extended from its original date[,]... to be held on July 1st, 2015... "[8]. The Petitioner insists the court see fit to relate all matters of redress contained within the petition to the insolvency of the Estate of Linda P. S. Williams and the disputed eviction... " (a) He alleges the eviction was perpetrated through the illegal withholding of information... " (1) He states he requested the lease of renewal be signed in his name. He claims he provided two years of bill payments, paid on the property in his name, and presented such verification to the legal representative of [PCV/ST]... " (B) Additionally, he attests to facts that the case title was intentionally altered to ST Owner LP v. Eugene Williams, suggesting his father, 'Eugene Williams,' initiated trial proceedings when in fact his father never took part in any of the events. The Petitioner claims it was solely himself who provided the initial Order to Show Cause, as he represented himself as a pro se litigant... " (2) He states, not only had he provided such proof of succession, but the lawyer insisted other proof[,]... 'something official from the government,' to which the Petitioner then returned home, acquired a letter from the Internal Revenue Service ('IRS')[,]... an offense under civil rights governing... national origin... " (c) He states such forceful eviction, which deactivated his key card to allow entry into his apartment building, the destruction of his upper lock and the removal of all property were all illegal activities... " (1) He claims the displacement has brought upon unwarranted hardships and discrepancies between the relationships[,]... as well as attempts to complete tax filings... "[10]. Petitioner provided service of an 'Order to Show Cause' upon Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., located at 377 Broadway New York, N.Y. 10013-3993... "[11]. The Petitioner, as mentioned in Title VII[,] highlights the following essential facts as being worthy of noting: a renters' insurance policy attached to the real property; withheld from obtaining a new lease by CWCap.;... Petitioners' tax returns which would have prevented eviction[;]... and other financial assets of the estate, which, if probated, would have provided the Petitioner a surety of protection,... such as a Testamentary Trust, naming the Petitioner as sole beneficiary, and life insurance policies, which include amounts for accidental death benefits. The accidental death benefits are in light of the decedents' eleven year battle with cancer;... "[12]. The Petitioner, claims the eviction was an act perpetrated by CWCap. to intentionally rid rent stabilized tenants from the community in order to receive a greater return through market valued apartments,... CWCap. executed such, as the Petitioner claims, with and overwhelming prejudice against stabilized tenants[,]... with partial prejudice towards tenants of color and economic status. "[13]. The Petitioner insists the court place a focus on past ownership and their inquiries into financial background checks of tenants,... [which] would have provided CWCap. knowledge of the decedent’s Trust, life insurance policies and other personal information[,]... aid[ing] in establishing motive for the alleged improper eviction. "[15]. The eviction, the Petitioner alleges, was in order to prevent him from obtaining the beneficial assets of the Decedent,... so long as he was suppressed under events of duress." Id. at Redress, Doc. 2, 10-15. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 48 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "AMENDED COMPLAINT" (p.29, ¶21), Doc. 17, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) "AMENDED COMPLAINT" (p.29, ¶21), Doc. 17, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 2015 See Williams, 15-cv-5114 (SDNY) Doc. 17, "AMENDED COMPLAINT" (Id. at 29, ¶21), APPENDIX I (Id.... more See Williams, 15-cv-5114 (SDNY) Doc. 17, "AMENDED COMPLAINT" (Id. at 29, ¶21), APPENDIX I (Id. at App. I.c, p.59, ¶21) "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET) In Re. Docs. 64-67, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (ALK)(DJ)(BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611(2017) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact NEW EVIDENCE (UBS Reinvested into PSH's IPO), Plaintiff Sought a New Trial: Doc. 66, Williams, 16-189cv (2nd Cir. Ct.) NEW EVIDENCE (UBS Reinvested into PSH's IPO), Plaintiff Sought a New Trial: Doc. 66, Williams, 16-189cv (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2016 NEW EVIDENCE (UBS Reinvested into PSH's IPO) Plaintiff Sought a New Trial: See: Cestui Que Ste... more NEW EVIDENCE (UBS Reinvested into PSH's IPO) Plaintiff Sought a New Trial: See: Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (ALK)(DJ)(BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.): Doc. 66, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (DRAFT) (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET) Dated December 20, 2016 "11. Plaintiff stipulates, newly discovered evidence specifically consists of Pershing Square Holdings Grp., LLC’s ('PSH’s') Initial Public Offering ('IPO') 'PROSPECTUS' (Exhibit 13), wherein the company utilized the overall Assets Under Management ('AUM') of UBS Group AG ('UBS,' the current controlling partnered entity of Trust LPSW, alongside Pershing (BNY)) as 'Underwriter' to the IPO, as well as the services of J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC ('JPSec.,' a wholly owned subsidiary of J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 'JPMorgan') and BNY (via Dr. Martin Peretz of Dreyfus-Mellon Bank Group); whereby JPMorgan and BNY were the original check clearing entities of Trust LPSW. "[11.]a. Involvement by JPMorgan and BNY within PSH’s IPO is particularly relevant due to their overall funds utilized during the time of the eviction (2012), where PSH and Winthrop Realty Trust partnered to form PSW NYC, LLP ('PSW') and utilizing PSW to intentionally purchase defaulted mortgages of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST') (namely the senior loan, Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2007-C30, 'Trust2007-C30') by Tishman Speyer Crown Equities, LLC ('Tishman') and BlackRock Realty Advisors, Inc. ('BlackRock') (collectively 'Tishman/BlackRock'). "[11.a.]i. As reiterated, UBS and Pershing are the institutions currently holding 'fiduciary' control of Trust LPSW, reinvesting and/or withholding assets of the IRA; relating such to the newly revised subdivision (j) of 29 C.F.R. §2510.3-21[ ] by the United States Department of Labor (named defendant for an alleged unconstitutional N.Y.S. Unemployment Insurance Benefit hearing), as well as UBS’s illegal use of dark pools (FOOTNOTE 4) to make fraudulent investments, namely Collateral Debt Obligations, ('CDO’s'), wherein the CDO loan of PCV/ST (Trust2007-C30) is also connected to other invested CDO’s such as the LB-UBS 2007-C1 Trust Fund ('TrustLB-UBS,' 'loan number 4' of Trust2007-C30), acquired by State Street Research & Management Company (just one of many CDO’s utilized by UBS and Pershing (BNY) after the neglect to provide Plaintiff ownership of Trust LPSW upon reaching his designated custodial age).[ ] See a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ('FINRA') publication (Exhibit 15), entitled 'FINRA Fines Pershing LLC $3 Million for Customer Protection:[ ]'... "12. In light of the newly acquired evidence, presented above, Plaintiff (upon approval of this petition) respectfully seeks the allowance to enjoin additional defendants." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact U.S. Sup. Ct. Ignores Nano-Robotics & Estoppel (REOPEN MY CASES) (Promissory Estoppel), Steven T. Williams (Pro Se) U.S. Sup. Ct. Ignores Nano-Robotics & Estoppel (REOPEN MY CASES) (Promissory Estoppel), Steven T. Williams (Pro Se), 2022 U.S. Sup. Ct. Ignores Nano-Robotics & Estoppel (REOPEN MY CASES) (Promissory Estoppel), Steven T.... more U.S. Sup. Ct. Ignores Nano-Robotics & Estoppel (REOPEN MY CASES) (Promissory Estoppel), Steven T. Williams (Pro Se), 2022 U.S. Sup. Ct. Ignores Nano-Robotics & Estoppel (REOPEN MY CASES) Antitrust funding human experimentations? A Computer for the World & Council for Code Writing - - - Please Help w/ NEWS MEDIA (Promissory Estoppel) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 11 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact NYS Attorney General File #: 21-022897 (email - during COVID evacuation), "ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.))," State of New York Office of the Attorney General (May 4, 2021), Division of Regional Affairs NYS Attorney General File #: 21-022897 (email - during COVID evacuation), "ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.))," State of New York Office of the Attorney General (May 4, 2021), Division of Regional Affairs, 2021 "ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd ci... more "ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.))" State of New York Office of the Attorney General (May 4, 2021), Division of Regional Affairs "Dear Steven Talbert Williams: "On behalf of Attorney General Letitia James, I am writing to notify you that we have received your correspondence... "Very truly yours, "James Sfiroudis... "Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection... "cc: NYC Department of Homeless Services" ------------------------------------------------- VERDICT "State of New York "Office of the Attorney General... "May 4, 2021 "Re: Our File Number: 21-022897 "Subject: ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.)) "On behalf of Attorney General Letitia James, I am writing to notify you that we have received your correspondence. "We appreciate your alerting us to this matter. We believe the agency shown below may be able to assist you and we are forwarding your correspondence there. "If you do not receive a response in the near future, please follow up directly with that agency. I suggest you attach a copy of this letter or, if appropriate, mention that you are adding new information. "Thank you for writing to our office. We will keep your correspondence on file for future reference. "Very truly yours, "James Sfiroudis... "Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection "cc: NYC Department of Homeless Services..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact New York State Reconsideration LETTER (Appellate Division), Matter of Avrom R. Vann, PC, No. 2022.1176 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.); Matter of Avrom R. Vann, Esq., No. 2022.1177 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.) Reconsideration (Appellate Division), Matter of Avrom R. Vann, PC, No. 2022.1176 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.); Matter of Avrom R. Vann, Esq., No. 2022.1177 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.), 2022 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, State of New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Dated November 1... more ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, State of New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Dated November 1, 2022 "Dear Mr. Williams: "We have completed our review of your complaint against the above-named attorney. As explained below, we have concluded that no investigation or action is warranted. "Specifically, there is an insufficient basis to conclude that Mr. Vann or his firm violated the New York Rules of Professional Conduct in your civil action. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact New York State Reconsideration Request (Steven Talbert Williams), Matter of Avrom R. Vann, PC, No. 2022.1176 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.); Matter of Avrom R. Vann, Esq., No. 2022.1177 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.) Reconsideration Request (Steven Talbert Williams), Matter of Avrom R. Vann, PC, No. 2022.1176 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.); Matter of Avrom R. Vann, Esq., No. 2022.1177 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.), 2022 Reconsideration Request (Steven Talbert Williams), Matter of Avrom R. Vann, PC, No. 2022.1176 (N.... more Reconsideration Request (Steven Talbert Williams), Matter of Avrom R. Vann, PC, No. 2022.1176 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.); Matter of Avrom R. Vann, Esq., No. 2022.1177 (N.Y. S.Ct., App.) "I, Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, provide this letter of reconsideration for the matters of: (i) Avrom R. Vann, PC, No. 2022.1176; and (ii) Avrom R. Vann, Esq., No. 2022.1177 demanding the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division (First Judicial Department) to see Chief Attorney Jorge Dopico’s conclusion “that no investigation or action is warranted[ ]” (Id. at Appendix 1, Mr. Dopico’s letter to Mr. Williams) and that “there is an insufficient basis to conclude that Mr. Vann or his firm violated the New York Rules of Professional Conduct” as being unjustified and a form of conspiratory estoppel, based upon axiomatic evidence of Mr. Avrom R. Vann, Esq.’s and Avrom R. Vann, PC’s (“Vann, PC”) claimed malpractice, not only presented to the Supreme Court of New York, but also to the Federal Courts of New York and the Supreme Court of the United States. Such claimed malpractice is claimed to have induced antitrust claims (under the Clayton Act and Sherman Antitrust Act) against financial institutions and departments of the U.S. Government; where such antitrust claims are said to be directly connected to the reinvesting of securitized assets of Mr. Williams’ mother’s estate into the community of Mr. Williams’ tenancy, which perpetuated an illegal act of eviction (see ST OWNER, LP v. WILLIAMS, No. 52069/12 (N.Y.H.C.)) and further civil rights claims against Mr. Williams’ upon his displacement and homelessness. "Mr. Williams is verified as being the named “alternate Executor” to the estate of Linda Williams (“DECEDENT.” See S.C.P.A. §1805) (See Exhibit 3, ¶3 of the “Last Will & Testament of MRS. LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS,” Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al. (“Williams”), 19-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.). See also Williams, 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-6227 (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.). See also ESTATE OF LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS, File No. 2013-3538 (S.C.N.Y.)) and named sole beneficiary to the irrevocable testamentary instrument (12 C.F.R. §330.13) of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (See Exhibit 1 of Williams, 19-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), ¶1, 2(a), 2(b)), where Mr. Vann and his firm Vann, PC are claimed to have committed acts of legal malpractice, maliciously avoiding duties to attend to the probate of DECEDENTs’ estate under U.S. Const. Am. 11, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), 37, EC §5-8 and DR §9-102 of the American Bar Association’s Code of Professional Responsibility. Further claims against Mr. Vann and his firm are enforced under: E.P.T.L. §§5-1.1-A(6)(1)(F), 7-1.5, 7-1.9, 7-2.6(a)(2), 10 (“part 6.5”), 10-9.2(c)(3); S.C.P.A. §§1404(5)(a)(1), 1406... Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact LOCATION, Steven Talbert Williams (2015 to present) LOCATION, Steven Talbert Williams (2015 to present), 2022 2015 to 2017 - Richard Tucker Park, Lincoln Center (Stolen Certiorari & Exhibits) 2018 to Pres... more 2015 to 2017 - Richard Tucker Park, Lincoln Center (Stolen Certiorari & Exhibits) 2018 to Present - 111 E. 12th St (NYC) (After Stolen Hand Truck at Lincoln Center) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Testimony of Steven Talbert Williams - NYC Rent Guidelines Board Public Hearing (June 13, 2022 & June 15, 2022) Testimony of Steven Talbert Williams - NYC Rent Guidelines Board Public Hearing (June 13, 2022 & June 15, 2022), 2022 Testimony of Steven Talbert Williams NYC Rent Guidelines Board Public Hearing (June 13, 2022 &... more Testimony of Steven Talbert Williams NYC Rent Guidelines Board Public Hearing (June 13, 2022 & June 15, 2022) Good evening distinguished justices, public representatives, litigants, members of the Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town (“PCV/ST”) Tenants Association and the general public. My name is Steven Talbert Williams. My mother, Linda Paula Streger Williams, working as a secretary for the New York Times, moved into the community of PCV/ST in the early 70’s. I was added to the lease as an occupant to the apartment of 449 E. 14 th St., Apt. 7d, NYC 10009 (“Building 449”) in the year 1989. I was, as claimed, illegally evicted as a rent-controlled tenant, as evidenced in the Housing Court trial of ST Owner, LP v. Williams, No. 52069/12 (Chan)(JHS)(NYHC), where the owners filed their Petition Non-Payment of Rent against myself and my father (absent from trial) as being rent-stabilized. As claimed, on the day of eviction, having never been provided a summons, my key card was disabled my top lock was broken and a Marshal’s notice was on the door stating all the property was removed from my apartment. My mother and I were the only names associated to the renter’s insurance policy for Building 449. In the year 2000, my mother was diagnosed with Ovarian Cancer. She designated myself sole beneficiary to the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST. In the year 1986m Tishman & BlackRock purchased the community of PCV/ST with tenants anticipating ownership of their apartments. The new owners increased rents and my parents began living paycheck to paycheck, barely making ends meet. With the increase in Major Capital Improvements (MCI’s), I witnessed many childhood friends either evicted or moved. Prior to the Maiden Lane Deed-In-Lieu of Foreclosure auctions, Tishman & BlackRock pursued legal action against the Dizengoff tenants for fraud concerning rent-stabilized succession (see ST Owner, LP v. Dizengoff, et al., No. 08113861). After the tenants lost the trial, the owners performed financial, criminal and medical background checks on all tenants. The owners acquired all financial records of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST, containing accounts from UBS, Fidelity and Pershing, LLC. Many tenants were given notices of the owner’s intent to evict them from their apartments, due to not being their primary residence. My mother provided the owners evidence of her occasional medical treatments near her country house in Pennsylvania and was able to remain in the community of PCV/ST as the primary tenant. From 2008 to 2009, Pershing Square Holdings Grp. (“PSH”), with UBS as custodians, began contractual agreements to ser up an Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) in anticipation of using the company’s subsidiaries (PCV/ST Owner, LP; ST Owner, LP; and PCV Owner, LP) for the community of PCV/ST. When my mother passed away in 2010, the owners of PCV/ST lached upon providing a renewal lease, as stipulated within 9 NYCRR §2522.8. See ISC §3420(a)(1) (“insolvency of the insured's estate”), in reference to the mentioned renter’s insurance policy. Upon my mother’s death, the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST went unattended to by my mother’s successive lawyer. As a result, I was never notified of the Trust’s assets; where, consequently, UBS, as one of the Trust’s accounts, stole my mother’s account and used it within their overall assets. I was never notified, as stated within 12 U.S.C. §92a(k)(1), by the financial institution through a “notice of intent to revoke the authority of the association.” The Trust account was seized and UBS, with PSH, used my mother’s Trust assets to purchase PCV/ST. With CW Capital Asset Mgmt. (“CWCAM”) as interim owners to PCV/ST, they made numerous MCI’s in anticipation of the property’s sale. As stated, I was evicted by CWCAM in 2012 without ever being offered a renewal lease or summons to go to court. For the past six (6) years I have been: (i) denied my right by the federal court to seek redress against the owners of PCV/ST; (ii) denied by financial institutions of my mother’s Trust; and (iii) denied representation by my mother’s attorney. Within the appellate trial of Williams v. U.S., et al., 16-189 (2nd Cir.) was when I obtained evidence of UBS reinvesting my mother’s Trust assets into PSH and PCV/ST. My claim was amended within the Nature of Suit from Civil Rights/Other (for antitrust claims against the U.S. aiding and abetting Civil Rights claims surrounding my claimed illegal eviction) to Antitrust (under the Sherman Antitrust Act), incurring acts of Domestic Housing Terrorism; where the owners of PCV/ST are claimed to have utilized insider trading to rid elderly and rent-stabilized tenants (especially those with beneficial assets), obtaining financial gain in recuperation of loss from the housing crises and to lower the amount of elderly and rent-stabilized tenants in order to eliminate the J-51 exemption status, in compliance with the Department of Housing & Community Renewal’s original FACT SHEET #36. I attempted to provide defendants a settlement for a revolving account, where an associated trust would be made for rent-stabilized tenants facing a threat of eviction. When entering into the appellate trial of Williams v. U.S., et al., 16-189 (2nd Cir.), I sought enjoining of District Court employees. I utilized the sanctions claim for a settlement offer where damages may be used for a public benefit. Since my eviction and federal trials (depicted below), I have been unable to place any of my mother’s beneficial assets or accounts into my name. I have also been unable to obtain employment. I currently have six (6) prima facie cases ignored by the United States Supreme Court for claims of promissory estoppel, where the federal courts have denied myself the right to have a discovery conference prior to trial. See Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al.: (i) 137 US 1611 (2017); (iv) 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.); (ii) 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.); (v) 19-6227 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Mandamus); and (iii) 19-5399 (U.S. S.Ct.); (vi) 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) The pursuit of financial gain by financial institutions has reached the point of obsession. Owners are illegally claiming beneficial assets and raising rents through MCI’s, have given financial institutions (as landlords) the ability to conspire any act of supremacy. Defining the use of MCI’s may determine what a Two-Hundred ($200) to Four-Hundred ($400) increase may be every four (4) to six (6) years, however, tenants are still vulnerable to destitution. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 578 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact NYC Rent Guidelines Board Public Hearing (June 15, 2022) - Steven Talbert Williams (Testimony) NYC Rent Guidelines Board Public Hearing (June 15, 2022) - Steven Talbert Williams (Testimony), 2022 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZsai4_vqSI......................... NYC Rent Guidelines Board... more https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZsai4_vqSI......................... NYC Rent Guidelines Board Public Hearing (June 15, 2022) Steven Talbert Williams (Testimony) See June 15 (STW Testimony): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZsai4_vqSI - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6htpXFlUdr0 - - See also June 13 (STW Testimony): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZsai4_vqSI See also Final Vote, June 21: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0jFdeDfV7M See also @StevenTalbertW1 (Twitter) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Alleged Housing Ct. Settlement Offer; Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.) (Comp., Doc. 2, pg117) Alleged Housing Ct. Settlement Offer; Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.) (Comp., Doc. 2, pg117), 2022 Alleged Housing Ct. Settlement Offer Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al.... more Alleged Housing Ct. Settlement Offer Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017): See Complaint, Doc. 2, Williams, 15-cv-5114: "PLAINTIFF stated to HON. STANLEY: 'If I had it my way, I'd sue them for 25% of their annual profit, taking 5% for myself and give the other 20% to a find dedicated to people in rent stabilized apartments in prevention from ever having this happen again.' [unverified, not verbatim]" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact PUBLIC HEARINGS (NYC Rent Increases), Steven Talbert Williams (Providing Testimony) PUBLIC HEARINGS (NYC Rent Increases), Steven Talbert Williams (Providing Testimony), 2022 - PUBLIC HEARING - (NEW YORK CITY GUIDELINES BOARD) STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ... more - PUBLIC HEARING - (NEW YORK CITY GUIDELINES BOARD) STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS - ATTENDS - PROVIDING TESTIMONY OF PCV/ST MCI INCREASES & DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM JUNE 13TH Public Hearing (In-Person Public Testimony) Time: 5:00 P.M. – 9:00 P.M. *Location: Jamaica Performing Arts Center Auditorium, 153-10 Jamaica Avenue Jamaica, NY 11432 *Public can livestream meeting via YouTube feed but must participate in-person. JUNE 15TH Public Hearing (In-Person Public Testimony) Time: 4:00 P.M. – 9:00 P.M. *Location: Main Theater at Hostos Center for the Arts & Culture Hostos Community College/CUNY, 450 Grand Concourse Bronx, NY 10451 *Public can livestream meeting via YouTube feed but must participate in-person. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 82 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Appellate Statement of the Case (HIDDEN), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Appellate Statement of the Case (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Doc. 71, "MOTION, to proceed in forma pauperis,... FILED. Service date 02242020," Doc. 71.1, "LR ... more Doc. 71, "MOTION, to proceed in forma pauperis,... FILED. Service date 02242020," Doc. 71.1, "LR 24.1 STATEMENT" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), dated February 24, 2020, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.): "I STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF (alleged Cestui Que), state the dismissal of Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY) is claimed unconstitutional, due to the District Court laching upon the pursuance if discovery, when in relation to antitrust claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act (see the COMPLAINT, referencing the Post-Filing Delayed Review, Parallelism, and Parallel Plus doctrines. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 556, 570, 679 (2007), 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-67, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 5901: “ 'only a [com]plaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Id., at 556… “ 'parallel conduct is… much like a naked assertion of conspiracy in a [15 U.S.C. ]§1 complaint… ‘[T]he complaint must contain… [‘]a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of an illegal agreement[’ (‘Id. at 1965’),]… especially so in light of the potentially enormous expense of discovery in such a large antitrust case, which would imbue even a largely groundless §1 claim with… ‘in terrorem...settlement value[’ (‘Id. at 1966’)’].' "See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 'the Court found it necessary first to discuss the antitrust principles implicated by the complaint.' Id. supra 553-554). See also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 6814. See also Matter of Iqbal (at 678), citing Matter of Twombly, 'a court must proceed ‘on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)[.’]' "The unconstitutional dismissal, as claimed, was allegedly the same cause for previous dismissals in the District Court and other Federal Courts, due to the claimed laches to pursue the discovery of a valid contract for the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST and a valid claim for assets within the trust over the amount of $75,000 for a trial to be initiated. See Williams v. United States, et al., 15cv5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir.), 137 U.S. 1611(2017)(Index No. 16M111, denying 'Motion To Direct The Clerk To File The Petition Out Of Time')(U.S. S.Ct., Mar. 15, 2017) (COMP., App. M), where, within the District Court, PLAINTIFF allegedly made a valid antitrust claim (under the Sherman Antitrust Act) in complaint’s jurisdiction under '15 U.S.C.A. §26' (Id. at ¶21) . See also Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv1264(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir.) (denied on appeal) (COMP., App. O), 19-240(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir.) (man. denied) (COMP., App. P), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir.) (man. denied) (COMP., App. Q), 19-5398(U.S. S.Ct.) (pet. denied) (COMP., App. R), 19-5399(U.S. S.Ct.) (pet. denied) (COMP., App. S), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.) (pet. denied) (COMP., App. T), 19-6227(U.S. S.Ct.) (man. denied) (COMP., App. U), where PLAINTIFF initiated mandamus actions, attempting to hold the District and Appellate Court justices and employees liable for sanctions (attempting to settle immediately for revolving accounts within would provide for a public benefit to Americans)." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 95 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A (Statement of the Case), Doc. 228, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A (Statement of the Case), Doc. 228, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2016 Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A (Statement of the Case), Doc. 228, Cestui Que Steven Ta... more Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A (Statement of the Case), Doc. 228, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): " [T]his deposing affidavit as a claimed factual testimony of relevant events surrounding an alleged conspired antitrust, economic espionage... and racketeering... scheme, via the corruption of enterprises[,]... violating various provisions of PLAINTIFFs’ rights set forth within the U.S. Constitution[,]... including various provisional antitrust statutes[,] such as the Clayton Act[,... and] Sherman Antitrust Act... " It is claimed, such scheme was perpetrated so as to deter PLAINTIFF from the acquisition of beneficial assets within an Individual Retirement Account... through the inducing of a claimed illegal eviction of PLAINTIFF from a rent stabilized dwelling[ ]... of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town... The claimed illegal fiduciary acquisition of the IRA by the controlling entities (PERSHING (B.N.Y.), UBS, and FMR) is said to have occurred after PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial assets of the trust went insolvent during the final years of the 2000–2010 U.S. housing crisis, further utilized by UBS in... an Initial Public Offering... of P.S.H.[,] acquiring ownership of a mezzanine mortgaged loan of PCV/ST (TRUST2007-C30 of B.O.A.), as such Commercial Mortgaged-Backed Securitized ('CMBS') loan was the leading investment loan in a series of tranches... " [O]wners of PCV/ST profited from real property assets (malicious raising of rental prices), but... additionally utilized such reinvested assets to invest within a gambling casino corporation (P.N.K.); whereby... BLACKROCK,... 'control[led] ‘9.65%’ of beneficial assets in Pinnacle[ (P.N.K.)], as such was amended upon the onset of the 2010[.]' In essence, the assets of the PCV/ST community and within Trust LPSW,... were returned to BLACKROCK. " But why then would the property of PCV/ST be further sold to the financial entity of BLACKSTONE GRP., through the claimed illegal use of municipal bonds[?]" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.1 (History of the Case: Summarized), Doc. 229, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.1 (History of the Case: Summarized), Doc. 229, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2016 Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.1 (History of the Case: Summarized), Doc. 229, Cestui Q... more Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.1 (History of the Case: Summarized), Doc. 229, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "1.... MR. LAURENCE D. FINK (CEO of BLACKROCK),... felt obligated to continue good financial relations with BLACKSTONE,... as the real property of PCV/ST was seen as a 'gift' of sorts, where the investments of the community [are] further alleged to be a property of substantial profit... "2.... [T]he entire scheme is claimed to have originated from the end of the 19th Century... [War savings Bonds] "3.... [A]ccumulated foreign debt... [led to] levying of income tax,... [through] the Revenue Act in 1921,... to utilize even higher rates in sales tax upon wealthier U.S. Citizens and corporations to stabilize the nation’s debt;... "5... [W]hich further led to tax-exempt bonds utilized by corporations... within affordable congressional housing Acts,... utilizing such tax- exempt securitized bonds (and other tax-exempt investments), with the sixty year limitation, utilized within the community of PCV/ST... [ ]directly associated to the rent stabilization laws of the early 1970’s[ ]... "10.... [T]he shepardizing of Revenue Acts of 1918, 1921 and 1932 led to the utilization of tax-exempt bonds within C.W. (B.N.Y.) RMBS’s[;]... as such use of tax-exempt bonds after World War I and the Great Depression, accruing extreme amounts in foreign debt,... "11. It is alleged, it was the 'debt' portion of bond investments which Congress wished to avoid through enacting the TIA[;]... keeping the government, as a federal corporation, solely liable and avoiding the intervention by private enterprise... "12.... B.O.A. is the controlling financial institution in ownership of the CMBS trusts associated to the community of PCV/ST[,... and] additionally the parent corporation for Decedents’ IRA associated to Trust LPSW... [T]he Retirement Board of the Policemen Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, is stated as having their investments under... the CMBS trusts and BONDHOLDERS associated to the community of PCV/ST (namely CALPERS and CALSTRS), but also to the New York State Retirement System (in control of police retirement funds), claimed to be directly connected to claims of enterprise corruption associated to the D.H.S. (N.Y.P.D.), M.T.A. (N.Y.P.D.) and W.P.P.D. as named defendants. Such affiliated institutions incurred a severe loss in assets due to the Housing Crisis, where the replenishment of assets were desperately needed... "13.... PCV/ST (during MetLife’s ownership and after the enactment of rent stabilization laws), seemed nothing more than a lucrative investment to strive to acquire... "14.... [T]he PCV/ST property is alleged to have been specifically desired by BLACKSTONE,... " a.... claimed to have conflicted with future events of the housing crisis, specifically those related to the 'Maiden lane II' and 'Bids Wanted In Competition' ('BWIC') auctions[,]... where BLACKROCK further utilized such acquired investments (obtained through the enactment of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008) within the community of PCV/ST and within a check clearing firm of Trust LPSW, JP MORGAN, where assets were attempted to be replenished from the housing crisis... "15.... [I]t was through the securitized investments and upgrades to the PCV/ST community which BLACKROCK found as an attractive quality, and where such investments could then be transferred to BLACKSTONE... "16.... [T]he use of Decedents’ IRA assets within the bail-out of the PCV/ST community[,] from the previously mentioned defaulted mortgage by P.S.H[,]... laid the proper setting... to eventually eliminate the use of tax- exempt bonds... and to further provide the newly renovated property... as an intended 'gift' to... BLACKSTONE;... "17.... [T]he use of SNB’s provided the newly acquired owners the allowance to distribute the originally acquired tax-exempt bonds of 1942, or prior, to foreign markets... via Eurobonds; thereby eliminating the restrictions placed upon MetLife as a Redevelopment corporation through the enacting of local New York State Redevelopment laws..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3 ("Letter of Emergency to the United States Supreme Court"), Doc. 231, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3 ("Letter of Emergency to the United States Supreme Court"), Doc. 231, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3 - HIGHLIGHTED PASSAGES FROM “LETTER OF EMERGENCY TO T... more Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3 - HIGHLIGHTED PASSAGES FROM “LETTER OF EMERGENCY TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,” Doc. 231, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): PART A. 3 – HIGHLIGHTED PASSAGES FROM “LETTER OF EMERGENCY TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3.a ("Letter of Emergency[;]... Emphasis on Economic Espionage & Enterprise Corruption"), Doc. 232, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3.a ("Letter of Emergency[;]... Emphasis on Economic Espionage & Enterprise Corruption"), Doc. 232, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3.a - HIGHLIGHTED PASSAGES OF THE “LETTER OF EMERGENCY ... more Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.3.a - HIGHLIGHTED PASSAGES OF THE “LETTER OF EMERGENCY TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:” EMPHASIS ON ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE & ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION, Doc. 232, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): PART A.3.a – HIGHLIGHTED PASSAGES OF THE “LETTER OF EMERGENCY TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:” EMPHASIS ON ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE & ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 3 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] Seeking JOURNALISTS - REPORTERS Seeking JOURNALISTS - REPORTERS, 2022 Job Type: Contract (Consortium & Non-Disclosure Agreement) Pay: 10,000 - 5,000,000/ann. Seekin... more Job Type: Contract (Consortium & Non-Disclosure Agreement) Pay: 10,000 - 5,000,000/ann. Seeking news media for full article and publicity for: ***PLAUSIBILITY STANDARD*** Williams v. United States, et al. UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DENIED right to have a discovery conference (post-filing delayed dismissal doctrine, "plausibility standard," Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (2007)). See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, (2007) (Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 425 F.3d 99 (2005)). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678 (2002). See also Cryer v. Commissioner of IRS, Dock. No. 8118-09 (U.S. T.C., 2013). See also 55 Fordham L. Rev. 1165 (1987). See also 9 Fed. Ct. L. Rev. 79 (Spring 2016). See also 110 Mich. L. Rev. 393 (2011). See also 60 Fordham L. Rev. 257 (1991). See also “Twombly’s New ‘Plausibility’ Standard for Complaints[:] A New Special Pleading Rule for Antitrust or Complex Case Plaintiffs, or for All Plaintiffs?” See also “Tightening Twiqbal: Why Plausibility Must Be Confined to the Complaint.” Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Government of the Lao People's, No. 10 Civ. 5256, "sanctions... for [ ] misconduct in discovery[.]" See Brief (Doc. 129), Id. at 37, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir.) See U.S. S.Ct. Docket Nos: (i) 137 US 1611(https://t.co/VlOXKCoeuY); (ii) 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.) (https://t.co/6TjoGTt5ov); (iii) 19-5399 (U.S. S.Ct.) (https://t.co/Ze2UkaMbew); (iv) 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.) (https://t.co/I79cTtqMEH); (v) 19-6227 (U.S. S.Ct.) (https://t.co/JGmAvGmrQB); and (vi) 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) (https://t.co/zFVWeryInb) Williams v. USA, et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.) (Comp., https://t.co/vKzuYmMXJu), 20-451(2nd Cir.)(denied on appeal) (Brief, https://t.co/6vXy8bwkUC) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact News Media - I was DENIED my rights to a DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (Part 1) News Media - I was DENIED my rights to a DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (Part 1), 2022 DISCOVERY CONFERENCE: The Post Filing Delayed Dismissal Doctrine (for Post Filing Delayed Review... more DISCOVERY CONFERENCE: The Post Filing Delayed Dismissal Doctrine (for Post Filing Delayed Review) is the only reference to a claim for the Sherman Antitrust Act (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)); however, the Federal Courts usually dismiss cases based upon Rule 8(a) and its “law or fact” provision. The Plausibility Standard (for Rule 8(a)) is analyzed through: (i) BELL ATLANTIC CORP. v. TWOMBLY, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), “plausibility standard,” where “only a [com]plaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss;” (ii) ASHCROFT v. IQBAL, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, 679 (2007), 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 2007 U.S. LENS 5901, “a court must proceed ‘on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact);’” and (iii) ERICKSON v. PARDUS, 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007), “a pro se prisoner’s conclusory allegation... was sufficient to satisfy the new ‘plausibility’ stan[dard (‘Id. at 2200’).] The Court cited both Twombly and ‘the liberal pleading standards set forth by Rule 8(a)(2)’ to support this result[ (‘Id.’)... T]he standard is all but an engraved invitation to judicial activism[.]” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact News Media - I was DENIED my rights to a DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (Part 2) News Media - I was DENIED my rights to a DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (Part 2), 2022 DISCOVERY CONFERENCE: The Post Filing Delayed Dismissal Doctrine (for Post Filing Delayed Review... more DISCOVERY CONFERENCE: The Post Filing Delayed Dismissal Doctrine (for Post Filing Delayed Review) is the only reference to a claim for the Sherman Antitrust Act (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)); however, the Federal Courts usually dismiss cases based upon Rule 8(a) and its “law or fact” provision. The Plausibility Standard (for Rule 8(a)) is analyzed through: (i) BELL ATLANTIC CORP. v. TWOMBLY, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), “plausibility standard,” where “only a [com]plaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss;” (ii) ASHCROFT v. IQBAL, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, 679 (2007), 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 2007 U.S. LENS 5901, “a court must proceed ‘on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact);’” and (iii) ERICKSON v. PARDUS, 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007), “a pro se prisoner’s conclusory allegation... was sufficient to satisfy the new ‘plausibility’ stan[dard (‘Id. at 2200’).] The Court cited both Twombly and ‘the liberal pleading standards set forth by Rule 8(a)(2)’ to support this result[ (‘Id.’)... T]he standard is all but an engraved invitation to judicial activism[.]” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES" (HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS), Doc. 2, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.) "PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES" (HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS), Doc. 2, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 2015 "PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES" (HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS) (COMPLAINT), Doc. 2, Cestui Que Steve... more "PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES" (HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS) (COMPLAINT), Doc. 2, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017): THE REASONING OF THE PETITION: - To address antitrust claims of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST which caused Civil Rights claims - Antitrust claims are presented within PRELIMINARY CONFERENCES (DISCOVERY CONFERENCES) - To address PRETRIAL HEARINGS for claimed prima facie evidence against: (i) NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE for laches to remand to a superior court the trial of People v. Steven Talbert Williams, Index 2012NY089333; and (ii) Public Officers of the METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (a claimed DELAY to adjudicate upon an UNCONSTITUTIONAL Kings County (Brooklyn, NY) S.Ct. JUDGMENT (which excluded an index number). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES Nature of Suit: Civil Rights / Other (Antitrust) "This petition is... to be presented to Congress, as such is in enforcement of the Petitioner's First Amendment rights. This document is in accordance with its use as a complaint, as regulated by Civ. R. 27(a)(4)[ ] and... Civ. R. 27 (b)(3)... "[A] requested pretrial conference has been established, by way of Civ. R. 16,... [i]s requested within the attached 'Letter to the Clerk[']... "1. The Petitioner, under 42 USC 1983, by way of Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Laws & Regulations ('CPLR'), states this redress is caused, primarily, by the events which proceeded after the disputed eviction[,]... evidenced through ST Owner LP v. Steven Williams; Eugene Williams [Index No. 529069/12]... " (e) He claims such eviction was due to the insolvency of the Estate of Linda P. S. Williams, which pertains to the [PCV/ST ]owner's having knowledge of the decedent's... trust fund and firms and with a renter's insurance fraud, whose policy was placed on the dwelling unit of 449 East 14th street, apartment 7d New York, NY 10009. " (f) He claims this eviction is the cause to all alleged offences of this petition and should be investigated thoroughly to prove such. "2. This petition, the Petitioner states, is in relevance to a false imprisonment within the Montgomery County Correctional Facility ('MCCF')... " (b) He states, such matter shall have to be addressed after the requested enjoining of the estate going to probate... "3. As a matter of jurisdiction, the Petitioner states this petition shall deal first and foremost,... with a class action suit with... police officers who provided an allegedly illegal accusatory instrument, for which is mentioned in the attached, incomplete, deposition supporting this petition. "4. As a matter of jurisdiction,... this petition shall deal secondly with the neglect of the District Attorney ('D.A.') of the county of New York surrounding the case of People v. Steven Talbert Williams Index No. 2012NY089333... "PART II - REASON FOR IMMEDIATE ADJUDICATION FOR GRIEVANCES... "[5]. The Petitioner, as a process of immediacy, insists allowance by the SDNY to expedite the proceeding of the Transit Adjudication Bureau[,]... as opposed to addressing the abandoned [dismissal ]motion and adjournment of... People v. Steven Talbert Williams[, ]Index No. 2012NY089333[ ]... " (a) He insists the court enjoin the two proceedings... "[6]. The Petitioner states the TAB trial concerning an accusatory instrument,... has been extended from its original date[,]... to be held on July 1st, 2015... "[8]. The Petitioner insists the court see fit to relate all matters of redress contained within the petition to the insolvency of the Estate of Linda P. S. Williams and the disputed eviction... " (a) He alleges the eviction was perpetrated through the illegal withholding of information... " (1) He states he requested the lease of renewal be signed in his name. He claims he provided two years of bill payments, paid on the property in his name, and presented such verification to the legal representative of [PCV/ST]... " (B) Additionally, he attests to facts that the case title was intentionally altered to ST Owner LP v. Eugene Williams, suggesting his father, 'Eugene Williams,' initiated trial proceedings when in fact his father never took part in any of the events. The Petitioner claims it was solely himself who provided the initial Order to Show Cause, as he represented himself as a pro se litigant... " (2) He states, not only had he provided such proof of succession, but the lawyer insisted other proof[,]... 'something official from the government,' to which the Petitioner then returned home, acquired a letter from the Internal Revenue Service ('IRS')[,]... an offense under civil rights governing... national origin... " (c) He states such forceful eviction, which deactivated his key card to allow entry into his apartment building, the destruction of his upper lock and the removal of all property were all illegal activities... " (1) He claims the displacement has brought upon unwarranted hardships and discrepancies between the relationships[,]... as well as attempts to complete tax filings... "[10]. Petitioner provided service of an 'Order to Show Cause' upon Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., located at 377 Broadway New York, N.Y. 10013-3993... "[11]. The Petitioner, as mentioned in Title VII[,] highlights the following essential facts as being worthy of noting: a renters' insurance policy attached to the real property; withheld from obtaining a new lease by CWCap.;... Petitioners' tax returns which would have prevented eviction[;]... and other financial assets of the estate, which, if probated, would have provided the Petitioner a surety of protection,... such as a Testamentary Trust, naming the Petitioner as sole beneficiary, and life insurance policies, which include amounts for accidental death benefits. The accidental death benefits are in light of the decedents' eleven year battle with cancer;... "[12]. The Petitioner, claims the eviction was an act perpetrated by CWCap. to intentionally rid rent stabilized tenants from the community in order to receive a greater return through market valued apartments,... CWCap. executed such, as the Petitioner claims, with and overwhelming prejudice against stabilized tenants[,]... with partial prejudice towards tenants of color and economic status. "[13]. The Petitioner insists the court place a focus on past ownership and their inquiries into financial background checks of tenants,... [which] would have provided CWCap. knowledge of the decedent’s Trust, life insurance policies and other personal information[,]... aid[ing] in establishing motive for the alleged improper eviction. "[15]. The eviction, the Petitioner alleges, was in order to prevent him from obtaining the beneficial assets of the Decedent,... so long as he was suppressed under events of duress." Id. at Redress, Doc. 2, 10-15. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 48 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "AMENDED COMPLAINT" (p.29, ¶21), Doc. 17, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) "AMENDED COMPLAINT" (p.29, ¶21), Doc. 17, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 2015 See Williams, 15-cv-5114 (SDNY) Doc. 17, "AMENDED COMPLAINT" (Id. at 29, ¶21), APPENDIX I (Id.... more See Williams, 15-cv-5114 (SDNY) Doc. 17, "AMENDED COMPLAINT" (Id. at 29, ¶21), APPENDIX I (Id. at App. I.c, p.59, ¶21) "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET) In Re. Docs. 64-67, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (ALK)(DJ)(BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611(2017) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact NEW EVIDENCE (UBS Reinvested into PSH's IPO), Plaintiff Sought a New Trial: Doc. 66, Williams, 16-189cv (2nd Cir. Ct.) NEW EVIDENCE (UBS Reinvested into PSH's IPO), Plaintiff Sought a New Trial: Doc. 66, Williams, 16-189cv (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2016 NEW EVIDENCE (UBS Reinvested into PSH's IPO) Plaintiff Sought a New Trial: See: Cestui Que Ste... more NEW EVIDENCE (UBS Reinvested into PSH's IPO) Plaintiff Sought a New Trial: See: Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (ALK)(DJ)(BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.): Doc. 66, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (DRAFT) (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET) Dated December 20, 2016 "11. Plaintiff stipulates, newly discovered evidence specifically consists of Pershing Square Holdings Grp., LLC’s ('PSH’s') Initial Public Offering ('IPO') 'PROSPECTUS' (Exhibit 13), wherein the company utilized the overall Assets Under Management ('AUM') of UBS Group AG ('UBS,' the current controlling partnered entity of Trust LPSW, alongside Pershing (BNY)) as 'Underwriter' to the IPO, as well as the services of J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC ('JPSec.,' a wholly owned subsidiary of J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 'JPMorgan') and BNY (via Dr. Martin Peretz of Dreyfus-Mellon Bank Group); whereby JPMorgan and BNY were the original check clearing entities of Trust LPSW. "[11.]a. Involvement by JPMorgan and BNY within PSH’s IPO is particularly relevant due to their overall funds utilized during the time of the eviction (2012), where PSH and Winthrop Realty Trust partnered to form PSW NYC, LLP ('PSW') and utilizing PSW to intentionally purchase defaulted mortgages of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST') (namely the senior loan, Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2007-C30, 'Trust2007-C30') by Tishman Speyer Crown Equities, LLC ('Tishman') and BlackRock Realty Advisors, Inc. ('BlackRock') (collectively 'Tishman/BlackRock'). "[11.a.]i. As reiterated, UBS and Pershing are the institutions currently holding 'fiduciary' control of Trust LPSW, reinvesting and/or withholding assets of the IRA; relating such to the newly revised subdivision (j) of 29 C.F.R. §2510.3-21[ ] by the United States Department of Labor (named defendant for an alleged unconstitutional N.Y.S. Unemployment Insurance Benefit hearing), as well as UBS’s illegal use of dark pools (FOOTNOTE 4) to make fraudulent investments, namely Collateral Debt Obligations, ('CDO’s'), wherein the CDO loan of PCV/ST (Trust2007-C30) is also connected to other invested CDO’s such as the LB-UBS 2007-C1 Trust Fund ('TrustLB-UBS,' 'loan number 4' of Trust2007-C30), acquired by State Street Research & Management Company (just one of many CDO’s utilized by UBS and Pershing (BNY) after the neglect to provide Plaintiff ownership of Trust LPSW upon reaching his designated custodial age).[ ] See a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ('FINRA') publication (Exhibit 15), entitled 'FINRA Fines Pershing LLC $3 Million for Customer Protection:[ ]'... "12. In light of the newly acquired evidence, presented above, Plaintiff (upon approval of this petition) respectfully seeks the allowance to enjoin additional defendants." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact U.S. S.Ct. Questions, "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI," In Re. Doc. 68, Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 U.S. 1611 (2017) U.S. S.Ct. Questions, "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI," In Re. Doc. 68, Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 U.S. 1611 (2017), 2016 In Ref. Doc. 68, U.S. S.Ct. Questions, "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (DRAFTED - Original alle... more In Ref. Doc. 68, U.S. S.Ct. Questions, "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (DRAFTED - Original allegedly stolen), Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 U.S. 1611 (2017): DISCLAIMER Due to claims against the N.Y.P.D. (20TH PRECINCT) stealing PLAINTIFFs’ personal property (containing most evidence of this trial matter, which were preciously filed within CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., 137 U.S.1611(2017)), as such was shortly after an event where PLAINTIFF filed a police report (Complaint Report No. “3687.” [highlighting and emphasis added]) with the 20th for having his 137 U.S. 1611(2017) documents (namely the certiorari petition with exhibits) allegedly stolen from him after sleeping at Richard Tucker Park (located at Columbus Avenue and 66th Street) at approximately 5:15 in the morning, on the date of September 6, 2017, PLAINTIFF unfortunately is unable to provide the District Court of S.D.N.Y. proper evidence in support of his complaint. However, most of the evidence is still filed in the Supreme Court of the United States and some still in PLAINTIFFs’ possession, as such are presented to the Court in accompanying exhibited documents. "The aforementioned questions are presented to the Supreme Court of the United States... for review in opposition of the 'MOTION ORDER' ('MANDATE,' 'Document 35,' filed May 18, 2016, Docket No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.), Appendix A), the Southern District Court of the State of New York... 'ORDER OF DISMISSAL' ('Document 18,' Appendix B) and 'CIVIL JUDGMENT' ('Document 19,' Appendix C) (both filed December 10, 2015 within Docket No. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY)),... as well as the accompanying filings of the U.S. S.Ct.’s 'MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,' 'AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,' and Plaintiffs’ 'Affidavit In Support Of Petition For Writ Of Certiorari (Mandamus/Sine Qua Non/Order Nisi)'... and 'Motion For Extraordinary Relief (28 U.S.C. §1929)'... U.S. S.Ct. Rule 10(a) to (c), 11 (see 28 U.S.C. §2101(c)[)],... as such may be afforded via the filing of 'Motion For Extension Or Stay Of Limitations: In Forma Pauperis & Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, et seq.,' U.S. S.Ct. Rule 13.5), 12.2, 12.3, 20.1 to 20.3 (see... 'Affidavit Of Proof Of Service, In Kind: Motion For Extraordinary Relief'); Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b)(2); 18 U.S.C. §§3173, 3174, 3771(a), (b), (d)(1); 28 U.S.C.§§1257(a), 1651(a), 1657, 2101(f). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact U.S. SUPREME COURT’S ACT OF WAR Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 8 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "FITTED FUND" (A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER "FSB"), Williams, 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) "FITTED FUND" (A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER "FSB"), Williams, 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 2022 * "FITTED FUND - (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET OF A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER 'FSB' (FITTE... more * "FITTED FUND - (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET OF A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER 'FSB' (FITTED SOLE BANK; A PRIVATE INVESTMENT BANK))," dated April 4, 2022, Doc. 21 (dated April 18, 2019), Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.): " As stated within the 'Motion For Injunctive Relief: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Sé Intake Unit' ('Inj.,' Doc. 21 of Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.)), Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), sought damages against: (i) officers and officials of the United States Department of Justice ('U.S.D.O.J.') for claims of 'contempt and conspired retaliatory and discriminatory judicial estoppel (promissory and collateral)[,]… as an accessory after the fact to antitrust claims' (Id. at Inj. 38); (ii) financial institutions of the 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST' ('Trust LPSW.' Id. at 'Exhibit 4,' 3, 44, 69, 70); (iii) financial institutions in ownership of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST'); and (iv) other defendants for claims of civil rights offenses related to the illegal reinvesting of Trust LPSW assets into the community of PCV/ST, which induced a claimed illegal eviction and subversion within impoverishment. As proposed within the Inj., PLAINTIFF sought damages to acquire 'appropriated gifts… as an additional interest (under FRAP 37(a); U.S. S.Ct. Rule 42.1), appropriated from funding for the validation of civil rights offenses (under Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 18 U.S.C. Ch. 13; 42 U.S.C. §2000d, et. seq., including 28 C.F.R. Part 0, 1, 9, Subpart I and J)…[as a reporting] crime victim[ ]' (Id. at 61), as well as other assets (including 'civil and criminal forfeiture (28 U.S.C. §2461).' Id. at 49), 'in conjunction with an offered settlement' (Id. at 45), where '[t]he establishment of a contract with the U.S. TREAS.,… may provide for numerous revolving accounts' (Id. at 86) and 'acquisition of federally owned lands as provided gifts (¶¶22, 30), or feoffment' (Id. at 125). The Fitted Fund, is depicted within the Inj. as 'a contractual real property investment fund… sought so as to lift any monetary burden placed upon defendants' (Id. at 50) upon acceptance of the settlement offer. The Fitted Fund is requested for establishment as a 'bonded surety revolving account, sought as a contractual real property investment fund' (Id.); 'as such may provide for the revising or establishing of local and federal legislation' (Id.), 'incorporating the use of contractual agreements within local counties for the acquisition of real property assets from deed and lien auctions' (Id. at 90). The Fitted Fund’s establishment as a Revolving Loan Fund ('RLF'), 'set[s] a plausible scenario for profitable gain from the sale of one-hundred (100) properties within a three month period, where interest is distributed to the U.S. Government' (Id. at 98). The Fitted Fund’s investment use as a RLF has been conceptualized to provide a structural investment strategy with the use of tax sale property prior to their sale at auction, as well as incorporate securitized investments as financial security to the fund. The Fitted Fund’s real property investment platform is presented as a structurally tiered surety of mortgage scheme, to stabilize any concern the U.S. Government may have over a pro sé litigant acquiring a settlement account through the U.S. Department of Treasury. In furtherance of explanation, the Fitted Fund utilizes an initial three (3) properties per one (1) defendant, where the sale of one (1) property may be utilized to fund the assigning and 'sale of [ ] two other properties (one (1) distressed and one (1) equivalent in value to their existing home)' (Id. at 101). The Fitted Fund is sought for 'overs[ight] by PLAINTIFF [so as to] monitor[ ] construction to [ ] distressed property and… investments at closing (ensuring longevity to the Fitted Fund[)].' The Fitted Fund seeks to incorporate intellectual property ('IP') as a surety of mortgage 'where IP may be used… at closing; as well as a clause to provide… three (3) other property investments (accrued from sale of the original two properties; two of which are distressed) [from the sale of one (1) of the two (2) properties with the use of IP, thereby] inducing another investment opportunity for the [defendant, after acquiring an appraisers and inspectors license, to indoctorate an ]‘apprentice investor’ [when] offer[ing an agreement at] closing, and so on.'" * FOOTNOTE 1: This document is enforced under Federal laws pertaining to copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. §502), as well as financial and business trade secrets (5 U.S.C. §§552, 552a). See "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT (EXHIBITS 1 TO 48)," Docs. 112, 113, 133, dated April 18, 2019, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 21), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams, Pro Sé Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al.: (i) 137 US 1611 (https://t.co/... more Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al.: (i) 137 US 1611 (https://t.co/VlOXKCoeuY); (ii) 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.) (https://t.co/6TjoGTt5ov); (iii) 19-5399 (U.S. S.Ct.) (https://t.co/Ze2UkaMbew); (iv) 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.) (https://t.co/I79cTtqMEH); (v) 19-6227 (U.S. S.Ct.) (https://t.co/JGmAvGmrQB); and (vi) 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) (https://t.co/zFVWeryInb) Williams v. USA, et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.) (Comp., https://t.co/vKzuYmMXJu), 20-451(2nd Cir.)(denied on appeal) (Brief, https://t.co/6vXy8bwkUC) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Plausibility Standard (Responsive Pleadings); Williams v. US, et al., 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) Plausibility Standard (Responsive Pleadings); Williams v. US, et al., 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.), 2022 Plausibility Standard (Responsive Pleadings) See Brief (Plausibility Standard, Rule 8a) Doc. 129... more Plausibility Standard (Responsive Pleadings) See Brief (Plausibility Standard, Rule 8a) Doc. 129, Williams v. US, et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.) https://academia.edu/55693555/Williams_v_US_et_al_19cv11547_CM_SDNY_20_451_2nd_Cir_Brief_Doc_129_ --------------------------------------------------------------- #Discovery "Motion For Discovery: Notice of Derivatives W/in The Linda Williams Beneficial Trust, In Rem," Doc. 7, Williams v. US, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.): "(ii) validation of a valid antitrust claim under the Sherman Antitrust Act (for ‘fraud.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b))... where discovery (under Fed. R. Civ. P. 2[7]) of valid financial contracts and securitized trust assets for antitrust fraud claims... are mandatory to prevent dismissal of a District Court complaint[.]" "Twombly’s ‘Plausibility’ Standard for Complaints[:] A New Special Pleading Rule for Antitrust or Complex Case Plaintiffs, or for All Plaintiffs?," #PlausibilityStandard, by Tillman L. Lay, #TillmanLay: "Twombly arose out of a class action Sherman Act complaint[.]" #PlausibilityStandard, #9FedCtLRev79, #Twiqbal: "Justice Souter laid the seeds for a new era of pleading practices. Stating a claim under section 1,... would require a complaint ‘with enough factual matter... to suggest that an agreement was made[’ (‘Id. at 556’).]" #PlausibilityStandard, #TillmanLay: "Erickson held that a pro se prisoner’s conclusory allegation… was sufficient to satisfy the new ‘plausibility’ stan[dard (‘ Id. at 2200’)... T]he standard is all but an engraved invitation to judicial activism[.]" Opinion of J. Souter #Twombly: "The question… is whether a §1 complaint can survive a motion to dismiss when it alleges... parallel conduct unfavorable to competition, absent some factual context suggesting agreement[.]" #Iqbal: "‘Rule 8,… govern[s] the pleading standard ‘in all civil actions,’ Rule 1, the case applies to antitrust and discrimination suits alike, see 550 U.S., at 555-556, and n.14 P.20[.]" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), #Twombly, “only a [com]plaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Id., at 556.” #MatterofTwombly #PlausibilityStandard, #TillmanLay: "One would expect… that... contract breaches[ ]... are the exception[;]... therefore,… [A]ny plaintiff should draft its complaint with Twombly in mind.” #PostfilingDelayedDismissal #ShermanAntitrustAct #Discovery #DiscoveryConference #55FordhamLRev1165 (See "Tingler v. Marshall, 716 F.2d 1109, [1111, ] 1112 (6th Cir. 1983)… holding dismissal on merits prior to responsive pleadings improper’)." Opinion of J. Souter #Twombly: "Liability under... Sherman Act 15 U. S. C. §1 requires a ‘contract combination[,]… or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce.’" #PlausibilityStandard, #9FedCtLRev79, "Tightening Twiqbal: Why Plausibility Must Be Confined to the Complaint," #Twiqbal Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 487 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact PLAUSIBILITY STANDARD (Erickson v. Pardus), Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.) (New Evid. on Appeal) PLAUSIBILITY STANDARD, 2022 See Brief, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.)... more See Brief, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.): "STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION (FRAP 28(A)(4) "5. Jurisdiction (FRAP 28(a)(4)) is invoked under:... "d. U.S. Const. Am. 5 (Due Process), Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, 8(a)(2), 9 (fraud) and 28 U.S.C. §1915, in review of common laws entailing the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 (15 U.S.C. 1 to 7), the Clayton Act of 1914 (15 U.S.C. 12 to 27), the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §§2201-2202) and the 'Post-Filing Delayed Review Doctrine' (see 55 Fordham L. Rev. 1165 (1987),[ ] 'if the plaintiff meets the financial criteria' [emphasis added]), wherein the 'financial criteria' of a granted In Forma Pauperis ('IFP'), validating a complaint for antitrust claims, must first be validated through discovery of a valid trust contract and assets for the matter to proceed; the 'plausibility standard' (Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007))); additional common laws for validating antitrust claims are jurisdictionally appropriate through: " i. common laws for a discovery process, during responsive pleadings, upon filing a complaint (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4) and IFP. See 55 Fordham L. Rev. 1165 (1987)[;]... " ii. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), frivolousness, when a complaint 'lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact [;]' " iii. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly ('Twombly'), 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), 'only a [com]plaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Id., at 556[;]' [emphasis added]... " iv. Erickson v. Pardus (“Erickson”), 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007). See Spiegel & McDiarmid, LLP,[ ] 'Twombly’s New ‘Plausibility’ Standard for Complaints [:] A New Special Pleading Rule for Antitrust or Complex Case Plaintiffs, or for All Plaintiffs?' ('Twombly’s ‘Plausibility’ Standard for Complaints,' by Mr. Tillman L. Lay)[ ]... See also a Federal Court Law Review publication,[ ] entitled 'Tightening Twiqbal: Why Plausibility Must Be Confined to the Complaint ' ('9 Fed. Ct. L. Rev. 79 (Spring 2016),' by Mr. Justin Rand)[;]... " v. Ashcroft v. Iqbal ('Iqbal'), 556 U.S. 678 (2002), citing Twombly, 'a court must proceed ‘on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)[.’]' [emphasis added] See Iqbal additionally stating, '‘Rule 8,…govern[s] the pleading standard ‘in all civil actions,’ Rule 1,… applies to antitrust and discrimination suits alike, see 550 U. S., at 555-556, and n. 14 P. 20[;'' [emphasis added] and] " vi. Cryer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services ('Cryer'), Dock. No. 8118-09 (U.S. T.C., 2013), for determining the existence of fraud (Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)) in an antitrust matter, during discovery, prior to the granting of an IFP for the complaint to 'survive dismissal' (9 Fed. Ct. L. Rev. 79 (Spring 2016))[.]" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Black Lives Matter - SLIP LAW PROPOSAL: "DEPRIVED ECONOMINC STATUS," Doc. 2, Ex. 20, Williams, 19-cv-1547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) Black Lives Matter SLIP LAW PROPOSAL: "DEPRIVED ECONOMINC STATUS," Doc. 2, Ex. 20, Williams, 19-cv-1547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 Black Lives Matter - SLIP LAW PROPOSAL: "DEPRIVED ECONOMINC STATUS," Doc. 2 (Williams 19-cv-11547... more Black Lives Matter - SLIP LAW PROPOSAL: "DEPRIVED ECONOMINC STATUS," Doc. 2 (Williams 19-cv-11547), Ex. 20, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "III.I.1. SUBSEQUENT JURISDICTION: CLASS ACTIONS... "224. For purposes of the overall matter, the use of local statutes... are essential for determining offenses and sought for shepardizing, wherein both federal and local statutes (under U.S. Const. Art. 1 §7) shall include within their provisions PLAINTIFFs’ conceptualized legal reference of 'Deprived Economic Status'[ 'a personally conceptualized sought after addition to federal statutes, by proposal, and is enforced under the Copyright Act of 1909, as amended, and other intellectual property statutes; as such may be considered a trade secret due to PLAINTIFFs’ intent to form an independent legal business upon the onset of trial proceedings, so as to acquire assistant employees to handle to extreme extent of trial matters.'] ('D.E.S.'); a revision to civil rights statutes, as such term has been previously depicted within judicial canons for Administrative Law Judges ('ALJ') as 'socioeconomic' status (mentioned within §100.3(b)(4), (b)(5) of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge). See Exhibit 20, 'Slip Law Proposal: Deprived Economic Status' ('D.E.S. Proposal'). See also 'Petition For Class Action Remedy: Deprived Economic Status (42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1983, 1985(3))' ('D.E.S. Class Action')..." Id. at Comp., Doc. 2-1, at 66; Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact HOUSING CRISIS (CMBS Motive) (Part 1), Petitioner's tie to PCV/ST (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac), FMR (Fidelity - Vin Cipolla) & the Entertainment Community HOUSING CRISIS (CMBS Motive) (Part 1), Petitioner's tie to PCV/ST (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac), FMR (Fidelity - Vin Cipolla) & the Entertainment Community, 2022 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact HOUSING CRISIS (CMBS Motive) (Part 2), Petitioner's tie to PCV/ST (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac), FMR (Fidelity - Vin Cipolla) & the Entertainment Community HOUSING CRISIS (CMBS Motive) (Part 2), Petitioner's tie to PCV/ST (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac), FMR (Fidelity - Vin Cipolla) & the Entertainment Community, 2022 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact HOUSING CRISIS (CMBS Motive) (Part 3), Petitioner's tie to PCV/ST (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac), FMR (Fidelity - Vin Cipolla) & the Entertainment Community HOUSING CRISIS (CMBS Motive) (Part 3), Petitioner's tie to PCV/ST (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac), FMR (Fidelity - Vin Cipolla) & the Entertainment Community, 2022 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact HOUSING CRISIS (CMBS Motive) (Part 4), Petitioner's tie to PCV/ST (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac), FMR (Fidelity - Vin Cipolla) & the Entertainment Community HOUSING CRISIS (CMBS Motive) (Part 4), Petitioner's tie to PCV/ST (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac), FMR (Fidelity - Vin Cipolla) & the Entertainment Community https://twitter.com/StevenTalbertW1/status/1213501475625820160 "Obama signs $787bn economic st... more https://twitter.com/StevenTalbertW1/status/1213501475625820160 "Obama signs $787bn economic stimulus bill" (by Ewen MacAskill, February 17, 2009) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/17/obama-administration-stimulus-bill "President Barack Obama today signed into law one of the most expensive bills in US history, a $787bn (£551bn) emergency stimulus package on which he is pinning hopes of saving America's tumbling economy... "The new law, which aims to save or create an estimated 3.6m jobs, puts him on course to achieve the most ambitious first 100 days in office since Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s... "The legislation, which Congress passed on Friday, comes only four weeks after Obama's inauguration... "The $787bn is a long way from the $150bn-plus stimulus package that Obama had been speaking about on the campaign trail, illustrating the speed with which the crisis has worsened over the last year... "Michael Bloomberg, the New York mayor, said the money could save 14,000 jobs for teachers and 1,000 jobs for police officers,... "A further $81bn will go towards improved unemployment benefits..." WRAPUP 7-Obama unveils plan to tackle housing crisis (by Caren Bohan, Jeff Mason) https://www.reuters.com/article/obama/wrapup-7-obama-unveils-plan-to-tackle-housing-crisis-idUSN1740025420090219 "FEBRUARY 18, 2009 "Up to $275 billion put aside for housing help... "U.S. President Barack Obama pledged up to $275 billion[,]... part of a broad effort using massive sums of government money to lift the country out of recession... "Obama, who a day earlier signed into law a landmark $787 billion economic stimulus package,... "'In the end, the home mortgage crisis, the financial crisis, and this broader economic crisis are interconnected,'... "U.S. stock prices dipped after government data showed a drop in housing... "[R]ising unemployment, frozen credit and the housing crisis... "FANNIE AND FREDDIE "The home foreclosure plan features a $75 billion fund[,]... $25 billion from housing finance firms Fannie Mae [ ] and Freddie Mac[.] "It also draws on up to $200 billion authorized by last year’s housing bill... "Up to 5 million homeowners... could refinance through Fannie and Freddie... "The housing package was meant to be a more politically popular aspect of Obama’s plans to rescue the economy... "['T]he question is effectiveness. I think it could come with side effects, like people trying to game the system[']... "Republican leader John Boehner... raised questions about some aspects[,]... including the idea of steering more taxpayer dollars toward Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "'Why should we reward Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with $200 billion in taxpayer dollars without first reforming these housing entities that were at the heart of the economic meltdown?' Boehner said[.]" "Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 111th Congress First Session," v.155, pt.2 (Jan – Feb 2009), Id. at 2782. https://books.google.com/books?id=yQf77a75EiQC&dq=President+Barack+Obama+hollywood+emergency+stimulus+HOUSING+CRISIS&source=gbs_navlinks_s "[E]conomic recovery plan... "I was glad we were able to strike the $246 million tax break for Holly[wood] movie producers from the bill yesterday... "We must not repeat the mistake of the Great depression by throwing up trade barriers. We are living in a global economy, and we are in a global [eco]nomic crisis." "Jay-Z, Beyonce raise money for Obama" (by Amy Gardner, September 18, 2012) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/jay-z-beyonce-raise-money-for-obama/2012/09/18/7a8e1190-01f7-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_story.html "President Obama assumed the role of celebrity-in-chief again Tuesday with a glamorous fundraiser at the downtown nightclub of hip-hop mogul Jay-Z and his wife, superstar singer Beyonce... "The president has held a string of fundraisers with east- and west-coast celebrities, including George Clooney, Sarah Jessica Parker and Anna Wintour... "[H]e said[, ]'We’re on the brink of an election, but more importantly, we’re on the brink of moving America in a direction where we’re going to be more just, more fair. The economy’s going to grow in a way that includes everbody,...' "Proceeds from Tuesday’s fundraisers — there was also a high-dollar event at the Waldorf Astoria — will go to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee of Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee and several state Democratic parties... "[T]he campaign announced a final 'Dinner with Barack' contest, which supporters can enter with a contribution as small as $5." "Historic New England names Vin Cipolla next President and CEO" https://www.historicnewengland.org/about-us/mission-leadership/about-vin-cipolla "Vin Cipolla has served as Chairman, President, and CEO across public and private organizations in New York, Washington, D.C., Boston, and London. "He is... a recognized capital campaign and fundraising leader,... and [ ] has served on over thirty boards of directors of both leading civic and business organizations... "He was brought in to lead the capital campaign for the redevelopment of... a partnership of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts... He also served as Chief Philanthropy Officer of Marymount Manhattan College,... "In early 2009, he became President and CEO of The Municipal Art Society of New York, having been elected to its Board in 2008. MAS is one of the oldest civic organizations in New York City, and is the city’s leading voice for excellence in urban design and planning... "From 2005 through 2009,... he served two U.S. Presidents, three U.S. Secretaries of the Interior, and the foundation’s Honorary Chairman, First Lady Laura Bush. In 2007, he produced the first White House Summit on Parks Philanthropy,... "Prior to... 2005, Mr. Cipolla was with Fidelity Investments as a President and CEO with Fidelity Capital, and he served on two Fidelity boards, Fidelity Charitable Services, Inc. (The Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund) and Veritude, where he had served as CEO... "He teaches at the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation at Columbia University." "Fidelity TalentSource Overview" https://fidelitytalentsource.jobs.net "Fidelity TalentSource, formerly Veritude, is the in-house temporary staffing provider for Fidelity Investments,... We recruit individuals from a variety of backgrounds, including technology and customer service,..." "Obituary" https://www.richardsonfuneralhome.net/obituary/Elaine-McDonald "Elaine Waugh McDonald... remembered by her children and their spouses,... Celine McDonald and husband Vincent Cipolla of New York NY,... She leaves 11 grandchildren,... Olivia Cipolla, Gabriella Cipolla,... "Olga (Caponi) Cipolla, 87 of Leominster https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/fitchburg/name/olga-cipolla-obituary?id=17862806 "Olga (Caponi) Cipolla,... She leaves behind her son, Vincent Cipolla, daughter-in-law Celine, four granddaughters; Olivia, Amy, Gabriella and Sandra and four of her siblings: Henry, Arthur, Thomas and Ernest Caponi. She was married for 59 years to Louis Cipolla, who passed away in June 2010." "Beyoncé: Dance for You (2011 Music Video)... Olivia Cipolla: Dancer, Assistant Choreographer" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6821360/characters/nm2870904 Rhapsody James (https://www.rhapsodyjames.com) Rhapsody: The Company (Dancers Olivia Cipolla & Steven Talbert Williams) Rhapsody The Company Preps Get Me Bodied for Beyonce Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZkd4qyb1Go) Other https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gMrvyZh8S8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE_Ho0bVEx4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ialE-t-M1hU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbH4QLHizkg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp1G8VPlw9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rUfON5AEAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlg3TiOdyCU Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact HOUSING CRISIS (CMBS Motive) (Part 5), Petitioner's tie to PCV/ST (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac), FMR (Fidelity - Vin Cipolla) & the Entertainment Community HOUSING CRISIS (CMBS Motive) (Part 5), Petitioner's tie to PCV/ST (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac), FMR (Fidelity - Vin Cipolla) & the Entertainment Community, 2022 Rhapsody The Company Preps Get Me Bodied for Beyonce Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZkd4q... more Rhapsody The Company Preps Get Me Bodied for Beyonce Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZkd4qyb1Go 14 years ago (2008) Prima Facie evidence of Plaintiff Steven Talbert Williams as a company member of Rhapsody: The Company, along with Olivia Cipolla, daughter of Vincent Cipolla, who, in the year 2007, terminated his involvement as a member of the board for FMR's (Fidelity's) subsidiaries Veritude (Fidelity Investments) and Fidelity Charitable Services. Vincent Cipolla was President & CEO of Fidelity Capital (the fiduciary, current claimed illegal owner, of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST). He left Fidelity Capital in 2005. https://www.linkedin.com/in/vincipolla/details/experience Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact HOUSING CRISIS (CMBS Motive) (Part 6), Petitioner's tie to PCV/ST (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac), FMR (Fidelity - Vin Cipolla) & the Entertainment Community twitter.com/StevenTalbertW1/status/1213501475625820160 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact HOUSING CRISIS (CMBS Motive) (Part 7), Petitioner's tie to PCV/ST (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac), FMR (Fidelity - Vin Cipolla) & the Entertainment Community HOUSING CRISIS (CMBS Motive) (Part 7), Petitioner's tie to PCV/ST (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac), FMR (Fidelity - Vin Cipolla) & the Entertainment Community, 2022 https://lccf.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/capdev_hnw_details.ppt "The High-Net-Worth Landscape... more https://lccf.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/capdev_hnw_details.ppt "The High-Net-Worth Landscape and Opportunity Prepared for the National Marketing Action Team" March 2002, www.hnw.com "A Demographic Shift[:] The key change in the high-net-worth market is increasing diversity. Old stereotypes about wealth are being eroded... "Gender... a recent study by UBS PaineWebber reported that for the first time ever, women represent nearly half (47%) of all investors with $100,000 or more in investable assets,... "Source of Wealth... Researchers have found that only 15% of HNWIs became wealthy primarily because of inheritance/trust funds, though almost half received some inheritance. The wealthy are now more likely to be self-made, most commonly through, entrepreneurial interests, small-business ownership, investments, or earned income. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact HOUSING CRISIS (CMBS Motive) (Part 8), Petitioner's tie to PCV/ST (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac), FMR (Fidelity - Vin Cipolla) & the Entertainment Community https://steventalbertwilliams.academia.edu, 2022 https://steventalbertwilliams.academia.edu https://www.academia.edu/75461362/_Doc_262_PEER_TO_PE... more https://steventalbertwilliams.academia.edu https://www.academia.edu/75461362/_Doc_262_PEER_TO_PEER_NETWORKING_INTERNET_INTRUSION_ORIGNINAL_COMPLAINT_of_15cv5114_LAP_SDNY_SUPPLEMENTARY_PAPERS_TO_MOTION_226_Williams_20_451_2nd_Cir_Ct_ Williams v. United States, et al., 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Doc. 262 (Id.at 1), "Affidavit In Support Of Complaint," "SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226],... FILED. Service date 04252020" "85.As highlighted, PLAINTIFF specifically emphasizes the downloading of music files (primarily used to teach dance classes, 'educational purposes.' 17 U.S.C. §107)[. " a. T]he use of peer-to-peer applications were not his only source of acquiring music to download or to use when educating himself on how to use his downloaded Logic Pro program, where such educationally experimented upon musical creations (whether or not sampling portions of copyrighted works)[ ] are allowed for use within boundaries of time limits (as stipulated by the Digital Media Copyright Act, 'DMCA,' as amended. 17 U.S.C. §1204(a), 'for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain[.]' See Pub. L. 105-304§1201(a)(2), Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2864 (17 U.S.C. §1201(a)(2)). See also Multimedia Security Technologies for Digital Rights Management[ ] ('Digital Rights Mgmt.,' by Wenjun Zeng, Heather Yu and Ching-Yung Lin): “ '‘(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Appears in 515 books from 1798-2008.’ (p.5).' "86.PLAINTIFF, despite allegedly knowing the downloading of music files to be, 'technically,' an act of piracy (yet utilizing for educational purposes), and with little to no funds, while knowing he would not monetize from any sampled musical creation made in coordination with previously copyrighted musical compositions (or, at least, from any sample of composed work where long durations would be used), he sought alternatives to relieve himself from financially depravity by using programs connected to his purchased Apple, Inc. computer to accomplish such goal (ie: Firefox and QuickTime), all the while having full knowledge of downloaded musical works from various social media websites (such as YouTube.com) being digitally or forensically watermarked[ ] (primarily by the Nielsen Co.[ ]) and traceable to the use of his personal computer, where companies like Nielsen Co. would be allegedly able to monitor his personal computer’s use through enforcement of the DMCA. See Digital Rights Mgmt., 'the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phone records... is not an infringement of copyright.'" Id. at 182-184 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Correspondence w/ Olivia Cipolla (FaceBook Messenger, from "Steven Talbert Williams") - See Disclaimer 2 Correspondence w/ Olivia Cipolla, 2018 Correspondence w/ Olivia Cipolla (FaceBook Messenger, from "Steven Talbert Williams") Steven Ta... more Correspondence w/ Olivia Cipolla (FaceBook Messenger, from "Steven Talbert Williams") Steven Talbert Williams: I'm kinda in a bind. My hand truc[k] broke. I've been keeping it in front of Joe's cofee shop for a while... If you can help in any way that would be amazing. I don't want to impose,... January 17, 2019, 07:45 Hi. I did a little research and found out your father was the president of a subsidiary for Fidelity during the timeframe of my beneficial assets being transfer[r]ed... to FMR (Fidelity). I'm not sure if he can provide any insight into why I wasn't notified as a beneficiary after my moms passing, but if you can help in any way - that would be amazing. September 19, 2019, 14:43 Hi, any word on your father knowing about my trust being Fidelity Capital during his presidency? September 19, 2019, 17:47 Hey, did you ever get in touch with your father about his presidency of Fidelity Capital during the years when Correspondent Services Corp. was assumed by them? - CSC is one of my mom's trust firms (now FMR - Fidelity). You can view her account file in the Appendices of my Rehearing Petition (Docket N. 19-5405(U S S Ct )) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 4 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Disclaimer 2 - Claims Against N.Y.P.D. Stealing Hand Truck Property; Williams, Doc. 7, 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) Disclaimer 2 - Claims Against N.Y.P.D. Stealing Hand Truck Property; Williams, Doc. 7, 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 2022 Disclaimer 2 - Claims Against N.Y.P.D. Stealing Hand Truck Property; Doc. 7, Cestui Que Steven ... more Disclaimer 2 - Claims Against N.Y.P.D. Stealing Hand Truck Property; Doc. 7, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-240 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct., Mandamus), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct., Mandamus), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct., Cert. D'nd): See People (N.Y.P.D., 20th Precinct) v. Steven Talbert Williams (Cestui Que), Docket No. 0203004955(OATH) (September 16 & 17, 2018) See Doc. 7, "Affidavit In Support of Complaint (PART 1)" "DISCLAIMER #2 " Due to claims against the N.Y.P.D. (20TH PRECINCT) stealing PLAINTIFFs’ personal property (containing most evidence of this trial matter (which were preciously filed within CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, 137 U.S. 1611(2017)), as such was shortly after an event where PLAINTIFF filed a police report (Complaint Report No. '3687.' [highlighting and emphasis added] Exhibit 1) with the 20th for having his 137 U.S. 1611(2017) documents (namely the certiorari petition) allegedly stolen from him after sleeping within Richard Tucker Park (located at Columbus Avenue and 66th Street) at approximately 5:15 in the morning, on the date of September 6, 2017, PLAINTIFF unfortunately is unable to provide the District Court of S.D.N.Y. proper evidence in support of his complaint. However, some of the evidence is still in his possession and is presented to the Court in accompanying exhibited documents. See Part _ for further information concerning the claimed theft.[ ]" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Claims Against N.Y.P.D. (Disclaimer 2); Exhibit N, Williams, Doc. 2, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) Claims Against N.Y.P.D. (Disclaimer 2); Exhibit N, Williams, Doc. 2, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 2022 Claims Against N.Y.P.D. (Disclaimer 2); See Exhibit N of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. Un... more Claims Against N.Y.P.D. (Disclaimer 2); See Exhibit N of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.) (Dismissed on Appeal): See People (N.Y.P.D., 20th Precinct) v. Steven Talbert Williams (Cestui Que), Docket No. 0203004955(OATH)(September 16 & 17, 2018) (Dismissed, Paid In Full): N.1. NYCServ Violation Ticket (Hearing Date, 9/16/2018) N.2. Library Ticket (evidence of being in the area) N.3. 72 Hour Warning Flyer (acquired from a bike post in front of Vive Le Crepe, 187 Columbus Ave.) N.4. N.Y.P.D. Property Clerk Invoice (7/23/2018) N.5. N.Y.P.D. Property Clerk Invoice (7/24/2018) N.6. OATH Docket Sheet (Printed 10/2/2018) N.7. OATH Docket Sheet (Paid In Full) (Hearing Date, 9/17/2018) (Hearing Result omitted) N.8. OATH Docket Sheet (Printed 12/6/2019) (Hearing Date, 12/18/2018) (Hearing Result IN VIOLATION) N.9. OATH Case Status Question (E-mail) N.10 & N.11. OATH Response (E-mail) N.12. FOIA Request N.13. OATH Special Motion Part (Paid In Full) N.14. OATH Request For A New Hearing N.15. OATH Request For A New Hearing (First Request) N.16. FOIA Response (Paid In Full by Roya Kalaghchi) N.17. OATH Appeal Application N.18. Motion To Vacate Default Judgment: Failure To Appear (Exhibit 7) N.19. Motion To Vacate Default Judgment: Failure To Appear (Exhibit 8) N.20. Letter of Intent: Intervention of the New York State Attorney General (Appearance Ticket No. 0203004955(OATH) N.21. Application To Chief Justice Mr. John G. Roberts & Ruth Bader[ Ginsburg]: Intent To Initiate An Expedited Trial For Matter Of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams (Review Of In Re.: People (N.Y.P.D., OATH) v. Steven Talbert Williams (Cestui Que) & Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, Docket Nos. 15-cv-5114(LAP) (SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 16M111(U.S. .S.Ct., Mar. 15, 2017), Via Writ Of Error; Oversight Of Original Claim, 15 U.S.C. §26) N.22. OATH Decision, "DISMISSED" (Dated 12/18/2018) N.23. Audio Recording of Trial (Roughly 1 Hour) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 7 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact PLEADING AN ANTITRUST CONSPIRACY IN A POST-TWOMBLY WORLD, by Joshua Stokes and Jordan Ludwig (Crowell & Moring LLP) PLEADING AN ANTITRUST CONSPIRACY IN A POST-TWOMBLY WORLD, by Joshua Stokes and Jordan Ludwig (Crowell & Moring LLP), 2002 PLEADING AN ANTITRUST CONSPIRACY IN A POST-TWOMBLY WORLD By Joshua Stokes and Jordan Ludwig (Cro... more PLEADING AN ANTITRUST CONSPIRACY IN A POST-TWOMBLY WORLD By Joshua Stokes and Jordan Ludwig (Crowell & Moring LLP) "Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly is one of the most important cases to ever be decided interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure... clarif[ying] what Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) means... and how a complaint survives a motion to dismiss... "The Court’s holding in Twombly was grounded largely in antitrust principles—so much so that it led some lower courts to initially conclude that the rule in Twombly applied only in conspiracy cases... Justice Souter, Twombly’s author[, stated, 'We granted certiorari to address the proper standard for pleading an antitrust conspiracy through allegations of parallel conduct.' 550 U.S. at 553;' see 'Aktieselskabet AF 21. Nov. 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 17 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ('In sum, Twombly was concerned with the plausibility of an inference of conspiracy, not with the plausibility of a claim']... "In a now oft-quoted portion interpreting Rules 8 and 12, the Court wrote, 'While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)[' 'Id. at 555-56 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)[']... "Until and unless the Supreme Court grants certiorari on this issue, it may just be that some circuits require more specific facts in a pleading than others." Id. at 120, 122, 143 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly - 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) (LexisNexis) Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly - 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) (LexisNexis), 2007 LAW SCHOOL CASE BRIEF (LexisNexis) Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly - 550 U.S. 544, 05–1126 (U.S. S.Ct... more LAW SCHOOL CASE BRIEF (LexisNexis) Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly - 550 U.S. 544, 05–1126 (U.S. S.Ct.), 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) "RULE: "While a complaint attacked by a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. FACTS:" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Certiorari Syllabus, law.cornell.edu) Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Certiorari Syllabus, law.cornell.edu), 2007 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) Law.Cornell.edu "Syllabus "BELL ATLANTIC... more Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) Law.Cornell.edu "Syllabus "BELL ATLANTIC CORP. v. TWOMBLY (No. 05-1126) 425 F. 3d 99, reversed and remanded. "No. 05–1126. Argued November 27, 2006—Decided May 21, 2007 "The 1984 divestiture of the American Telephone & Telegraph Company’s (AT&T) local telephone business left a system of regional service monopolies, sometimes called Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), and a separate long-distance market from which the ILECs were excluded... "Respondents (hereinafter plaintiffs) represent a class of subscribers of local telephone and/or high speed Internet services in this action against petitioner ILECs for claimed violations of §1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits '[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations[']... The District Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that parallel business conduct allegations, taken alone, do not state a claim under §1; plaintiffs must allege additional facts tending to exclude independent self-interested conduct as an explanation for the parallel actions. Reversing, the Second Circuit held that plaintiffs’ parallel conduct allegations were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss because the ILECs failed to show that there is no set of facts that would permit plaintiffs to demonstrate that the particular parallelism asserted was the product of collusion rather than coincidence. "Held: "1. Stating a §1 claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made. An allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice. Pp. 6–17. "(a) Because §1 prohibits 'only restraints effected by a contract, combination, or conspiracy,' Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U. S. 752 , '[t]he crucial question' is whether the challenged anticompetitive conduct 'stem[s] from independent decision or from an agreement,' Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 U. S. 537 . While a showing of parallel 'business behavior is admissible circumstantial evidence from which' agreement may be inferred, it falls short of 'conclusively establish[ing] agreement or … itself constitut[ing] a Sherman Act offense.' Id., at 540–541. The inadequacy of showing parallel conduct or interdependence, without more, mirrors the behavior’s ambiguity: consistent with conspiracy, but just as much in line with a wide swath of rational and competitive business strategy unilaterally prompted by common perceptions of the market... "(b) This case presents the antecedent question of what a plaintiff must plead in order to state a §1 claim. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the … claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,' Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41 . While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, ibid., a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true. Applying these general standards to a §1 claim, stating a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter to suggest an agreement. Asking for plausible grounds does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) (SupremeCourt.gov) Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) (SupremeCourt.gov), 2007 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) SupremeCourt.gov "The 1984 divestiture of... more Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) SupremeCourt.gov "The 1984 divestiture of the American Telephone & Telegraph Companyís (AT&T) local telephone business left a system of regional [ser]vice monopolies, sometimes called Incumbent Local Exchange Carri[ers] (ILECs), and a separate long-distance market from which the ILECs were excluded. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 with[drew] approval of the ILECs' monopolies, 'fundamentally restruc[turing] local telephone markets' and 'subject[ing] [ILECs] to a host of duties intended to facilitate market entry.' AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U. S. 366, 371. It also authorized them to enter the long-distance market. 'Central to the [new] scheme [was each ILECís] obligation . . . to share its network with' competitive local [ex]change carriers (CLECs).' Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law [Of]fices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U. S. 398, 402. "Respondents (hereinafter plaintiffs) represent a class of subscribers of local telephone and/or high speed Internet services in this action against petitioner ILECs for claimed violations of §1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits '[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.'" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Opinion, Hon. Souter, law.cornell.edu) Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Opinion, Hon. Souter, law.cornell.edu), 2007 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) Law.Cornell.edu Opinion, Hon. David Hacke... more Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) Law.Cornell.edu Opinion, Hon. David Hackett Souter "Liability under §1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. §1, requires a 'contract, combination . . . , or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.' The question in this putative class action is whether a §1 complaint can [sur]vive a motion to dismiss when it alleges that major [tele]communications providers engaged in certain parallel conduct unfavorable to competition, absent some factual context suggesting agreement, as distinct from identical, independent action. We hold that such a complaint should be dismissed." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Dissent, Hon. Stevens, law.cornell.edu) Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Dissent, Hon. Stevens, law.cornell.edu), 2007 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) (law.cornell.edu) Dissent, Hon. John Paul Ste... more Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 05-1126 (U.S. S.Ct.) (law.cornell.edu) Dissent, Hon. John Paul Stevens "In the first paragraph of its 24-page opinion the Court states that the question to be decided is whether allegations that 'major telecommunications providers engaged in certain parallel conduct unfavorable to competition' suffice to state a violation of §1 of the Sherman Act. Ante, at 1. The answer to that question has been settled for more than 50 years. If that were indeed the issue, a summary reversal citing Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 U. S. 537 (1954), would adequately resolve this case. As Theatre Enterprises held, parallel conduct is circumstantial evidence admissible on the issue of conspiracy, but it is not itself illegal. Id., at 540-542. Thus, this is a case in which there is no dispute about the substantive law." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Erickson v. Pardus - 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007) (LexisNexis) Erickson v. Pardus - 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007) (LexisNexis), 2007 LAW SCHOOL CASE BRIEF (LexisNexis) Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 06-7317 ... more LAW SCHOOL CASE BRIEF (LexisNexis) Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 06-7317 (U.S. S.Ct.), 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 6814, SCDB 2006-053 "RULE: "A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. " Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Erickson v. Pardus, 06-7317 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Per Curiam, law.cornell.edu) Erickson v. Pardus, 06-7317 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Per Curiam, law.cornell.edu), 2007 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 06-7317 (U.S. S.Ct.), 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2007 ... more Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 06-7317 (U.S. S.Ct.), 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 6814, SCDB 2006-053 Law.Cornell.edu "Per Curiam "Imprisoned by the State of Colorado and alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment, William Erickson, the petitioner in this Court, filed suit against prison officials in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. He alleged that a liver condition resulting from hepatitis C required a treatment program that officials had commenced but then wrongfully terminated, with life-threatening consequences. Deeming these allegations, and others to be noted, to be 'conclusory,' the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of petitioner’s complaint. 198Fed. Appx. 694, 698 (2006). The holding departs in so stark a manner from the pleading standard mandated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that we grant review. We vacate the court’s judgment and remand the case for further consideration. "Petitioner was incarcerated in the Limon Correctional Facility in Limon, Colorado, where respondents Barry Pardus and Dr. Anita Bloor were working as prison officials. After Dr. Bloor removed petitioner from the hepatitis C treatment he had been receiving, petitioner sued under 42 U. S. C. §1983, complaining, inter alia, that Dr. Bloor had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by demonstrating deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See, e.g., Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97, 104–105 (1976) ('[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain . . . proscribed by the Eighth Amendment,' and this includes 'indifference . . . manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner’s needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed' (footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Helling v. McKinney, 509 U. S. 25, 35–37 (1993)." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Erickson v. Pardus, 06-7317 (U.S. S.Ct.) (SupremeCourt.gov) Erickson v. Pardus, 06-7317 (U.S. S.Ct.) (SupremeCourt.gov), 2007 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 06-7317 (U.S. S.Ct.), 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2007 ... more Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 06-7317 (U.S. S.Ct.), 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 6814, SCDB 2006-053 SupremeCourt.gov "No. 06–7317. Decided June 4, 2007 "PER CURIAM. Imprisoned by the State of Colorado and alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment, William Erickson, the petitioner in this Court, filed suit against prison officials in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado... "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only '‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’' Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. ___, ___ (2007) (slip op., at 7–8) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 47 (1957)). In addition, when ruling on a defendant’s motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint. Bell Atlantic Corp., supra, at ___ (slip op., at 8–9) (citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U. S. 506, 508, n. 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U. S. 319, 327 (1989); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232, 236 (1974))... "The Court of Appeals’ departure from the liberal pleading standards set forth by Rule 8(a)(2) is even more pronounced in this particular case because petitioner has been proceeding, from the litigation’s outset, without counsel. A document filed pro se is 'to be liberally construed,' Estelle, 429 U. S., at 106, and 'a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,' ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(f) ('All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice')." Id. at 1, 5, 6 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Erickson v. Pardus, 06-7317 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Dissent, Hon. Thomas, law.cornell.edu) Erickson v. Pardus, 06-7317 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Dissent, Hon. Thomas, law.cornell.edu), 2007 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 06-7317 (U.S. S.Ct.), 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2007 ... more Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 06-7317 (U.S. S.Ct.), 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 6814, SCDB 2006-053 Law.Cornell.edu "No. 06-7317. Decided June 4, 2007 JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting. I have repeatedly stated that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment historically concerned only injuries relating to a criminal sentence. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825, 861 (1994) (opinion concurring in judgment); Helling v. McKinney, 509 U. S. 25, 42 (1993) (dissenting opinion); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U. S. 1, 18ñ20 (1992) (dissenting opinion). But even applying the Court's flawed Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, 'I would draw the line at actual, serious injuries and reject the claim that exposure to the risk of injury can violate the Eighth Amendment.' Helling, supra, at 42 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Consistent with these views, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I respectfully dissent Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Cryer v. U.S., 554 F. Supp. 2d 642 (W.D. La. 2008) (Case Details, Casetext.com) Cryer v. U.S., 554 F. Supp. 2d 642 (W.D. La. 2008) (Case Details, Casetext.com), 2008 Cryer v. U.S., 554 F. Supp. 2d 642 (W.D. La. 2008) (Casetext.com) "Case Details "Full title:TOM... more Cryer v. U.S., 554 F. Supp. 2d 642 (W.D. La. 2008) (Casetext.com) "Case Details "Full title:TOMMY K. CRYER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "Court: United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana. Shreveport Division "Date published: May 9, 2008 "Citing Cases "May v. United States "Conclusory allegations do not suffice to establish § 7431's waiver of sovereign immunity. See Cryer v. United… "Singh v. N.Y. State Dep't of Taxation & Fin. "Significantly, courts ruling on motions to dismiss claims pursuant to § 7431 have required the plaintiff to…" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Cryer v. U.S., 554 F. Supp. 2d 642 (W.D. La. 2008) (Summaries, Casetext.com) Cryer v. U.S., 554 F. Supp. 2d 642 (W.D. La. 2008) (Summaries, Casetext.com), 2008 Cryer v. U.S., 554 F. Supp. 2d 642 (W.D. La. 2008) (Casetext.com) Summaries Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Cryer v. U.S., 554 F. Supp. 2d 642 (W.D. La. 2008) (Opinion, Casetext.com) Cryer v. U.S., 554 F. Supp. 2d 642 (W.D. La. 2008) (Opinion, Casetext.com), 2008 Cryer v. U.S., 554 F. Supp. 2d 642 (W.D. La. 2008) (Casetext.com) Opinion Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Ashcroft v. Iqbal - 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (LexisNexis) Ashcroft v. Iqbal - 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (LexisNexis) LAW SCHOOL CASE BRIEF (LexisNexis) Ashcroft v. Iqbal - 556 U.S. 662, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.), 129... more LAW SCHOOL CASE BRIEF (LexisNexis) Ashcroft v. Iqbal - 556 U.S. 662, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.), 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) "RULE: "Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Certiorari Syllabus, law.cornell.edu) Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Certiorari Syllabus, law.cornell.edu), 2009 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) Law.Cornell.edu "Syllabus "ASHCROFT, FORMER ATTOR... more Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) Law.Cornell.edu "Syllabus "ASHCROFT, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. IQBAL ET AL. "No. 07–1015. Argued December 10, 2008—Decided May 18, 2009 "Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, respondent Iqbal, a Pakistani Muslim, was arrested on criminal charges and detained by federal officials under restrictive conditions. Iqbal filed a Bivens action against numerous federal officials, including petitioner Ashcroft, the former Attorney General, and petitioner Mueller, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)... "Held: "2. Iqbal’s complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination. Pp. 11–23. "(a) This Court assumes, without deciding, that Iqbal’s First Amendment claim is actionable in a Bivens action, see Hartman v. Moore, 547 U. S. 250, 254, n. 2. Because vicarious liability is inappli[cable] to Bivens and §1983 suits, see, e.g., Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658, 691, the plaintiff in a suit such as the present one must plead that each Government-official defen[dant], through his own individual actions, has violated the Constitu[tion]. Purposeful discrimination requires more than 'intent as voli[tion] or intent as awareness of consequences'; it involves a decisionmaker’s undertaking a course of action '‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ [the action’s] adverse effects upon an identifiable group.' Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 279. Iqbal must plead sufficient factual matter to show that petition[ers] adopted and implemented the detention policies at issue not for a neutral, investigative reason, but for the purpose of discriminating on account of race, religion, or national origin. Pp. 11–13." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) (SupremeCourt.gov) Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) (SupremeCourt.gov), 2009 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.), 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) SupremeCourt.gov ... more Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.), 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) SupremeCourt.gov Syllabus Opinion [Kennedy] Dissent [Souter] Dissent [Breyer] Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Opinion, Hon. Kennedy, law.cornell.edu) Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Opinion, Hon. Kennedy, law.cornell.edu), 2009 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) (law.cornell.edu) Opinion, Hon. Anthony McLeod Kennedy ... more Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) (law.cornell.edu) Opinion, Hon. Anthony McLeod Kennedy "[T]he complaint alleges that they adopted an unconstitutional policy that subjected respondent to harsh conditions of confinement on account of his race, religion, or national origin... "In Twombly, supra, at 553–554, the Court found it necessary first to discuss the antitrust principles impli[cated] by the complaint. Here too we begin by taking note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim of unconstitutional discrimination against officials entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity... "Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and §1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution... "Respondent’s conception of 'supervisory liabil[ity]' is inconsistent with his accurate stipulation that petitioners may not be held accountable for the misdeeds of their agents. In a §1983 suit or a Bivens action—where masters do not answer for the torts of their servants—the term 'supervisory liability' is a misnomer... "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must [con]tain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' Id., at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reason[able] inference that the defendant is liable for the miscon[duct] alleged. Id., at 556. The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlaw[fully]. Ibid. Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant’s liability, it 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’' Id., at 557 (brackets omitted)... "Second, only a [com]plaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Id., at 556. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experi[ence] and common sense. 490 F. 3d, at 157–158. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not 'show[n]'—'that the pleader is entitled to relief.' Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2)... "Our decision in Twombly illustrates the two-pronged approach. There, we considered the sufficiency of a [com]plaint alleging that incumbent telecommunications [pro]viders had entered an agreement not to compete and to forestall competitive entry, in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. §1. Recognizing that §1 enjoins only anti-competitive conduct 'effected by a contract, combination, or conspiracy,' Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U. S. 752, 775 (1984), the plaintiffs in Twombly flatly pleaded that the defendants 'ha[d] entered into a contract, combination or conspiracy to prevent competitive entry . . . and ha[d] agreed not to compete with one [an]other.' 550 U. S., at 551 (internal quotation marks omit[ted]). The complaint also alleged that the defendants’ 'parallel course of conduct . . . to prevent competition' and inflate prices was indicative of the unlawful agreement alleged. Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted)." Id. at 1, 11-15 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Dissent, Hon. Souter, law.cornell.edu) Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Dissent, Hon. Souter, law.cornell.edu), 2009 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) Law.Cornell.edu Dissent, Hon. David Hackett Souter "J... more Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) Law.Cornell.edu Dissent, Hon. David Hackett Souter "JUSTICE SOUTER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting... "This case is here on the uncontested assumption that Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), allows personal liability based on a federal officer’s violation of an individual’s rights under the First and Fifth Amendments, and it comes to us with the explicit concession of petitioners Ashcroft and Mueller that an officer may be subject to Bivens liability as a supervisor on grounds other than respondeat superior. The Court apparently rejects this concession and, although it has no bearing on the majority’s resolution of this case, does away with supervisory liability under Bivens. The majority then misapplies the pleading standard under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544 (2007), to conclude that the complaint fails to state a claim. I respectfully dissent from both the rejection of supervisory liability as a cognizable claim in the face of petitioners’ concession, and from the holding that the complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "Given petitioners’ concession, the complaint satisfies Rule 8(a)(2). Ashcroft and Mueller admit they are liable for their subordinates’ conduct if they 'had actual knowledge of the assertedly discriminatory nature of the classification of suspects as being ‘of high interest’ and they were deliberately indifferent to that discrimination.' Brief for Petitioners 50... "Ashcroft and Mueller argue that these allegations fail to satisfy the 'plausibility standard' of Twombly. They contend that Iqbal’s claims are implausible... But this response bespeaks a fundamental misunderstanding of the enquiry that Twombly demands. Twombly does not require a court at the motion-to-dismiss stage to consider whether the factual allegations are probably true. We made it clear, on the contrary, that a court must take the allegations as true, no matter how skeptical the court may be. See Twombly, 550 U. S., at 555 (a court must proceed 'on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)'); id., at 556 ('[A] well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of the facts alleged is improbable'); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U. S. 319, 327 (1989) ('Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance . . . dismissals based on a judge’s disbelief of a complaint’s factual allegations')." Id. at 1, 8-10 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Dissent, Hon. Breyer, law.cornell.edu) Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Dissent, Hon. Breyer, law.cornell.edu), 2009 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) Law.Cornell.edu Dissent, Hon. Stephen Gerald Breyer "... more Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 07-1015 (U.S. S.Ct.) Law.Cornell.edu Dissent, Hon. Stephen Gerald Breyer "I agree with JUSTICE SOUTER and join his dissent. I write separately to point out that, like the Court, I believe it important to prevent unwarranted litigation from interfering with 'the proper execution of the work of the Government.' Ante, at 21. But I cannot find in that need adequate justification for the Court’s interpretation of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544 (2007), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The law, after all, provides trial courts with other legal weapons designed to prevent unwarranted interference. As the Second Circuit explained, where a Government defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, a trial court, responsible for managing a case and 'mindful of the need to vindicate the purpose of the qualified immunity defense,' can structure discovery in ways that diminish the risk of imposing unwarranted burdens upon public officials. See Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 158 (2007). A district court, for example, can begin discovery with lower level government defendants before determining whether a case can be made to allow discovery related to higher level government officials. See ibid." Id. at 1 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) Williams v. U.S., et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.), "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF AIDING & ABETTING ANTITRUST, SUBVERSION & DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM" (Hidden from docket w/in Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY)) (PROOF - docketing & notary) (ESTOPPEL) Williams v. U.S., et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.), "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF AIDING & ABETTING ANTITRUST, SUBVERSION & DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM" (Hidden from docket w/in Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY)) (PROOF - docketing & notary), 2019 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF AIDING & ABETTING ANTITRUST, SUBVERSION & DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM "PART A –... more SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF AIDING & ABETTING ANTITRUST, SUBVERSION & DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM "PART A – STATEMENT OF THE CASE" "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in reference to the 'NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL' (Doc. 1), present this brief as a claimed factual testimony of relevant events surrounding an alleged conspired antitrust, economic espionage ([...]) and racketeering ([...]) scheme, via the corruption of enterprises[,]... within and without government agencies... (namely the I.R.S. and S.S.A.), New York, New Jersey, Maryland and the District of Columbia, violating PLAINTIFFs’ rights as a beneficiary and rent stabilized tenant... 18 U.S.C. §§2, 241, 286, 371, including various antitrust statutes such as the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§1–7), Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§12–27), Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, Security Act of 1933, Securities & Exchange Act of 1934 (§§10(b), 13), Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Investment Company Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §§1681, et seq.), and Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. §§ 77aaa, et. seq.). "It is claimed, such scheme was perpetrated so as to deter PLAINTIFF from the acquisition of beneficial assets within an Individual Retirement Account... through the inducing of a claimed illegal eviction of PLAINTIFF from a rent stabilized dwelling... The claimed illegal fiduciary acquisition of the IRA by the controlling entities of PERSHING (B.N.Y.), UBS, and FMR allegedly occurred after PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial assets of the trust went insolvent during the final years of the U.S. housing crisis (2000–2010) and further utilized by UBS in securitized investments to allegedly reinvest such assets through 'dark-pool' trading and an Initial Public Offering ('IPO') of P.S.H., who acquired ownership of a mezzanine mortgaged loan of PCV/ST[,]... as such Commercial Mortgaged-Backed Securitized ('CMBS') loan was the leading investment loan in a series of tranches... It is unknown how the IRA went insolvent[,]... however, to the best of PLAINTIFFs’ knowledge, neither he nor his father (MR. WILLIS WILLIAMS, JR.), the two beneficiaries to the estate of MRS. LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS (DECEDENT, PLAINTIFFs’ mother), ever received notification from the financial institutions or DECEDENT last known legal representative, MR. AVROM R. VANN, of AVROM R. VANN, PC (where PLAINTIFF, as aforementioned evidenced, was the sole beneficiary to the 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST,' 'Trust LPSW,'... which contains securitized assets, as confirmed within an email from the Federal Depository & Insur. Corp. and the U.S. TREAS., one of which being a certificate of ownership, since 1987, for stocks from Microsoft)... MR. VANN, as aforementioned evidenced, is claimed to have lached upon his legal duties to contact PLAINTIFF on his thirtieth birthday[,... and] provided DECEDENTs’ original Last Will & Testament (with codicils, including the testamentary trust agreement) to MR. WILLIAMS, JR. two years after DECEDENTs’ death and denied PLAINTIFF access to any information concerning DECEDENTs’ estate. PLAINTIFF allegedly attempted to acquire information concerning the trust from PERSHING, who stated Trust LPSW’s Employer Identification Number ('EIN') for the IRA was in their ownership, despite UBS, after his PERSHING visit, stated the trust was there (despite their emails stating otherwise) and FMR[ (Fidelity)]... stating they would not provide PLAINTIFF with any information without letters testamentary from a surrogate’s court. PLAINTIFF thought it best to not claim the trust from his visit to UBS and file for probate within S.C.N.Y. (the county surrogate court in which DECEDENT allegedly received hospice care and passed away in),... "It is further claimed, not only had owners of PCV/ST profited from real property assets (maliciously raising rental prices), but they (along with financial institutions of PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial IRA trust and additional institutions) utilized such reinvested assets to invest within the gambling casino corporation of P.N.K.; whereby assets of the IRA (through the invested Assets Under Management ('AUM') of UBS) were redistributed to the previous owners of the PCV/ST community, namely BLACKROCK, due to the financial institution 'control[ling] ‘9.65%’ of beneficial assets in Pinnacle[ (P.N.K.)], as such was amended upon the onset of the 2010' (the year of DECEDENTs’ passing) (allegedly cited in PLAINTIFFs’ originally filed 'PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI' of the U.S. S.Ct., CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Index No. 16M111 (U.S. S.Ct.) (137 U.S. 1611, Mar.15, 2017)). "In essence, the assets of PCV/ST and the IRA within Trust LPSW were sold by TISHMAN/BLACKROCK at the DIL auction to P.S.H. (with the use of Trust LPSW’s assets acquired by UBS, Underwriter of P.S.H.’s IPO) and returned to BLACKROCK and other financial institutions upon reinvestment into P.N.K.’s casino... "But why then would the property of PCV/ST be further sold to the financial entity of BLACKSTONE GRP., with claimed illegal use of municipal bonds (Sustainable Neighborhood Bonds[ ]), that is, if not for a claimed conspired scheme by MR. LARY FINK of BLACKROCK to provide a welcomed gift to BLACKSTONE for such financial institution accelerating MR. FINK’s career..., and can PLAINTIFFs’ eviction be attributed to the possible elimination of the J-51 tax exemption of PCV/ST to change the community to market-rate prices through the reduction of elderly and rent-stabilized tenants, specified within the Department of Housing & Community Renewal’s Pub. FACT SHEET #36? "During PLAINTIFFs’ displacement,... he claims to have experienced numerous acts of corruption of enterprises in aid of subversion of his life within impoverishment (deterring him from acquiring Trust LPSW’s securitized assets), where PLAINTIFF... was: (i) denied acquisition of a renter’s insurance policy by STATE FARM; (ii) denied restitution to his dwelling by N.Y.H.C.; (iii) had two laptop computer screens turn black after plugging them into a Manhattan FEDEX electrical outlet (the same store where he allegedly made a copy of copyrighted works which are registered within the Library of Congress, 'LOC'), where, thereafter, PLAINTIFF allegedly experienced numerous cases of internet intrusion,...; (iv) tackled by W.P.P.D. officers for attempting to retrieve personal belongings which were within a White Plains FEDEX store, abducted by them, and detained at W.P. HOSP., where physicians took blood and urine samples after being forced into wearing a strait jacket, only to be ejected from the hospital and attempt to acquire a life insurance policy from AMAL. LIFE the next day (who confirmed the policy’s existence the day prior to his visit to White Plains)...; (v) arrested twice by N.Y.P.D. (D.H.S.) officers and provided numerous appearance tickets by N.Y.P.D. (M.T.A.) officers, where one[...] acquired an unconstitutional N.Y. S.CT., KINGS CO., CIV. judgment by the T.A.B. Court without the providing of an index number; (vi) denied redress in a superior court by the D.A. OFFICE after filing a motion to dismiss with damages sought; (vii) denied redress within S.D.N.Y. for CESTUI QUE WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., Dock. No. 15cv5114(LAP)(SDNY); (viii) had his driver’s license and DECEDENTs’ social security numbers exposed to the public by S.D.N.Y. and S.C.N.Y. employees (deterring him from executing a formal probate for DECEDENTs’ estate without federal oversight); (ix) abducted by a SUN CAB CO. taxi driver in Washington, DC after falling asleep[,]... only to be driven to Bethesda, MD (the city to the headquarters of W.D.C. and their subsidiary of CWCAM, PLAINTIFFs’ prior landlord) and further incarcerated for a month within the M.C.C.F. for a charge of theft under $100,... where PLAINTIFF allegedly experienced an act of medical malpractice by the attending physician of the facility’s C.I.U.; (x) experienced numerous cases of identity theft (such as driver’s licenses stolen or never arriving within PLAINTIFFs’ P.O. Box and even two years of tax returns filed with the I.R.S. without PLAINTIFFs’ consent); (xi) denied two applications for federal funded housing by BREAKING GROUND; (xii) and other events... "Further questions of law are sought for review. See a forthcoming 'Memorandum Of Law: Matter Of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams' ('Memorandum'). "PART B.a – ARGUMENT (PART B TO END) (To Be Amended)" Id. at 19-23. "PART F – CONCLUSION "[ ]This Supplemental Brief is sought for adjudication through a sua sponte Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion (reopening the trial of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.)), where tis trial may be enjoined within a new U.S. S.Ct. trial to determine claims of aiding and abetting related to claims of conspired antitrust, economic espionage, racketeering, corruption of enterprises, subversion within impoverishment (slavery) and Domestic Housing Terrorism." Id. at 319. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*] FURTHER FEDERAL REVIEW, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN), Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.) [*] FURTHER FEDERAL REVIEW, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN), Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.), 2022 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 11 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*] FEDERAL QUESTIONS, APPENDIX A, (15 pg.) 'SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN),' Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.) [*] FEDERAL QUESTIONS, APPENDIX A, (15 pg.) 'SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN),' Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.), 2022 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (463 pg.) SUPPLEMENT BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE, Williams, 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN), Williams, 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.), 2019 "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NA... more "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN)," Doc. 24, dated August 2, 2019 (revised January 10, 2019), Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.): See: https://www.change.org/StevenTalbertWilliams_Nanobiotech (https://chng.it/DNPB6KYsKt) https://www.change.org/StevenTalbertWilliams_Sanctions (https://chng.it/RH5jymr7Yt) https://www.change.org/u/1006444918 (Sanctions) "Supplemental Brief Questions concerning Nanobiotechnology & the Internet - where informed consent, a signature, allows experimentation on the human body) (Questions 19-24) Question 19. "Will the Court immediately investigate and adjudicate upon threat to human life (possible exposure to unorthodox experimental treatments), where such may achieve further shepardization of federal and local statutes to include any socioeconomically deprived disadvantage (via use of experimental research programs or the use of unorthodox test subjects) who are, or have the likelihood, of being connected to illegally reinvested securitized assets (antitrust matters or otherwise)? See: (i) 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-153, 15 USC §7501; highlighting 10 U.S.C. §2358 (1988 Act; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010); (ii) 42 U.S.C. §6601 (Memorandum of President of the United States, Mar. 27, 1997, 62 F.R. 26369, “consent”); (iii) Ex. Or. No. 12882 (as amended)); National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976; (iv) Ex. Or. No. 13521 (“The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioet[h]ical Issues;” Federal Advisory Committee Act); (v) SMART IoT Act (H. R. 6032)." Question 20. "Are there threats to the homeless population, and/or segregated groups, via terrorism and genetic warfare, when neglecting to obtain, or obtaining, “inform[ed] consent” (Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics, by Mr. Leon R. Kass. Id. at 17) while utilizing “[exes]sive[ ] paternalistic behavior by experts and physicians” (Id.)? See Memorandum of President of the United States, Mar. 27, 1997, 62 F.R. 26369, 42 U.S.C. §6601." Question 21. "Should the ratifying of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (which includes the Office of Science and Technology Policy) and Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, mentioned within Ex. Ord. No. 13521 (42 U.S.C. §6601 (note), November 24, 2009, 74 F.R. 62671) (excluding the use of the Federal Advisory Committee, such as the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (42 U.S.C. §6601, note) and the presidential memorandum of Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Research, dated Mar. 27, 1997) use of internet communications within nanobiotechnology and nanorobotics to solely be experimented within external uses of the human body, such as an inorganic object or botany medicines (whether for research purposes only or to perfect the use of medicines and, thereafter, to eliminate the existence of internet capable nanorobotics upon completion of the medical research and/or registry of such medicines with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration), whereby such may eliminate the intentional or unintentional threat to human life or national security of nanomaterials being utilized as a weapon of terror or for physicians to merely provide drug delivery in a quicker manner than in-patient visits in their quest to provide medication in real time ([w]hether through bluetooth, SMS text messaging or otherwise)?" Question 22. "Should measures to ensure the elimination of internet capable nanobiotechnology and nanorobotics, as mentioned above, be implemented within the ratification of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-153, 15 USC §7501), as well as the Research and Development for Biomedical Countermeasures (Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title XVI, §1601, Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1680, as amended) and the Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program (Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title II, §246, Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2500 , as amended), as well as all other pilot programs and other notes, including the reporting of nanotechnology investments to the U.S. Department of Defense, referenced within 10 U.S.C. §2358?" Question 23. "Should measures to ensure the elimination of internet capable nanobiotechnology and nanorobotics be implemented within the ratification of the SMART IoT Act, recently offered to the U.S. Government within the House of Representatives June 7,2018 Bill of H. R. 6032, as well as the regulations surrounding the advancements in IoBNT?" Question 24. "In light of amended laws following the dissolving of the Human Genome Project, should the Court claim the United States is at fault for allowing solely consen[s]ual use of human experimentation with nanobiotechnology, especially when experimenting with the internet to control technology within the human body?" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 444 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (15 pg.) "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN)" (Highlighted), Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN), 15 pg., Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPE... more SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN) (highlighted), dated October 5, 2019, Cestiu Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.): "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), present this supplemental brief seeking new questions (Appendix A) within the Certiorari Petition ('Cert.') for claims of aiding and abetting antitrust and illegal eviction offenses (Domestic Housing Terrorism) and subversion offenses (as presented within the original complaint of Dock. No. 18-12064(LLS)(SDNY)). This supplemental brief was confirmed as delivered for filing on August 22, 2019, yet missing from the docket (evidence available), containing trade secrets, scientific theories (pertaining to PLAINTIFFs' pursuit to advance his education and career within chemistry and biotechnology). A renewed application to file the original oversized supplemental brief is sought (see 'Renewed Application To Individual Justice Of The Supreme Court Of The United States: Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg')... " PART B – ARGUMENT " PART B.1 – AIDING & ABETTING DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM "8. I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), present this deposing supp. brief as a claimed factual testimony of relevant events surrounding an alleged conspired antitrust, economic espionage... and racketeering... scheme, via the corruption of enterprises[,]... within and without federal and local government agencies of the areas of New York, New Jersey, Maryland and the District of Columbia, violating various provisions of PLAINTIFFs’ rights set forth within the U.S. Constitution... "11. In light of PLAINTIFFs’ seven year exposure to homelessness, his alleged consenting to DECEDENTs' experimental Ovarian Cancer treatments by her alleged physician Dr. Muggia and his claims surrounding identity theft (two years of amended tax returns, allegedly reported by a Tax Advocate of the I.R.S.), as well as bringing legal action against the financial industry, he is compelled to insist upon immediately investigation and adjudication into threat to his life (possible exposure to unorthodox experimental treatments), whereby such may achieve further shepardization of federal and local statutes to include any socioeconomically deprived disadvantage (via use of experimental research programs or the use of unorthodox test subjects) who are, or have the likelihood, of being connected to illegally reinvested securitized assets (antitrust matters or otherwise). See a Blankrome.com internet publication,[ ] entitled 'Social and Ethical Issues in Nanotechnology: Lessons from Biotechnology and Other High Technologies' (by Mr. Joel Rothstein Wolfson, dated October 2, 2017), 'informed consent procedures.' " PART C – CONCLUSION "[12]. This Supplemental Brief seeks the filing of the original oversized brief ('Supplemental Brief: Homelessness: A Hazardous Threat To Life (Judicial Review Of Experimental Nano-Biotechnology & Nano-Robotics, In Situ Drug Delivery; A Public Concern)') and adjudication." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 165 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) Williams v. U.S., et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.), "SUPPLEMENT BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE" (Hidden from docket, PROOF), Doc. 24, Williams, 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY) "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NA... more "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN)," Doc. 24, dated January 10, 2020, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547 (CM) (SDNY): See: https://www.change.org/u/1006444918 https://www.change.org/StevenTalbertWilliams_Sanctions (https://chng.it/RH5jymr7Yt) https://www.change.org/StevenTalbertWilliams_Nanobiotech (https://chng.it/DNPB6KYsKt) "Supplemental Brief Questions concerning Nonanobiotechnology & the Internet - where informed consent, a signature, allows experimentation on the human body) (Questions 19-24) Question 19. "Will the Court immediately investigate and adjudicate upon threat to human life (possible exposure to unorthodox experimental treatments), where such may achieve further shepardization of federal and local statutes to include any socioeconomically deprived disadvantage (via use of experimental research programs or the use of unorthodox test subjects) who are, or have the likelihood, of being connected to illegally reinvested securitized assets (antitrust matters or otherwise)? See: (i) 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-153, 15 USC §7501; highlighting 10 U.S.C. §2358 (1988 Act; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010); (ii) 42 U.S.C. §6601 (Memorandum of President of the United States, Mar. 27, 1997, 62 F.R. 26369, “consent”); (iii) Ex. Or. No. 12882 (as amended)); National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976; (iv) Ex. Or. No. 13521 (“The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioet[h]ical Issues;” Federal Advisory Committee Act); (v) SMART IoT Act (H. R. 6032)." Question 20. "Are there threats to the homeless population, and/or segregated groups, via terrorism and genetic warfare, when neglecting to obtain, or obtaining, “inform[ed] consent” (Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics, by Mr. Leon R. Kass. Id. at 17) while utilizing “[exes]sive[ ] paternalistic behavior by experts and physicians” (Id.)? See Memorandum of President of the United States, Mar. 27, 1997, 62 F.R. 26369, 42 U.S.C. §6601." Question 21. "Should the ratifying of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (which includes the Office of Science and Technology Policy) and Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, mentioned within Ex. Ord. No. 13521 (42 U.S.C. §6601 (note), November 24, 2009, 74 F.R. 62671) (excluding the use of the Federal Advisory Committee, such as the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (42 U.S.C. §6601, note) and the presidential memorandum of Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Research, dated Mar. 27, 1997) use of internet communications within nanobiotechnology and nanorobotics to solely be experimented within external uses of the human body, such as an inorganic object or botany medicines (whether for research purposes only or to perfect the use of medicines and, thereafter, to eliminate the existence of internet capable nanorobotics upon completion of the medical research and/or registry of such medicines with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration), whereby such may eliminate the intentional or unintentional threat to human life or national security of nanomaterials being utilized as a weapon of terror or for physicians to merely provide drug delivery in a quicker manner than in-patient visits in their quest to provide medication in real time ([w]hether through bluetooth, SMS text messaging or otherwise)?" Question 22. "Should measures to ensure the elimination of internet capable nanobiotechnology and nanorobotics, as mentioned above, be implemented within the ratification of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-153, 15 USC §7501), as well as the Research and Development for Biomedical Countermeasures (Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title XVI, §1601, Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1680, as amended) and the Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program (Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title II, §246, Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2500 , as amended), as well as all other pilot programs and other notes, including the reporting of nanotechnology investments to the U.S. Department of Defense, referenced within 10 U.S.C. §2358?" Question 23. "Should measures to ensure the elimination of internet capable nanobiotechnology and nanorobotics be implemented within the ratification of the SMART IoT Act, recently offered to the U.S. Government within the House of Representatives June 7,2018 Bill of H. R. 6032, as well as the regulations surrounding the advancements in IoBNT?" Question 24. "In light of amended laws following the dissolving of the Human Genome Project, should the Court claim the United States is at fault for allowing solely consen[s]ual use of human experimentation with nanobiotechnology, especially when experimenting with the internet to control technology within the human body?" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE IMMUNITY W/IN SOVEREIGNTY), Williams, 18cv12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE IMMUNITY W/IN SOVEREIGNTY), Williams, 18cv12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 2022 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, A FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET (A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE IMMUNITY W/IN SOVE... more INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, A FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET (A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE IMMUNITY W/IN SOVEREIGNTY), Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 21), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.): “ I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS (‘PLAINTIFF,’ Pro Sé),… move for injunctive relief (including forfeiture, discovery and restraining orders) for sanctioned orders on claims (FRAP 62.1(a)(3), (b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)) of contempt and conspired retaliatory and discriminatory judicial estoppel (promissory and collateral) (including criminal. 18 U.S.C. Ch. 233… which aided in subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact to antitrust claims sought within CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, App. Dock. Nos.19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.); where any injunctive order for damages may be stayed upon acceptance of an alternative dispute resolution agreement…" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] (STOLEN) "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT," Doc. 21, Williams, 18cv12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT," Doc. 21, Williams, 18cv12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 [*****] STOLEN by the U.S. S.Ct. "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. ... more [*****] STOLEN by the U.S. S.Ct. "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT (EXHIBITS 1 TO 48)," Docs. 112, 113, 133, dated April 18, 2019, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 21), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.): “ I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS (‘PLAINTIFF,’ Pro Sé),… move for injunctive relief (including forfeiture, discovery and restraining orders) for sanctioned orders on claims (FRAP 62.1(a)(3), (b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)) of contempt and conspired retaliatory and discriminatory judicial estoppel (promissory and collateral) (including criminal. 18 U.S.C. Ch. 233… which aided in subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact to antitrust claims sought within CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, App. Dock. Nos.19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.); where any injunctive order for damages may be stayed upon acceptance of an alternative dispute resolution agreement…" See https://independent.academia.edu/Williams_v_US_18_12064_and_19_39: https://www.academia.edu/69661176/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_10_Form_T_1080_rev12_13_1_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_pdf_Doc_113_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69660640/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_10_v_1_Form_T_1080_rev12_13_1_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_113_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69525733/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_15_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_112_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69525000/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_16_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_1_TO_4_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69522617/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_17_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_5_TO_9_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69522310/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_18_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_10_TO_19_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69522098/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_19_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_20_TO_29_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69521769/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_20_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_30_TO_39_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69520610/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_21_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_40_TO_48_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share _________________________________________ https://www.academia.edu/69024621/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LLS_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_INJ_PART_1_UNDOCUMENTED_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_U_S_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69024446/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LOUIS_L_STANTON_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_INJ_PART_2_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69024047/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LOUIS_L_STANTON_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_EXHIBITS_1_TO_48_INJ_PART_2_1_vol_1_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69023398/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LOUIS_L_STANTON_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_EXHIBITS_1_TO_48_INJ_PART_2_2_vol_2_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 497 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Black Lives Matter (Part 1), LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Used to Fund N.Y.P.D.) Black Lives Matter (Part 1), LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Used to Fund N.Y.P.D.), 2016 Black Lives Matter (Part 1), LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Used to Fund N.Y.P.D.), Cestui Que ... more Black Lives Matter (Part 1), LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Used to Fund N.Y.P.D.), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): Claims of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST siezed illegally in the year 2010 (by PERSHING (B.N.Y.), FMR & UBS) and reinvested within PCV/ST (TISHMAN/BLACKROCK & TRUST2007-C30, including CALPERS & CALSTRS, who fund the retirement accounts of the N.Y.P.D.). See Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Parts A and A.1 (Black Lives Matter (Parts 5 & 6)) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Black Lives Matter (Part 2), Monifa Bandele (Police Reform) Black Lives Matter (Part 2), Monifa Bandele (Police Reform) Black Lives Matter (Part 2), Monifa Bandele (Police Reform), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v... more Black Lives Matter (Part 2), Monifa Bandele (Police Reform), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): See Doc. 2, Ex. 20, Williams, 19-cv-11547(S.D.N.Y.), “Slip Law proposal ‘Deprived Economic Status’” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Black Lives Matter (Part 3), THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (http://NPR.org) Black Lives Matter (Part 3), THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (http://NPR.org), 2022 Black Lives Matter (Part 3), THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (“Feds Deliberately Targeted BLM Protesters To ... more Black Lives Matter (Part 3), THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (“Feds Deliberately Targeted BLM Protesters To Disrupt The Movement, A Report Says,” Aug. 2021) http://NPR.org, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): https://www.npr.org/2021/08/20/1029625793/black-lives-matter-protesters-targeted Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Black Lives Matter (Part 4), Bill De Blasio & N.Y.P.D. (News Articles) Black Lives Matter (Part 4), Bill De Blasio & N.Y.P.D. (News Articles), 2012 BILL DE BLASIO & N.Y.P.D. (News Articles Depicting Increased Police State Funding & Hiring of New... more BILL DE BLASIO & N.Y.P.D. (News Articles Depicting Increased Police State Funding & Hiring of New Police Officers) (2012-2022), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): 1. Hearing on the Mayor’s Fiscal 2013 Preliminary Budget & the Fiscal 2012 Preliminary Mayor’s Management Report (March 15, 2012) https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2012/05/fy2013-056-Police-Department.pdf 2. Nine terrifying facts about America's biggest police force https://www.salon.com/2012/09/28/nine_terrifying_facts_about_americas_biggest_police_force 3. NYPD for hire: how uniformed New York cops moonlight for banks https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/nypd-for-hire-cops-moonlighting-banks 4. NYPD’s Infamous Stop-and-Frisk Policy Found Unconstitutional https://civilrights.org/edfund/resource/nypds-infamous-stop-and-frisk-policy-found-unconstitutional 5. Why De Blasio’s Decision To Add NYPD Officers Could Cut Crime https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-de-blasios-decision-to-add-nypd-officers-could-cut-crime 6. Mayor De Blasio approves 32-percent pay raise, reforms for city council https://abc7ny.com/city-council-pay-raise-nyc-new-york/1207311 7. Mayor de Blasio and Patrolmen's Benevolent Association Reach Tentative Five-Year Agreement, Bringing Entire Uniformed Union Workforce Under Contract https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/059-17/mayor-de-blasio-patrolmen-s-benevolent-association-reach-tentative-five-year-agreement-#/0 8. Bill de Blasio’s Police Reform Agenda has Achieved Much and Disappointed Many https://citylimits.org/2017/10/16/bill-de-blasios-police-reform-agenda-has-achieved-much-and-disappointed-many 9. Mayor de Blasio’s office gave out $3.6M in raises to City Hall staffers last year https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-mayor-de-blasio-raises-city-hall-staffers-payroll-20190906-4nvnryn56zelze4j2ac7bwjcrq-story.html Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Black Lives Matter (Part 5), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A Black Lives Matter (Part 5), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A, 2016 Black Lives Matter (Part 5), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A (Statement of the Case), D... more Black Lives Matter (Part 5), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A (Statement of the Case), Doc. 228, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): " [T]his deposing affidavit as a claimed factual testimony of relevant events surrounding an alleged conspired antitrust, economic espionage... and racketeering... scheme, via the corruption of enterprises[,]... violating various provisions of PLAINTIFFs’ rights set forth within the U.S. Constitution[,]... including various provisional antitrust statutes[,] such as the Clayton Act[,... and] Sherman Antitrust Act... " It is claimed, such scheme was perpetrated so as to deter PLAINTIFF from the acquisition of beneficial assets within an Individual Retirement Account... through the inducing of a claimed illegal eviction of PLAINTIFF from a rent stabilized dwelling[ ]... of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town... The claimed illegal fiduciary acquisition of the IRA by the controlling entities (PERSHING (B.N.Y.), UBS, and FMR) is said to have occurred after PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial assets of the trust went insolvent during the final years of the 2000–2010 U.S. housing crisis, further utilized by UBS in... an Initial Public Offering... of P.S.H.[,] acquiring ownership of a mezzanine mortgaged loan of PCV/ST (TRUST2007-C30 of B.O.A.), as such Commercial Mortgaged-Backed Securitized ('CMBS') loan was the leading investment loan in a series of tranches... " [O]wners of PCV/ST profited from real property assets (malicious raising of rental prices), but... additionally utilized such reinvested assets to invest within a gambling casino corporation (P.N.K.); whereby... BLACKROCK,... 'control[led] ‘9.65%’ of beneficial assets in Pinnacle[ (P.N.K.)], as such was amended upon the onset of the 2010[.]' In essence, the assets of the PCV/ST community and within Trust LPSW,... were returned to BLACKROCK. " But why then would the property of PCV/ST be further sold to the financial entity of BLACKSTONE GRP., through the claimed illegal use of municipal bonds[?]" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Black Lives Matter (Part 6), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.1 Black Lives Matter (Part 6), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.1, 2016 Black Lives Matter (Part 6), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.1 (History of the Case: Su... more Black Lives Matter (Part 6), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.1 (History of the Case: Summarized), Doc. 229, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "1.... MR. LAURENCE D. FINK (CEO of BLACKROCK),... felt obligated to continue good financial relations with BLACKSTONE,... as the real property of PCV/ST was seen as a 'gift' of sorts, where the investments of the community [are] further alleged to be a property of substantial profit... "2.... [T]he entire scheme is claimed to have originated from the end of the 19th Century... [War savings Bonds] "3.... [A]ccumulated foreign debt... [led to] levying of income tax,... [through] the Revenue Act in 1921,... to utilize even higher rates in sales tax upon wealthier U.S. Citizens and corporations to stabilize the nation’s debt;... "5... [W]hich further led to tax-exempt bonds utilized by corporations... within affordable congressional housing Acts,... utilizing such tax- exempt securitized bonds (and other tax-exempt investments), with the sixty year limitation, utilized within the community of PCV/ST... [ ]directly associated to the rent stabilization laws of the early 1970’s[ ]... "10.... [T]he shepardizing of Revenue Acts of 1918, 1921 and 1932 led to the utilization of tax-exempt bonds within C.W. (B.N.Y.) RMBS’s[;]... as such use of tax-exempt bonds after World War I and the Great Depression, accruing extreme amounts in foreign debt,... "11. It is alleged, it was the 'debt' portion of bond investments which Congress wished to avoid through enacting the TIA[;]... keeping the government, as a federal corporation, solely liable and avoiding the intervention by private enterprise... "12.... B.O.A. is the controlling financial institution in ownership of the CMBS trusts associated to the community of PCV/ST[,... and] additionally the parent corporation for Decedents’ IRA associated to Trust LPSW... [T]he Retirement Board of the Policemen Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, is stated as having their investments under... the CMBS trusts and BONDHOLDERS associated to the community of PCV/ST (namely CALPERS and CALSTRS), but also to the New York State Retirement System (in control of police retirement funds), claimed to be directly connected to claims of enterprise corruption associated to the D.H.S. (N.Y.P.D.), M.T.A. (N.Y.P.D.) and W.P.P.D. as named defendants. Such affiliated institutions incurred a severe loss in assets due to the Housing Crisis, where the replenishment of assets were desperately needed... "13.... PCV/ST (during MetLife’s ownership and after the enactment of rent stabilization laws), seemed nothing more than a lucrative investment to strive to acquire... "14.... [T]he PCV/ST property is alleged to have been specifically desired by BLACKSTONE,... " a.... claimed to have conflicted with future events of the housing crisis, specifically those related to the 'Maiden lane II' and 'Bids Wanted In Competition' ('BWIC') auctions[,]... where BLACKROCK further utilized such acquired investments (obtained through the enactment of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008) within the community of PCV/ST and within a check clearing firm of Trust LPSW, JP MORGAN, where assets were attempted to be replenished from the housing crisis... "15.... [I]t was through the securitized investments and upgrades to the PCV/ST community which BLACKROCK found as an attractive quality, and where such investments could then be transferred to BLACKSTONE... "16.... [T]he use of Decedents’ IRA assets within the bail-out of the PCV/ST community[,] from the previously mentioned defaulted mortgage by P.S.H[,]... laid the proper setting... to eventually eliminate the use of tax- exempt bonds... and to further provide the newly renovated property... as an intended 'gift' to... BLACKSTONE;... "17.... [T]he use of SNB’s provided the newly acquired owners the allowance to distribute the originally acquired tax-exempt bonds of 1942, or prior, to foreign markets... via Eurobonds; thereby eliminating the restrictions placed upon MetLife as a Redevelopment corporation through the enacting of local New York State Redevelopment laws..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Black Lives Matter (Part 7), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.2 Black Lives Matter (Part 7), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.2, 2016 Black Lives Matter (Part 7), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.2 (History of the Case: Co... more Black Lives Matter (Part 7), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part A.2 (History of the Case: Conclusion), Doc. 230, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Black Lives Matter (Part 8), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part G.4.d Black Lives Matter (Part 8), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part G.4.d, 2016 Black Lives Matter (Part 8), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part G.4.d (Use of Public Areas; ... more Black Lives Matter (Part 8), Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part G.4.d (Use of Public Areas; Claims of Discrimination), Doc. 265, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Black Lives Matter (Part 9), Deprived Economic Status Black Lives Matter (Part 9), Deprived Economic Status, 2016 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Black Lives Matter (Part 10) - SLIP LAW PROPOSAL: "DEPRIVED ECONOMINC STATUS," Doc. 2, Ex. 20, Williams, 19-cv-1547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) Black Lives Matter (Part 10) - SLIP LAW PROPOSAL: "DEPRIVED ECONOMINC STATUS," Doc. 2, Ex. 20, Williams, 19-cv-1547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) Black Lives Matter (Part 10) - SLIP LAW PROPOSAL: "DEPRIVED ECONOMINC STATUS," Doc. 2 (Williams 1... more Black Lives Matter (Part 10) - SLIP LAW PROPOSAL: "DEPRIVED ECONOMINC STATUS," Doc. 2 (Williams 19-cv-11547), Ex. 20, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "III.I.1. SUBSEQUENT JURISDICTION: CLASS ACTIONS... "224. For purposes of the overall matter, the use of local statutes... are essential for determining offenses and sought for shepardizing, wherein both federal and local statutes (under U.S. Const. Art. 1 §7) shall include within their provisions PLAINTIFFs’ conceptualized legal reference of 'Deprived Economic Status'[ 'a personally conceptualized sought after addition to federal statutes, by proposal, and is enforced under the Copyright Act of 1909, as amended, and other intellectual property statutes; as such may be considered a trade secret due to PLAINTIFFs’ intent to form an independent legal business upon the onset of trial proceedings, so as to acquire assistant employees to handle to extreme extent of trial matters.'] ('D.E.S.'); a revision to civil rights statutes, as such term has been previously depicted within judicial canons for Administrative Law Judges ('ALJ') as 'socioeconomic' status (mentioned within §100.3(b)(4), (b)(5) of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge). See Exhibit 20, 'Slip Law Proposal: Deprived Economic Status' ('D.E.S. Proposal'). See also 'Petition For Class Action Remedy: Deprived Economic Status (42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1983, 1985(3))' ('D.E.S. Class Action')..." Id. at Comp., Doc. 2-1, at 66; Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact U.S. S.Ct. Questions, "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI," In Re. Doc. 68, Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 U.S. 1611 (2017) U.S. S.Ct. Questions, "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI," In Ref. Doc. 68, Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 U.S. 1611 (2017), 2017 In Ref. Doc. 68, U.S. S.Ct. Questions, "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (DRAFTED - Original alle... more In Ref. Doc. 68, U.S. S.Ct. Questions, "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (DRAFTED - Original allegedly stolen), Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 U.S. 1611 (2017): DISCLAIMER Due to claims against the N.Y.P.D. (20TH PRECINCT) stealing PLAINTIFFs’ personal property (containing most evidence of this trial matter, which were preciously filed within CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., 137 U.S.1611(2017)), as such was shortly after an event where PLAINTIFF filed a police report (Complaint Report No. “3687.” [highlighting and emphasis added]) with the 20th for having his 137 U.S. 1611(2017) documents (namely the certiorari petition with exhibits) allegedly stolen from him after sleeping at Richard Tucker Park (located at Columbus Avenue and 66th Street) at approximately 5:15 in the morning, on the date of September 6, 2017, PLAINTIFF unfortunately is unable to provide the District Court of S.D.N.Y. proper evidence in support of his complaint. However, most of the evidence is still filed in the Supreme Court of the United States and some still in PLAINTIFFs’ possession, as such are presented to the Court in accompanying exhibited documents. "The aforementioned questions are presented to the Supreme Court of the United States... for review in opposition of the 'MOTION ORDER' ('MANDATE,' 'Document 35,' filed May 18, 2016, Docket No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.), Appendix A), the Southern District Court of the State of New York... 'ORDER OF DISMISSAL' ('Document 18,' Appendix B) and 'CIVIL JUDGMENT' ('Document 19,' Appendix C) (both filed December 10, 2015 within Docket No. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY)),... as well as the accompanying filings of the U.S. S.Ct.’s 'MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,' 'AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,' and Plaintiffs’ 'Affidavit In Support Of Petition For Writ Of Certiorari (Mandamus/Sine Qua Non/Order Nisi)'... and 'Motion For Extraordinary Relief (28 U.S.C. §1929)'... U.S. S.Ct. Rule 10(a) to (c), 11 (see 28 U.S.C. §2101(c)[)],... as such may be afforded via the filing of 'Motion For Extension Or Stay Of Limitations: In Forma Pauperis & Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, et seq.,' U.S. S.Ct. Rule 13.5), 12.2, 12.3, 20.1 to 20.3 (see... 'Affidavit Of Proof Of Service, In Kind: Motion For Extraordinary Relief'); Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b)(2); 18 U.S.C. §§3173, 3174, 3771(a), (b), (d)(1); 28 U.S.C.§§1257(a), 1651(a), 1657, 2101(f). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****/*] SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HIGHLIGHTED INJUNCTIVE MOTION IN ANTICIPATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 15 pg., Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.) [*****/*] SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HIGHLIGHTED INJUNCTIVE MOTION IN ANTICIPATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 15 pg., Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HIGHLIGHTED INJUNCTIVE MOTION IN ANTICIPATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT... more SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HIGHLIGHTED INJUNCTIVE MOTION IN ANTICIPATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT (highlighted), dated October 5, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.): "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), present this supplemental brief to the Certiorari Petition ('Cert.') so as to expedite a response from the Court (for scheduling a conference and anticipation of deciding upon a summary judgment) and defendants (for considering the acceptance of a settlement). This supplemental brief was confirmed as delivered for filing on August 28, 2019 in Dock. No. 19-5405(U.S.S.Ct.), yet two versions are missing from the docket (evidence available) (and one version suppressed from filing within the Appellate Court. See the STRIKE ORDER, sought for a new trial within the U.S. S.Ct., yet a copy was provided to all defendants and available to general public prior to its striking), containing trade secrets to PLAINTIFFs' real estate venture. A renewed application to file the original oversized supplemental brief is sought (see 'Application To Individual Justice Of The Supreme Court Of The United States: Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg')." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] FEDERAL QUESTIONS, (15 pg.) "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 & RULE 15.3)" (Highlighted), Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 & RULE 15.3), 15 pg., Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 FEDERAL QUESTIONS, "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 & RULE 15.3)... more FEDERAL QUESTIONS, "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 & RULE 15.3)" (highlighted), dated August 25, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.): " CERTIORARI QUESTIONS "1. 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 18 U.S.C. § 402 (dismissal for 'frivolous [ness];' U.S. Const. Am. 6, 10 ): " a. Whether the 'ORDER' (Appendix A, dated March 22, 2019) of HON. LOUIS L. STANTON was unconstitutionally provided to delay trial and lache upon naming all defendants and exhibits? U.S.Const. Am. 6, 10 ; 18 U.S.C. §402 . “ b.Whether the 'ORDER OF DISMISSAL' ('Dismissal,' Appendix B, Doc. '4' of Dock. No.18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); see Appendix X) of HON. STANTON, for 'frivolous [ness]' (28 USC1915(e)(2)(B)(i)), was unconstitutionally provided, and to issue sanctions for discriminatory and retaliatory contempt of court processes (18 U.S.C. §402), claimed to have induced a delay of trial and laches by the court to provide summonses to defendants after CHIEF J. HON. COLLEEN MCMAHON granted the In Forma (Doc. '6' of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix C) under 28 USC1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (a claim of postfiling delayed review, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a). See Question 3)? "2. J. Code 1.3 (C. 1) (‘[a] position to gain... differential treatment of any kind.’) (judicial estoppel, collateral and promissory, treasonous rebellion, under U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3, U.S. Const. Am. 5, 13 §3, 14 §§1, 4): “ a. Was HON. STANTON’s Dismissal executed in aid of (18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) UBS AG , Pershing, LLC and FMR (‘Fidelity,’ formerly Correspondent Services Corporation) (as alleged financial institutions of PLAINTIFFs ’ alleged custodial and irrevocable beneficial trust), as well as other securitized investments, including highlighted facts related to: (i) District Attorney’s Office of New York County (collaterally through the trial of PEOPLE v. STEVEN WILLIAMS, Dock. No. 2012NY089333(NYCC). U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 § 1); (ii) the New York Police Department officers of the Metropolitan Transit Authority (collaterally through trials of the Transit Adjudication Bureau. U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1), who previously utilized the financial assets of the New York State Department of Transportation, the dwelling of 2 Rector Street, within the community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town (‘PCV/ST’); (iii) the investments of UBS AG in Pershing Square Holdings Group, LLC’s Initial Public Offering; and (iv) the Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security investments of PCV/ST, WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-C30) (claimed a conspired act to evict PLAINTIFF to rid the community of rent stabilized tenants in order to raise dwelling unit prices to market-rate values; a claimed act of Domestic Housing Terrorism. U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3; U.S. Const. Am. 14 § 4), to further aid in subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment (U.S. Const. Am. 13 §3); all executed to gain the non-pursuance of PLAINTIFFs’ redress within the federal court system, under J. Code 1.3 (C. 1)? “ i.If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against HON. STANTON for such an act? “3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and 28 U.S.C. §1915 (‘postfiling delayed review’) : should a granted In Forma (Doc. ‘6’ of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix C) provide for authorization to proceed upon a complaint, and the issuance of summonses to defendants, which cannot be disregarded without examination of evidence (especially for antitrust claims)? 4.Validating antitrust claims (enforced under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act ): “ a. Should PLAINTIFFs’ ‘COMPLAINT’ (‘Comp.,’ Appendix D, Doc. ‘2’ of Dock. No.18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), filed December 20, 2018) presenting claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act be justifiable for the Court to enforce the standards of Plausibility , Parallelism and the alleged mandatory procedure to prove the existence of a contract (as delineated within the trials of ASHCROFT v. IQBAL (‘Matter of Iqbal’), 556 U.S. 678 (2002), BELL ATLANTIC CORP. v. TWOMBLY (‘Matter of Twombly’), 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) ( ‘[‘] a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of an illegal agreement[’ (‘Id. at 1965’),]’ Matter of Iqbal citing Matter of Twombly) and ERICKSON v. PARDUS , 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007)) and should such claims be a common procedure of the judicial government for proving antitrust offenses? “ i. If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against HON. STANTON for laching upon a pursuit to seek evidence of a contract under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 26? “5. 28 U.S.C. § 1927 : “ a. If sanctions are enforced against HON. STANTON for an unconstitutional dismissal, and antitrust claims are proven to have been escheated, should such provide for the enforcement of additional sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927? “6. U.S. Const. Am. 1, 5, 14 § 1 and 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1001(a): “ a. Should S.D.N.Y.’s PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT’s personal classification of PLAINTIFFs’ Comp.’s case type as ‘440 Civil Rights’[,]... when PLAINTIFF factually stated the matter concerned the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act within the Comp. and ‘NATURE OF SUIT & DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP’ (Doc ‘3’ of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix F)? “ i. If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? “7. U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1513; 44 U.S.C. §§3507(e)(3)(B), 3512: “ a. Are the actions by HON. STANTON to provide an dismissal be seen as retaliatory promissory and collateral discriminatory judicial estoppel (under U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1513; 44 U.S.C. §§3507(e)(3)(B), 3512); collaterally associated to the trials of: CESTUI QUESTEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct), 137 U.S. 1611(No. 16M111, 2017); Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams , File No. 2013-3538(SCNY); PEOPLE v. STEVEN WILLIAMS, Dock. No.2012NY089333(NYCC); MARYLAND v. WILLIAMS, STEVEN T., No. ID00283543 (M.C. Dist.Ct.,2012); and ST OWNER LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC)? “ i.If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? “8. U.S. Const. Art. 3 and the ‘pendent jurisdiction’ rule): “ a. Should PLAINTIFFs’ claims involving collateral estoppel from circuit courts of New York State (namely: Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, File No. 2013-3538(SCNY); PEOPLE v. STEVENWILLIAMS, Dock. No. 2012NY089333(NYCC); and ST OWNER LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC)) be jurisdictionally enforced within the Federal Courts under U.S. Const. Art. 3 and the ‘pendent jurisdiction’ rule? “ i. If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? “ ii. Alternatively, U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3; U.S. Const. Am. 14 §4, are questioned for whether named defendants of this certiorari aided in antitrust offenses (under 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) upon validation of claims of PLAINTIFF’ drive r’s license and Mrs. Linda Paula Streger Williams (PLAINTIFFs’ mother’s) Social Security Numbers being allegedly exposed to the public by the local and federal court system (a matter of national security if his alleged trust ’ s funds were utilized to fund of terrorist organizations)? “ iii. Further, upon validation of aiding antirust claims as accessories after the fact (see subdivision (ii) above), will the Court provide for further questioning upon Fed. R. App. P. 27, L.R. 27(d), (g), (i) and L.R. 40.2 of the Local Rules and Internal Operating Procedures of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, local statute 22 NYCRR 500.20(d) (for collateral claims of pendent jurisdiction), the recently provided dismissals of CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES , ET AL ., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir. Ct.) and CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-240(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir. Ct.) (see Appendices G, H and I. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi)) and what delineates ‘an adequate, alternative mean[ ] of obtaining relief’ when judicial officials cite ‘Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)’ for a reason to dismiss reconsideration motions? “ A. Upon affirmation of a justified reconsideration by PLAINTIFF (see Appendix I. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi)), will the Court see just to provide a sua sponté order to reopen the above trials (Dock. Nos. 19-39 and 19-240), by writ of error, in question of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60? Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [****] FEDERAL QUESTIONS, (15 pg.) "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 & RULE 15.3)" (Highlighted), Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.) FEDERAL QUESTIONS, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 & RULE 15.3), 15pg., Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.) FEDERAL QUESTIONS, "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 & RULE 15.3)... more FEDERAL QUESTIONS, "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 & RULE 15.3)" (highlighted), dated August 25, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.): " CERTIORARI " QUESTIONS PRESENTED "1. 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 18 U.S.C. § 402 (dismissal for 'frivolous [ness];' U.S. Const. Am. 6, 10 ): " a. Whether the 'ORDER' (Appendix A, dated March 22, 2019) of HON. LOUIS L. STANTON was unconstitutionally provided to delay trial and lache upon naming all defendants and exhibits? U.S.Const. Am. 6, 10 ; 18 U.S.C. §402 . “ b.Whether the 'ORDER OF DISMISSAL' ('Dismissal,' Appendix B, Doc. '4' of Dock. No.18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); see Appendix X) of HON. STANTON, for 'frivolous [ness]' (28 USC1915(e)(2)(B)(i)), was unconstitutionally provided, and to issue sanctions for discriminatory and retaliatory contempt of court processes (18 U.S.C. §402), claimed to have induced a delay of trial and laches by the court to provide summonses to defendants after CHIEF J. HON. COLLEEN MCMAHON granted the In Forma (Doc. '6' of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix C) under 28 USC1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (a claim of postfiling delayed review, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a). See Question 3)? "2. J. Code 1.3 (C. 1) (‘[a] position to gain... differential treatment of any kind.’) (judicial estoppel, collateral and promissory, treasonous rebellion, under U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3, U.S. Const. Am. 5, 13 §3, 14 §§1, 4): “ a. Was HON. STANTON’s Dismissal executed in aid of (18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) UBS AG , Pershing, LLC and FMR (‘Fidelity,’ formerly Correspondent Services Corporation) (as alleged financial institutions of PLAINTIFFs ’ alleged custodial and irrevocable beneficial trust), as well as other securitized investments, including highlighted facts related to: (i) District Attorney’s Office of New York County (collaterally through the trial of PEOPLE v. STEVEN WILLIAMS, Dock. No. 2012NY089333(NYCC). U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 § 1); (ii) the New York Police Department officers of the Metropolitan Transit Authority (collaterally through trials of the Transit Adjudication Bureau. U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1), who previously utilized the financial assets of the New York State Department of Transportation, the dwelling of 2 Rector Street, within the community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town (‘PCV/ST’); (iii) the investments of UBS AG in Pershing Square Holdings Group, LLC’s Initial Public Offering; and (iv) the Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security investments of PCV/ST, WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-C30) (claimed a conspired act to evict PLAINTIFF to rid the community of rent stabilized tenants in order to raise dwelling unit prices to market-rate values; a claimed act of Domestic Housing Terrorism. U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3; U.S. Const. Am. 14 § 4), to further aid in subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment (U.S. Const. Am. 13 §3); all executed to gain the non-pursuance of PLAINTIFFs’ redress within the federal court system, under J. Code 1.3 (C. 1)? “ i.If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against HON. STANTON for such an act? “3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and 28 U.S.C. §1915 (‘postfiling delayed review’) : should a granted In Forma (Doc. ‘6’ of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix C) provide for authorization to proceed upon a complaint, and the issuance of summonses to defendants, which cannot be disregarded without examination of evidence (especially for antitrust claims)? 4.Validating antitrust claims (enforced under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act ): “ a. Should PLAINTIFFs’ ‘COMPLAINT’ (‘Comp.,’ Appendix D, Doc. ‘2’ of Dock. No.18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), filed December 20, 2018) presenting claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act be justifiable for the Court to enforce the standards of Plausibility , Parallelism and the alleged mandatory procedure to prove the existence of a contract (as delineated within the trials of ASHCROFT v. IQBAL (‘Matter of Iqbal’), 556 U.S. 678 (2002), BELL ATLANTIC CORP. v. TWOMBLY (‘Matter of Twombly’), 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) ( ‘[‘] a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of an illegal agreement[’ (‘Id. at 1965’),]’ Matter of Iqbal citing Matter of Twombly) and ERICKSON v. PARDUS , 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007)) and should such claims be a common procedure of the judicial government for proving antitrust offenses? “ i. If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against HON. STANTON for laching upon a pursuit to seek evidence of a contract under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 26? “5. 28 U.S.C. § 1927 : “ a. If sanctions are enforced against HON. STANTON for an unconstitutional dismissal, and antitrust claims are proven to have been escheated, should such provide for the enforcement of additional sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927? “6. U.S. Const. Am. 1, 5, 14 § 1 and 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1001(a): “ a. Should S.D.N.Y.’s PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT’s personal classification of PLAINTIFFs’ Comp.’s case type as ‘440 Civil Rights’[,]... when PLAINTIFF factually stated the matter concerned the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act within the Comp. and ‘NATURE OF SUIT & DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP’ (Doc ‘3’ of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix F)? “ i. If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? “7. U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1513; 44 U.S.C. §§3507(e)(3)(B), 3512: “ a. Are the actions by HON. STANTON to provide an dismissal be seen as retaliatory promissory and collateral discriminatory judicial estoppel (under U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1513; 44 U.S.C. §§3507(e)(3)(B), 3512); collaterally associated to the trials of: CESTUI QUESTEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct), 137 U.S. 1611(No. 16M111, 2017); Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams , File No. 2013-3538(SCNY); PEOPLE v. STEVEN WILLIAMS, Dock. No.2012NY089333(NYCC); MARYLAND v. WILLIAMS, STEVEN T., No. ID00283543 (M.C. Dist.Ct.,2012); and ST OWNER LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC)? “ i.If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? “8. U.S. Const. Art. 3 and the ‘pendent jurisdiction’ rule): “ a. Should PLAINTIFFs’ claims involving collateral estoppel from circuit courts of New York State (namely: Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, File No. 2013-3538(SCNY); PEOPLE v. STEVENWILLIAMS, Dock. No. 2012NY089333(NYCC); and ST OWNER LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC)) be jurisdictionally enforced within the Federal Courts under U.S. Const. Art. 3 and the ‘pendent jurisdiction’ rule? “ i. If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? “ ii. Alternatively, U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3; U.S. Const. Am. 14 §4, are questioned for whether named defendants of this certiorari aided in antitrust offenses (under 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) upon validation of claims of PLAINTIFF’ drive r’s license and Mrs. Linda Paula Streger Williams (PLAINTIFFs’ mother’s) Social Security Numbers being allegedly exposed to the public by the local and federal court system (a matter of national security if his alleged trust ’ s funds were utilized to fund of terrorist organizations)? “ iii. Further, upon validation of aiding antirust claims as accessories after the fact (see subdivision (ii) above), will the Court provide for further questioning upon Fed. R. App. P. 27, L.R. 27(d), (g), (i) and L.R. 40.2 of the Local Rules and Internal Operating Procedures of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, local statute 22 NYCRR 500.20(d) (for collateral claims of pendent jurisdiction), the recently provided dismissals of CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES , ET AL ., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir. Ct.) and CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-240(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir. Ct.) (see Appendices G, H and I. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi)) and what delineates ‘an adequate, alternative mean[ ] of obtaining relief’ when judicial officials cite ‘Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)’ for a reason to dismiss reconsideration motions? “ A. Upon affirmation of a justified reconsideration by PLAINTIFF (see Appendix I. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi)), will the Court see just to provide a sua sponté order to reopen the above trials (Dock. Nos. 19-39 and 19-240), by writ of error, in question of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60? Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [***] FEDERAL QUESTIONS, (15 pg.) "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): U.S.D.O.J., HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (18 U.S.C. §§2, 3)," Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.) FEDERAL QUESTIONS, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): U.S.D.O.J., HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (18 U.S.C. §§2, 3), 15 pg., Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 FEDERAL QUESTIONS, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): U.S.D.O.J., HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INT... more FEDERAL QUESTIONS, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): U.S.D.O.J., HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (18 U.S.C. §§2, 3), dated October 5, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.): " CERTIORARI QUESTIONS "1. 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 18 U.S.C. § 402 (dismissal for 'frivolous [ness];' U.S. Const. Am. 6, 10 ): " a. Whether the 'ORDER' (Appendix A, dated March 22, 2019) of HON. LOUIS L. STANTON was unconstitutionally provided to delay trial and lache upon naming all defendants and exhibits? U.S.Const. Am. 6, 10 ; 18 U.S.C. §402 . “ b.Whether the 'ORDER OF DISMISSAL' ('Dismissal,' Appendix B, Doc. '4' of Dock. No.18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); see Appendix X) of HON. STANTON, for 'frivolous [ness]' (28 USC1915(e)(2)(B)(i)), was unconstitutionally provided, and to issue sanctions for discriminatory and retaliatory contempt of court processes (18 U.S.C. §402), claimed to have induced a delay of trial and laches by the court to provide summonses to defendants after CHIEF J. HON. COLLEEN MCMAHON granted the In Forma (Doc. '6' of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix C) under 28 USC1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (a claim of postfiling delayed review, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a). See Question 3)? "2. J. Code 1.3 (C. 1) (‘[a] position to gain... differential treatment of any kind.’) (judicial estoppel, collateral and promissory, treasonous rebellion, under U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3, U.S. Const. Am. 5, 13 §3, 14 §§1, 4): “ a. Was HON. STANTON’s Dismissal executed in aid of (18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) UBS AG , Pershing, LLC and FMR (‘Fidelity,’ formerly Correspondent Services Corporation) (as alleged financial institutions of PLAINTIFFs ’ alleged custodial and irrevocable beneficial trust), as well as other securitized investments, including highlighted facts related to: (i) District Attorney’s Office of New York County (collaterally through the trial of PEOPLE v. STEVEN WILLIAMS, Dock. No. 2012NY089333(NYCC). U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 § 1); (ii) the New York Police Department officers of the Metropolitan Transit Authority (collaterally through trials of the Transit Adjudication Bureau. U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1), who previously utilized the financial assets of the New York State Department of Transportation, the dwelling of 2 Rector Street, within the community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town (‘PCV/ST’); (iii) the investments of UBS AG in Pershing Square Holdings Group, LLC’s Initial Public Offering; and (iv) the Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security investments of PCV/ST, WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-C30) (claimed a conspired act to evict PLAINTIFF to rid the community of rent stabilized tenants in order to raise dwelling unit prices to market-rate values; a claimed act of Domestic Housing Terrorism. U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3; U.S. Const. Am. 14 § 4), to further aid in subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment (U.S. Const. Am. 13 §3); all executed to gain the non-pursuance of PLAINTIFFs’ redress within the federal court system, under J. Code 1.3 (C. 1)? “ i.If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against HON. STANTON for such an act? “3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and 28 U.S.C. §1915 (‘postfiling delayed review’) : should a granted In Forma (Doc. ‘6’ of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix C) provide for authorization to proceed upon a complaint, and the issuance of summonses to defendants, which cannot be disregarded without examination of evidence (especially for antitrust claims)? 4.Validating antitrust claims (enforced under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act ): “ a. Should PLAINTIFFs’ ‘COMPLAINT’ (‘Comp.,’ Appendix D, Doc. ‘2’ of Dock. No.18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), filed December 20, 2018) presenting claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act be justifiable for the Court to enforce the standards of Plausibility , Parallelism and the alleged mandatory procedure to prove the existence of a contract (as delineated within the trials of ASHCROFT v. IQBAL (‘Matter of Iqbal’), 556 U.S. 678 (2002), BELL ATLANTIC CORP. v. TWOMBLY (‘Matter of Twombly’), 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) ( ‘[‘] a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of an illegal agreement[’ (‘Id. at 1965’),]’ Matter of Iqbal citing Matter of Twombly) and ERICKSON v. PARDUS , 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007)) and should such claims be a common procedure of the judicial government for proving antitrust offenses? “ i. If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against HON. STANTON for laching upon a pursuit to seek evidence of a contract under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 26? “5. 28 U.S.C. § 1927 : “ a. If sanctions are enforced against HON. STANTON for an unconstitutional dismissal, and antitrust claims are proven to have been escheated, should such provide for the enforcement of additional sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927? “6. U.S. Const. Am. 1, 5, 14 § 1 and 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1001(a): “ a. Should S.D.N.Y.’s PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT’s personal classification of PLAINTIFFs’ Comp.’s case type as ‘440 Civil Rights’[,]... when PLAINTIFF factually stated the matter concerned the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act within the Comp. and ‘NATURE OF SUIT & DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP’ (Doc ‘3’ of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix F)? “ i. If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? “7. U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1513; 44 U.S.C. §§3507(e)(3)(B), 3512: “ a. Are the actions by HON. STANTON to provide an dismissal be seen as retaliatory promissory and collateral discriminatory judicial estoppel (under U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1513; 44 U.S.C. §§3507(e)(3)(B), 3512); collaterally associated to the trials of: CESTUI QUESTEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct), 137 U.S. 1611(No. 16M111, 2017); Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams , File No. 2013-3538(SCNY); PEOPLE v. STEVEN WILLIAMS, Dock. No.2012NY089333(NYCC); MARYLAND v. WILLIAMS, STEVEN T., No. ID00283543 (M.C. Dist.Ct.,2012); and ST OWNER LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC)? “ i.If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? “8. U.S. Const. Art. 3 and the ‘pendent jurisdiction’ rule): “ a. Should PLAINTIFFs’ claims involving collateral estoppel from circuit courts of New York State (namely: Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, File No. 2013-3538(SCNY); PEOPLE v. STEVENWILLIAMS, Dock. No. 2012NY089333(NYCC); and ST OWNER LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC)) be jurisdictionally enforced within the Federal Courts under U.S. Const. Art. 3 and the ‘pendent jurisdiction’ rule? “ i. If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? “ ii. Alternatively, U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3; U.S. Const. Am. 14 §4, are questioned for whether named defendants of this certiorari aided in antitrust offenses (under 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) upon validation of claims of PLAINTIFF’ drive r’s license and Mrs. Linda Paula Streger Williams (PLAINTIFFs’ mother’s) Social Security Numbers being allegedly exposed to the public by the local and federal court system (a matter of national security if his alleged trust ’ s funds were utilized to fund of terrorist organizations)? “ iii. Further, upon validation of aiding antirust claims as accessories after the fact (see subdivision (ii) above), will the Court provide for further questioning upon Fed. R. App. P. 27, L.R. 27(d), (g), (i) and L.R. 40.2 of the Local Rules and Internal Operating Procedures of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, local statute 22 NYCRR 500.20(d) (for collateral claims of pendent jurisdiction), the recently provided dismissals of CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES , ET AL ., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir. Ct.) and CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-240(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir. Ct.) (see Appendices G, H and I. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi)) and what delineates ‘an adequate, alternative mean[ ] of obtaining relief’ when judicial officials cite ‘Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)’ for a reason to dismiss reconsideration motions? “ A. Upon affirmation of a justified reconsideration by PLAINTIFF (see Appendix I. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi)), will the Court see just to provide a sua sponté order to reopen the above trials (Dock. Nos. 19-39 and 19-240), by writ of error, in question of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60? Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [**] FEDERAL QUESTIONS, (15 pg.) [MANDAMUS] "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y." (Highlighted), Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.) FEDERAL QUESTIONS, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y., Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (highligh... more SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (highlighted), dated November 5, 2019 (filed w/in S.D.N.Y.: December 27, 2019; Williams, 19- cv-11547 (CM)), Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.): " CERTIORARI " QUESTIONS PRESENTED "1. 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 18 U.S.C. § 402 (dismissal for 'frivolous [ness];' U.S. Const. Am. 6, 10 ): " a. Whether the 'ORDER' (Appendix A, dated March 22, 2019) of HON. LOUIS L. STANTON was unconstitutionally provided to delay trial and lache upon naming all defendants and exhibits? U.S.Const. Am. 6, 10 ; 18 U.S.C. §402 . “ b.Whether the 'ORDER OF DISMISSAL' ('Dismissal,' Appendix B, Doc. '4' of Dock. No.18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); see Appendix X) of HON. STANTON, for 'frivolous [ness]' (28 USC1915(e)(2)(B)(i)), was unconstitutionally provided, and to issue sanctions for discriminatory and retaliatory contempt of court processes (18 U.S.C. §402), claimed to have induced a delay of trial and laches by the court to provide summonses to defendants after CHIEF J. HON. COLLEEN MCMAHON granted the In Forma (Doc. '6' of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix C) under 28 USC1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (a claim of postfiling delayed review, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a). See Question 3)? "2. J. Code 1.3 (C. 1) (‘[a] position to gain... differential treatment of any kind.’) (judicial estoppel, collateral and promissory, treasonous rebellion, under U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3, U.S. Const. Am. 5, 13 §3, 14 §§1, 4): “ a. Was HON. STANTON’s Dismissal executed in aid of (18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) UBS AG , Pershing, LLC and FMR (‘Fidelity,’ formerly Correspondent Services Corporation) (as alleged financial institutions of PLAINTIFFs ’ alleged custodial and irrevocable beneficial trust), as well as other securitized investments, including highlighted facts related to: (i) District Attorney’s Office of New York County (collaterally through the trial of PEOPLE v. STEVEN WILLIAMS, Dock. No. 2012NY089333(NYCC). U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 § 1); (ii) the New York Police Department officers of the Metropolitan Transit Authority (collaterally through trials of the Transit Adjudication Bureau. U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1), who previously utilized the financial assets of the New York State Department of Transportation, the dwelling of 2 Rector Street, within the community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town (‘PCV/ST’); (iii) the investments of UBS AG in Pershing Square Holdings Group, LLC’s Initial Public Offering; and (iv) the Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security investments of PCV/ST, WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-C30) (claimed a conspired act to evict PLAINTIFF to rid the community of rent stabilized tenants in order to raise dwelling unit prices to market-rate values; a claimed act of Domestic Housing Terrorism. U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3; U.S. Const. Am. 14 § 4), to further aid in subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment (U.S. Const. Am. 13 §3); all executed to gain the non-pursuance of PLAINTIFFs’ redress within the federal court system, under J. Code 1.3 (C. 1)? “ i.If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against HON. STANTON for such an act? “3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and 28 U.S.C. §1915 (‘postfiling delayed review’) : should a granted In Forma (Doc. ‘6’ of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix C) provide for authorization to proceed upon a complaint, and the issuance of summonses to defendants, which cannot be disregarded without examination of evidence (especially for antitrust claims)? 4.Validating antitrust claims (enforced under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act ): “ a. Should PLAINTIFFs’ ‘COMPLAINT’ (‘Comp.,’ Appendix D, Doc. ‘2’ of Dock. No.18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), filed December 20, 2018) presenting claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act be justifiable for the Court to enforce the standards of Plausibility , Parallelism and the alleged mandatory procedure to prove the existence of a contract (as delineated within the trials of ASHCROFT v. IQBAL (‘Matter of Iqbal’), 556 U.S. 678 (2002), BELL ATLANTIC CORP. v. TWOMBLY (‘Matter of Twombly’), 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) ( ‘[‘] a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of an illegal agreement[’ (‘Id. at 1965’),]’ Matter of Iqbal citing Matter of Twombly) and ERICKSON v. PARDUS , 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007)) and should such claims be a common procedure of the judicial government for proving antitrust offenses? “ i. If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against HON. STANTON for laching upon a pursuit to seek evidence of a contract under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 26? “5. 28 U.S.C. § 1927 : “ a. If sanctions are enforced against HON. STANTON for an unconstitutional dismissal, and antitrust claims are proven to have been escheated, should such provide for the enforcement of additional sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927? “6. U.S. Const. Am. 1, 5, 14 § 1 and 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1001(a): “ a. Should S.D.N.Y.’s PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT’s personal classification of PLAINTIFFs’ Comp.’s case type as ‘440 Civil Rights’[,]... when PLAINTIFF factually stated the matter concerned the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act within the Comp. and ‘NATURE OF SUIT & DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP’ (Doc ‘3’ of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix F)? “ i. If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? “7. U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1513; 44 U.S.C. §§3507(e)(3)(B), 3512: “ a. Are the actions by HON. STANTON to provide an dismissal be seen as retaliatory promissory and collateral discriminatory judicial estoppel (under U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1513; 44 U.S.C. §§3507(e)(3)(B), 3512); collaterally associated to the trials of: CESTUI QUESTEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct), 137 U.S. 1611(No. 16M111, 2017); Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams , File No. 2013-3538(SCNY); PEOPLE v. STEVEN WILLIAMS, Dock. No.2012NY089333(NYCC); MARYLAND v. WILLIAMS, STEVEN T., No. ID00283543 (M.C. Dist.Ct.,2012); and ST OWNER LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC)? “ i.If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? “8. U.S. Const. Art. 3 and the ‘pendent jurisdiction’ rule): “ a. Should PLAINTIFFs’ claims involving collateral estoppel from circuit courts of New York State (namely: Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, File No. 2013-3538(SCNY); PEOPLE v. STEVENWILLIAMS, Dock. No. 2012NY089333(NYCC); and ST OWNER LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC)) be jurisdictionally enforced within the Federal Courts under U.S. Const. Art. 3 and the ‘pendent jurisdiction’ rule? “ i. If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? “ ii. Alternatively, U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3; U.S. Const. Am. 14 §4, are questioned for whether named defendants of this certiorari aided in antitrust offenses (under 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) upon validation of claims of PLAINTIFF’ drive r’s license and Mrs. Linda Paula Streger Williams (PLAINTIFFs’ mother’s) Social Security Numbers being allegedly exposed to the public by the local and federal court system (a matter of national security if his alleged trust ’ s funds were utilized to fund of terrorist organizations)? “ iii. Further, upon validation of aiding antirust claims as accessories after the fact (see subdivision (ii) above), will the Court provide for further questioning upon Fed. R. App. P. 27, L.R. 27(d), (g), (i) and L.R. 40.2 of the Local Rules and Internal Operating Procedures of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, local statute 22 NYCRR 500.20(d) (for collateral claims of pendent jurisdiction), the recently provided dismissals of CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES , ET AL ., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir. Ct.) and CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-240(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir. Ct.) (see Appendices G, H and I. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi)) and what delineates ‘an adequate, alternative mean[ ] of obtaining relief’ when judicial officials cite ‘Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)’ for a reason to dismiss reconsideration motions? “ A. Upon affirmation of a justified reconsideration by PLAINTIFF (see Appendix I. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi)), will the Court see just to provide a sua sponté order to reopen the above trials (Dock. Nos. 19-39 and 19-240), by writ of error, in question of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60? Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*] FEDERAL QUESTIONS, APPENDIX A, (15 pg.) "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN)," Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.) [*] APPENDIX A, FEDERAL QUESTIONS, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN), 15 pg., Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 APPENDIX A, FEDERAL QUESTIONS, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT T... more APPENDIX A, FEDERAL QUESTIONS, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN) (highlighted), dated October 5, 2019, Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.): "[NEW CERTIORARI QUESTIONS]... " APPENDIX A "1. Will the Court immediately investigate and adjudicate upon threat to life (possible exposure to unorthodox experimental treatments), where such may achieve further shepardization of federal and local statutes to include any socioeconomically deprived disadvantage (via use of experimental research or the use of unorthodox test subjects) who are, or have the likelihood, of being connected to illegally reinvested securitized assets (antitrust matters or otherwise)? See: (i) 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-153, 15 U.S.C. §7501; highlighting 10 U.S.C. §2358 (1988 Act; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010); (ii) 42 U.S.C. §6601 (Memorandum of President of the United States, Mar, 27, 1997, 62 F.R. 26369, “consent”); (iii) Ex. Or. No. 12882 (as amended)); National Science and Technology Policy, Organization and Priorities Act of 1976; (iv) Ex. Or. No. 13521 ('The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioetical issues;' Federal Advisory Committee Act); (v) SMART IoT Act (H.R. 6032). "2. Are there threats to the homeless population, and/or segregated groups, via terrorism and genetic warfare, when neglecting to obtain, or obtaining, 'informed consent' while utilizing '[exces]sive[ ] paternalistic behavior by experts and physicians' (see Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics, by Mr. Leon R. Kass. Id. At 17)? See Memorandum of President of the United States, Mar, 27, 1997, 62 F.R. 26369, 42 U.S.C. §6601. "3. Should the ratifying of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization and Priorities Act of 1976 (which includes the Office of Science and Technology Policy) and Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, mentioned within Ex. Or. No. 13521 (42 U.S.C. §6601 (note), November 24, 2009, 74 F.R. 62671) (excluding the use of the Federal Advisory Committee, such as the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (42 U.S.C. §6601 (note) and the presidential memorandum of Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Research, dated Mar. 27, 1997) use of internet communications within nanobiotechnology and nanorobotics to solely be experimented within external uses of the human body, such as an inorganic object or botany medicines (whether for research purposes only or to perfect the use of medicines and, thereafter, to eliminate the existence of internet capable nanorobotics upon completion of the medical research and/or registry of such medicines with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration), whereby such may eliminate the intentional, or unintentional, threat to human life or national security of nanomaterials being utilized as a weapon of terror or for physicians to merely provide drug delivery in a quicker manner than in-patient visits in the quest to provide medicine in real time (whether through bluetooth, SMS text messaging or otherwise)? "4. Should measures to ensure the elimination of internet capable nanobiotechnology and nanorobotics, as mentioned above, be implemented within the ratification of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-153, 15 U.S.C. §7501), as well as the Research and Development for Biomedical Countermeasures (P.L. 108-136, div. A, title XVI, §1601, Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1680, as amended) and the Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program (P.L. 107-314, div. A, title II, §246, Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2500, as amended), including all other pilot programs and other notes, such as the reporting of nanotechnology appropriations and investments to the U.S. Department of Defense, referenced within 10 U.S.C. §2358? "5. Should measures to ensure the elimination of internet capable nanobiotechnology and nanorobotics be implemented within the ratification of the SMART IoT Act, recently offered to the U.S. Government within the House of Representatives June 7,2018 Bill of H. R. 6032, as well as the regulations surrounding the advancements in IoBNT? "6. In light of amended laws following the dissolving of the Human Genome Project, should the Court claim the United States is at fault for allowing solely consensual use of human experimentation within nanobiotechnology, especially when experimenting with the internet to control technology within the human body?" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 565 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*] FURTHER FEDERAL REVIEW, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN), Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.) [*] FURTHER FEDERAL REVIEW, SUPPLEMENT BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE, Williams, 19-5405(U.S. S.CT.), 2022 "JUDICIAL REVIEW QUESTIONS SOUGHT FOR FURTHER FEDERAL REVIEW," SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HO... more "JUDICIAL REVIEW QUESTIONS SOUGHT FOR FURTHER FEDERAL REVIEW," SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.): Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547(UA)(CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC)(RJS)(SJM)(2nd Cir. Ct.)) 1. “The ‘human subject,’ in terms of previously enacted legislation within the U.S., is relatively obscure in its definition, as such a ‘subject’ is determined by experimental consent only (such as when MR. WILLIAMS, JR. and PLAINTIFF were asked to sign off on new chemotherapy treatments for DECEDENTs’ diagnosed ovarian cancer), and if such experimental treatment involves the use of the internet and a nanorobotic asexual self-reproductive microorganism, which can become airborne, or a new strain of a virus, then the possibilities of infecting the general population (especially upon the sick, elderly and homeless) via an uncontrollable computer program is more than likely probable (an ‘activity… thought to be revealing and… finally deemed unimportant.’ Id. at 283[ (see Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics, “Defense of Dignity,” by Mr. Leon R. Kass)]); hence, how would citizens ever know if we’ve entered an era of genetic warfare (initiated foreign or domestic)?.” Id. at 359, 360 (Supp.B. Homelessness2 at 363, 364); 2. Is the “need for the internet to be incorporated within nano medical research [ ] excessive, especially if such is to ease the personal needs of physicians[?]” Id. at 360 (Supp.B. Homelessness at 364);... 3. Should “society… evolve into the accomplishment of utilizing nanorobotics to open dimensional gateways through the understanding and advancement of the internet and dark space (transporting themselves to work every day, just to hurl a pellet at a co-worker), or [should] such technology be utilized within institutional reform, where an convicted individual [may] be sentenced to a new form of capital punishment, a sentencing of ‘paralysis’ (unlike that of the movie Matrix), where their minds will be placed into a computer simulated fantasy realm while their bodies either decay within hibernation, or stay neutral through the use of anti-aging nanogels?[;]”... 4. “If [ ] utilizing dimensional gateways such are combined with the appearance of visual destinations (ie: incorporating the use of UV and/or laser light technology to control holographic imaging), then would we be able to calculate what will be seen if such online communication can relay a real time video imaging of such destination, and will we be able to sustain our true selves or fax an image of ourselves when walking into or through such a hologram?” Id. at 389 (Supp.B. Homelessness at 385); 5. “In terms of the most thought about human desire next to safety, sexual desires, where can our new technologies take us, especially when external stimulants are highly sought after[;… should] our pursued trigger [ ] advance upon [an] online emotional transference, where orgasms will one day be utilized as a device to not just enhance a power but to send and receive emailed attachments of sperm, upon an male ejaculation (female ejaculation for lesbian couples), through an in vivo wi-fi network (or even replicated within an in situ wi-fi network, transfiguring the ‘faxed’ image of sperm and its individual properties to the ovaries), thereby making women asexual organisms (a biblical reference to Mary, Jesus’ mother), or even transgenderism[?] Id. at 394 (Supp.B. Homelessness at 390).... 6. “Would the use of nanorobotics be beneficial more if only executed on inorganic objects and for medical purposes within plants?” Id. at 412 (Supp.B. Homelessness at 408)... 7. “What would be the resulting social impact if internet capable microfluidic asexual nanorobotic microorganism device, carrying a new type of experimental virus, were to infect a crop of vegetables[ ] for experimental purposes[ if] such device is capable of being undetectable (in the shape of a natural living cell or other common microorganism) and dormant for years[,… t]raveling from crop to crop (whether or not airborne) prior to being collected and sorted for produce and general consumption[?]” Id. at 413 (Supp.B. Homelessness at 409).... 8. “For numerous years, alcoholics or homeless individuals have been experimented upon by the medical industry and its financial backers (using unorthodox treatments to do so), and, at times, inducing disastrous effects upon them, [is] the likelihood of destroying the human body of patients and/or other individuals (whether out of retaliation, or otherwise) [ ] just around the corner[?] Id. at 62 (Supp.B. Homelessness at 58); 9. Is the “introduction of wirelessly controlled internet nano-bots, to mutate DNA/RNA stands with microfludics (via hydrogel, a gelatin tissue)[ and] provide in situ treatments to patients (cancer or otherwise),… [an] extreme hazard placed upon society at large[ where there is a]… possibility of being divided from themselves and lost in a dark space[ ] void of the internet[?]” Id. at 63 (Supp.B. Homelessness at 59); 10. Has “modern biological terrorism [ ] propelled into a new age of internet capable hydro-gelatin microfluidic threats with the origination of the Human Genome Project[?]” Id. at 68 (Supp.B. Homelessness at 64); 11. “[W]ould[ it] better serve our society and further research of nanobiotechnology by excluding the use of the internet as a pathway of controlling the human body and perhaps solely limited to our external environment (ie: inorganic matter and/or controlled use of herbology (excluding produce and including organic medicines); as such may replenish our ozone)[?]” Id. at 305, 306 (Supp.B. Homelessness at 301, 302); 12. Is there a “need for definitive regulations surrounding the use of the internet within experiments of nanobiotechnology (especially if utilizing nanorobotics as asexual microorganisms where a viral strain can be replicated by a biohacker and utilized to commit mass genocide, or, alternatively, if experimented on for medical research where such an asexual microorganism can infect one individual, if such individual consents to the research, which can infect then the entire world population or otherwise used as an act of terrorism, by those with the means to do so, for retaliation against an individual, religious group, or other classified monetary status depicted as a ‘have not’) is pertinent to our sustaining comfort of our future within society[?]” Id. at 400 (Supp.B. Homelessness at 396). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 522 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact U.S. S.Ct. Questions, Certiorari, Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.) U.S. S.Ct. Questions, Certiorari, Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2017 In Ref. Doc. 68 (Part 1), U.S. S.Ct. Questions, "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (DRAFTED - Orig... more In Ref. Doc. 68 (Part 1), U.S. S.Ct. Questions, "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (DRAFTED - Original allegedly stolen), Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.): DISCLAIMER Due to claims against the N.Y.P.D. (20TH PRECINCT) stealing PLAINTIFFs’ personal property (containing most evidence of this trial matter, which were preciously filed within CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., 137 U.S.1611(2017)), as such was shortly after an event where PLAINTIFF filed a police report (Complaint Report No. “3687.” [highlighting and emphasis added]) with the 20th for having his 137 U.S. 1611(2017) documents (namely the certiorari petition with exhibits) allegedly stolen from him after sleeping at Richard Tucker Park (located at Columbus Avenue and 66th Street) at approximately 5:15 in the morning, on the date of September 6, 2017, PLAINTIFF unfortunately is unable to provide the District Court of S.D.N.Y. proper evidence in support of his complaint. However, most of the evidence is still filed in the Supreme Court of the United States and some still in PLAINTIFFs’ possession, as such are presented to the Court in accompanying exhibited documents. "The aforementioned questions are presented to the Supreme Court of the United States... for review in opposition of the 'MOTION ORDER' ('MANDATE,' 'Document 35,' filed May 18, 2016, Docket No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.), Appendix A), the Southern District Court of the State of New York... 'ORDER OF DISMISSAL' ('Document 18,' Appendix B) and 'CIVIL JUDGMENT' ('Document 19,' Appendix C) (both filed December 10, 2015 within Docket No. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY)),... as well as the accompanying filings of the U.S. S.Ct.’s 'MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,' 'AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,' and Plaintiffs’ 'Affidavit In Support Of Petition For Writ Of Certiorari (Mandamus/Sine Qua Non/Order Nisi)'... and 'Motion For Extraordinary Relief (28 U.S.C. §1929)'... U.S. S.Ct. Rule 10(a) to (c), 11 (see 28 U.S.C. §2101(c)[)],... as such may be afforded via the filing of 'Motion For Extension Or Stay Of Limitations: In Forma Pauperis & Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, et seq.,' U.S. S.Ct. Rule 13.5), 12.2, 12.3, 20.1 to 20.3 (see... 'Affidavit Of Proof Of Service, In Kind: Motion For Extraordinary Relief'); Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b)(2); 18 U.S.C. §§3173, 3174, 3771(a), (b), (d)(1); 28 U.S.C.§§1257(a), 1651(a), 1657, 2101(f). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "WILLIAMS v. U.S.[,] 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017)" (Index No., "16M111"), Leagle.com (Highlighted) "WILLIAMS v. U.S.[,] 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017)" (Index No., "16M111"), Leagle.com, 2017 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "Decisions from Vol. 137 of S.Ct. Reporter Series," "137 S.Ct. 1611 - WILLIAMS v. U.S., Supreme Court of United States"), Leagle.com (Highlighted) Decisions from Vol. 137 of S.Ct. Reporter Series, 2017 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "U.S. Supreme Court Orders[; ]MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2017[; ]CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS," "16M111WILLIAMS, STEVEN T. v. UNITED STATES"), Law.Cornell.edu (Highlighted) "U.S. Supreme Court Orders[; ]MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2017[; ] CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS", 2017 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 70 (ESTOPPEL) - "U.S. SUPREME COURT LETTER, dated 04/17/2017, denying the petition for a writ of certiorari out of time, RECEIVED" (Highlighted), Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 137 S.Ct. 1611(2017) U.S. SUPREME COURT LETTER, dated 04/17/2017, denying the petition for a writ of certiorari out of time, RECEIVED, 2017 "The motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out of time is denied." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Ref. Doc. 70 (ESTOPPEL) - "MOTION TO DIRECT THE CLERK TO FILE PETITION OUT OF TIME" (cover page - STAMPED)" (Highlighted), Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 137 S.Ct. 1611(2017) MOTION TO DIRECT THE CLERK TO FILE PETITION OUT OF TIME, 2017 Stamped February 23, 2017 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (DRAFT), In Ref. Doc. 68, Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.) https://www.academia.edu/attachments/84694892/download_file?s=portfolio, 2017 "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (DRAFTED - Original allegedly stolen) (ESTOPPEL, HIDDEN FROM DO... more "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (DRAFTED - Original allegedly stolen) (ESTOPPEL, HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), Doc. 68, filed February 1, 2017, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) Doc. 68, "Motion for: PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" "Making service of (3) copies of Plaintiffs' certiorari petition sought for filing within the Supreme Court of the United States... "An extension motion accompanies Plaintiffs' filings within the Supreme Court of the United States due to 'extraordinary circumstances' which have caused service of this petition to be given in a late Is oral argument on motion requested? manner, namely not being notified of the order denying reinstatement." "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION The following are reasons to review this certiorari (U.S. S.Ct. Rule 10, 11; 28 U.S.C. §2101(c)) in favor of Plaintiff and to assume authoritative control over Matter of Cestui Que S.T. Williams in opposition of the referenced May 18, 2016 MOTION ORDER (Docket No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.), Appendix A), as well as the December 10, 2015 ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Docket No. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), Appendix B): • S.D.N.Y. and the 2nd Cir. Ct. refused to acknowledge Plaintiff (sole beneficiary and named alternate executor to Trust LPSW) conveying information of having never being provided notification of Trust LPSW being transferred for ownership to U.B.S. and Pershing, nor that a death index search was never performed by the financial institutions after the passing of Decedent in abidance with local laws of the state of New York or the Estates, Powers and Trusts laws; • S.D.N.Y. and the 2nd Cir. Ct. refused to acknowledge claimed illegalities by N.Y.H.C. as being a valid federal claim, wherein upon the death of Decedent, CWCAM (in their interim ownership of PCV/ST, after performing a financial background check on all of the tenants of PCV/ST, and having affiliations with U.B.S. and other hedge fund firms, including Bank of America, N.A., their insurer and the banking institution handling Estate LPSW) filed for eviction within N.Y.H.C. without providing Plaintiff, as successor, a renewal lease (despite his requests) and well prior to the eviction date, whereby Hon. Chan J. authorized the eviction of himself and Mr. Willis Eugene Williams, Jr. (Plaintiffs’ father) from the dwelling unit as if they were rent controlled tenants instead of rent stabilized tenants in violation of local laws of New York (having the warrant posted on the dwelling unit door on the day of eviction, the key card deactivated to deny entry into the apartment building and top lock plunged in, allegedly without prior notice of attending trial within N.Y.H.C.); • S.D.N.Y. and the 2nd Cir. Ct. refused to acknowledge Plaintiffs’ conveyances of financial trade secrets, wherein Trust LPSW was affirmed as having considerable amounts of financial assets within it by U.S. Government agencies, and whereby Pershing (and partner U.B.S. for Trust LPSW) allegedly denied Plaintiff acquisition of beneficial trust assets or information upon his visitation (the I.R.S. as well); • U.B.S., J.P. Sec. and P.H.S., in their joint effort to offer financial assets to the general public, utilized their finances (of which include Trust LPSW) to bail out CWCAM from mortgaged debt acquired from the previous ownership of PCV/ST; • S.D.N.Y. and the 2nd Cir. Ct. allegedly refused to acknowledge Plaintiffs’ conveyances of judicial and legal malpractice by Avrom R. Vann (Avrom R. Vann, P.C.), Hon. Chan J., Hon. J.H.S., D.A. Sophia “Khon” (and John Doe (4), Asst. D.A.) and the S.C.N.Y. and to report such claims to the proper authoritative power in abidance with Judicial Code 2.15; • The 2nd Cir. Ct. refused to acknowledge Plaintiffs’ conveyance of CWCAM initiating the sale of PCV/ST to BlackstoneGrp. immediately after Plaintiff filed papers within S.D.N.Y. seeking redress; • S.D.N.Y. and the 2nd Cir. Ct. allegedly refused to seek justice at all costs and dismissed Matter of Cestui Que S.T. Williams primarily in light of a procedural oversight of the statement provision associated to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), while further exposing personal confidential information to the general public in defiance with Plaintiffs’ federally protected right to suppress and protect such information and allegedly committing other violations in aid of named primary defendants; and • Plaintiff has been living on the streets of New York City for over four years, allegedly battling retaliation, prejudice, violent acts of aggression and fierce weather conditions (causing near loss of body parts) all claimed due to the alleged illegal eviction (Hon. Chan J. and Hon. J.H.S.) and the relationship of the court system with CWCAM, as well as California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Bondholder for CWCAM and PCV/ST), wherein numerous occurrences of alleged police state actions were performed upon his person within a three year period. As highlighted within the jurisdiction section of this petition, as well as evidenced within appendices of the accompanying previously mentioned extension or stay of limitations motion, a “Petition: Rehearing” “Document 46”), “Motion for Emergency Reconsideration” (“Document 46”), “Motion to Recall Mandate” (“Document 42”), and “Motion To Expedite” (“Document 44”), all filed on July 6, 2016, including a further filing of a “Motion For Immediate Emergency Reinstatement” (“Document 40,” filed July 7, 2016), have yet to be answered by the 2nd Cir. Ct., wherein, after additionally filing a “threat to life” affidavit, enjoining motion and supplemental notice of appeal for matters pertaining to the M.T.A., T.A.B., and U.S. S.Ct., Kings Co., Civ., the Court has denied any further filing within the docket, as he is unable to file an extension motion to file a certiorari petition (as referenced within U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14(e)(ii)). Furthermore, the above filings, as they appear on the CIVIL DOCKET for Docket No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.), were filed in the incorrect numerical order, a claimed U.S. Const. Am. 10 violation, wherein the July 7, 2016 motion for reinstatement is numbered earlier than the July 6 rehearing petition and subsequent motions. In abidance with U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14(e)(v), it is additionally noted, due to claimed subversion of life restricting the availability of funds to deliver this petition and I.F.P. motion to all named defendants by certified mail, only the mentioned defendants in section B of the accompanying Affidavit Of Proof Of Service, In Kind: Motion For Extraordinary Relief (previously mentioned) have been served in person, while the remaining defendants are sought process of service through the Solicitor General and the accompanying filing of the Motion For Extraordinary Relief (28 U.S.C. §1929) (also previously referenced). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact MISSING MOTION, U.S. S.Ct. Index No. 16M111 (Highlighted), Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114(LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017) U.S. S.Ct. Index No. 16M111 (Highlighted), Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114(LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017), 2017 "Mar 1 2017 Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out of ti... more "Mar 1 2017 Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out of time filed. Mar 22 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017. Apr 17 2017 Motion Denied." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.) Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.), 2019 Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.): "QUESTION(S) PRESENTED "1. Fed. R. App. P. ... more Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.): "QUESTION(S) PRESENTED "1. Fed. R. App. P. 27, L.R. 27(d), (g), (i), L.R. 40.2 and 22 NYCRR §500.20(d) (pendent jurisdiction): "a. Will the Court provide for questioning upon Fed. R. App. P. 27, L.R. 27(d), (g), (i) and L.R. 40.2 of the Local Rules and Internal Operating Procedures of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, local statute 22 NYCRR §500.20(d) (collateral claims of pendent jurisdiction) for the recently provided dismissal of CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ETAL., 18cvl2064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir. Ct.) (see Appendix A and B. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi)) and what delineates 'an adequate, alternative mean[ ] of obtaining relief' when judicial officials cite 'Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)' for a reason to dismiss reconsideration motions? "i. Upon affirmation of a justified reconsideration by PLAINTIFF (see Appendix B. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi)), will the Court see just to provide a sua sponte order to reopen the above trial (Dock. Nos. 19-39), by writ of error, in question of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60? "2. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 11: "a. Under Rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (U.S. S.Ct. Rules), seeking review of a district court judgment before a judgment within an appeal, if the district court’s judgment references associated appeal trials, may those associated appeal trials be sought for review within the same certiorari, either under U.S. S.Ct. Rule 11 and/or U.S. S.Ct. Rule 12.4 (closely related multiple judgments)? Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-5399 (U.S. S.Ct.) Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-5399 (U.S. S.Ct.), 2019 Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-5399 (U.S. S.Ct.): "QUESTION(S) PRESENTED "1. Fed. R. App. P. 27, ... more Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-5399 (U.S. S.Ct.): "QUESTION(S) PRESENTED "1. Fed. R. App. P. 27, L.R. 27(d), (g), (i), L.R. 40.2 and 22 NYCRR 500.20(d) (pendent jurisdiction): "a. Will the Court provide for further questioning upon Fed. R. App. P. 27, L.R. 27(d), (g), (i) and L.R. 40.2 of the Local Rules and Internal Operating Procedures of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, local statute 22 NYCRR 500.20(d) (collateral claims of pendent jurisdiction), the recently provided dismissals of CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., 18cvl2064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-240(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir. Ct.) (see Appendix A and B. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14. l(i)(vi)) and what delineates 'an adequate, alternative mean[ ] of obtaining relief' when judicial officials cite 'Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)' for a reason to dismiss reconsideration motions? "i. Upon affirmation of a justified reconsideration by PLAINTIFF (see Appendix B. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1 (i)(vi)), will the Court see just to provide a sua sponte order to reopen the above trial (Dock. Nos. 19-240), by writ of error, in question of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60? "2. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 11: "a. Under Rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (U.S. S.Ct. Rules), seeking review of a district court judgment before a judgment within an appeal, if the district court’s judgment references associated appeal trials, may those associated appeal trials be sought for review within the same certiorari, either under U.S. S.Ct. Rule 11 and/or U.S. S.Ct. Rule 12.4 (closely related multiple judgments)? Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.) Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.), 2019 Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.): "QUESTION(S) PRESENTED "1. 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(... more Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.): "QUESTION(S) PRESENTED "1. 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 18 U.S.C. §402 (dismissal for 'frivolous[ness];' U.S. Const. Am. 6, 10): "a. Whether the 'ORDER' (Appendix A, dated March 22, 2019) of HON. LOUIS L. STANTON was unconstitutionally provided to delay trial and lache upon naming all defendants and exhibits? U.S. Const. Am. 6, 10; 18 U.S.C. §402. "b. Whether the 'ORDER OF DISMISSAL' ('Dismissal,' Appendix B, Doc '4' of Dock No 18cvl2064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix X) of HON. STANTON, for 'frivolous[ness]' (28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)), was unconstitutionally provided, and to issue sanctions for discriminatory and retaliatory contempt of court processes (18 U.S.C. §402), claimed to have induced a delay of trial and laches by the court to provide summonses to defendants after CHIEF J. HON. COLLEEN MCMAHON granted the In Forma (Doc. '6' of Dock. No. 18cvl2064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix C) under 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (a claim of postfiling delayed review, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a). See Question 3)? "2. J. Code 1.3 (C. 1) ("[a] position to gain... differential treatment of any kind”) (judicial estoppel, collateral and promissory, treasonous rebellion, under U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3, U.S. Const. Am. 5, 13 §3, 14 §§1, 4):... "3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and 28 U.S.C. §1915 ('postfiling delayed review'):... "4. Validating antitrust claims (enforced under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act):... "5. 28 U.S.C. §1927:... "6. U.S. Const. Am. 1, 5, 14 §1 and 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1001(a):... "7. U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1513; 44 U.S.C. §§3507(e)(3)(B), 3512:... "8. U.S. Const. Art. 3 and the 'pendent jurisdiction' rule):... "9. Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b) and 28 C.F.R. Part O, Subpart K (Scott Campbell, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims’ Rights Act):... "10. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(4) and 18 U.S.C §402 (U.S. Const. Am. 1; U.S. Const. Am. 10; U.S. Const .Am. 13 §3, 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3):... "11. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(4), Fed. R. Crim. P. 42 and 18 U.S.C §402 (U.S. Const. Am 1; U.S. Const. Am. 10; U.S. Const. Am. 13 §3; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3):... "12. Fed. R. App. P. 3(b)(2) ('separate timely notices of [ap]peal, the appeals may be joined or consolidated by the court of appeals'), 18 U.S.C §402 and U.S. Const. Am. 10:... "13. U.S. Const. Art. 1 §8 Cl. 7 (postal fraud); U.S. Const. Am. 1, 4, 6, 10; 18 U.S.C. §1001(a) and 18 U.S.C §402 (U.S. Const. Am. 1; U.S. Const. Am. 13 §3; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3):... "14. Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 3, seeking a revising of the federal rules:... "15. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), (f)(1):... "16. U.S. Const. Art. 1 §8 Cl. 17; U S. Const. Art. 1 §10, 6 §2, U.S. Const. Am. 11; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54; Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; 48 C.F.R. §2815; 28 U.S.C. §651, et seq.; 5 U.S.C. §555(b); The Adequate Remedy Rule; and Economic Benefit Doctrine (in coordination with seeking waiver of immunity via mandamus, as a 'preliminary' semi safe harbor, or quasi-public good), seeking a revising to constitutional laws and acts of Congress:... "17. Seeking a revising to 42 U.S.C. §2000d and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (specifically §601):... "18. The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 (seeking §1296(b) motion):..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-6227 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Mandamus) Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-6227 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Mandamus), 2019 Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-6227 (U.S. S.Ct.): "CERTIORARI QUESTIONS "1. 28 USC 1916(e)(2)(B)(... more Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-6227 (U.S. S.Ct.): "CERTIORARI QUESTIONS "1. 28 USC 1916(e)(2)(B)(i) and 18 U.S.C. §402 (dismissal for 'frivolous[ness];' U.S. Const. Am. 6, 10): "a. Whether the 'ORDER' (Appendix A, dated March 22, 2019) of HON. LOUIS L. STANTON was unconstitutionally provided to delay trial and lache upon naming all defendants and exhibits? U .S . Const. Am. 6, 10; 18 U.S.C. §402. "b. Whether the 'ORDER OF DISMISSAL' ('Dismissal,' Appendix B, Doc. '4' of Dock No 18cvl2064(LLS)(SDNY); see Appendix X) of HON. STANTON, for 'frivolous[ness]' (28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)), was unconstitutionally provided, and to issue sanctions for discriminatory and retaliatory contempt of court processes (18 U.S.C. §402), claimed to have induced a delay of trial and laches by the court to provide summonses to defendants after CHIEF J. HON. COLLEEN MCMAHON granted the In Forma (Doc. of Dock. No. 18cvl2064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix C) under 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (a claim of postfiling delayed review, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a). See Question 3)? "2. J. Code 1.3 (C.1) ('[a] position to gain... differential treatment of any kind') (judicial estoppel, collateral and promissory, treasonous rebellion, under U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3, U.S. Const. Am. 5, 13 §3, 14 §§ 1, 4:... "3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and 28 U.S.C. §1915 ('postfiling delayed review'):... "4. Validating antitrust claims (enforced under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act):... "5. 28 U.S.C. §1927:... "6. U.S. Const. Am. 1, 5, 14 §1 and 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1001(a):... "7. U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1513; 44 U.S.C. §§5307(e)(3)(B), 3512:... "8. U.S. Const. Art. 3 and the 'pendent jurisdiction' rule[ ]:... "9. Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b) and 28 C.F.R. Part 0, Subpart K (Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims Rights Act):... "10. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(4) and 18 U.S.C §402 (U.S. Const. Am. 1; U.S. Const. Am. 10; U.S. Const. Am. 13 §3; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3):... "11. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(4), Fed. R. Crim. P. 42 and 18 U.S.C §402 (U.S. Const. Am. 1; U.S. Const. Am. 10; U.S. Const. Am. 13 §3; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3):... "12. Fed. R. App. P. 3(b)(2) ('separate timely notices of [ap]peal, the appeals may be joined or consolidated by the court of appeals'), 18 U.S.C §402 and U.S. Const. Am. 10:... "13. U.S. Const. Art. 1 §8 Cl. 7 (postal fraud); U.S. Const. Am. 1, 4, 6, 10; 18 U.S.C. §1001(a) and 18 U.S.C §402 (U.S. Const. Am. 1; U.S. Const. Am. 13 §3; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3):... "14. Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 3, seeking a revising of the federal rules:... "15. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), (f)(1)[:]... "16. U.S. Const. Art. 1 §8 Cl. 17; U S. Const. Art. 1 §10, 6 §2, U.S. Const. Am. 11; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54; Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; 48 C.F.R. §2815; 28 U.S.C. §651, et seq.; 5 U.S.C. §555(b); The Adequate Remedy Rule; and Economic Benefit Doctrine (in coordination with seeking waiver of immunity via mandamus, as a 'preliminary' semi safe harbor, or quasi-public good), seeking a revising to constitutional laws and acts of Congress:... "17. Seeking a revising to 42 U.S.C. §2000d and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (specifically §601):... "18. The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§2201-2202 (seeking a sua sponte 28 U.S.C. §1296(b) motion):..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.), 2019 Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.): "QUESTION(S) PRESENTED "1. U.S. Cont. Agni 5, 10... more Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.): "QUESTION(S) PRESENTED "1. U.S. Cont. Agni 5, 10 (recordkeeping), 14 §1; Fed. R. Evid. 501, 502; 18 U.S.C. 1001(a): "a. Under the 'Fairness,' 'Extrajudicial Partial Disclosure,' and 'Implied Subject Matter' doctrines (including the 'Exhaustion' doctrine; see DARBY v. CISNEROS, 509 U.S. 137 (1993), 'exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review'), did the judicial officials and clerical employees of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (within WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., Dock No. 19-1392) err by intentionally laching upon their obligations of 'work product protection' (154 Cong. Rec. 18,016 (2008)), under U.S. Const. Am. 5, 10, 14 §1 and Fed. R. Evid. 501, 502, through estoppel, to acknowledge the absence of disclosed prevalent information (18 U.S.C. 1001(a)), thereby, forcefully inducing a waiver of PLAINTTFFs' rights (worthy of sanctions), as exceptional circumstances, which PLAINTIFF previously made numerous attempts to resolve (from previously claimed estoppel offenses against the District Court (see WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18-12064(LLS)(SDNY)), under the Post-Filing Delayed Review doctrine), yet whose attempts were denied, within the trials of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.) and WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.)? "2. U.S. Const. Am. 10; 18 U.S.C. 1001(a): "a. If a PLAINTIFF has made numerous attempts to cure clerical filings of both the District and Appellate courts, gone ignored and/or lached (under U.S. Const. Am. 10; 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)), should 'In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 96 (2d Cir. 1987)' (see Appendix A and Appendix B) be a viable common law usage for a determination to deny a mandamus action based upon 'exceptional circumstances [which ]warrant the requested relief?;' "3. U.S. Const. Am. 5, 6, 14 §1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; U.S. S.Ct. Rule 8; 18 U.S.C. §402: "a. Based upon evidence within the accompanying Appendices A to Z, and upon determination of judicial officials and clerical employees of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit intentionally laching upon their 'work product protection' obligations (under the 'Fairness,' 'Extrajudicial Partial Disclosure,' 'Implied Subject Matter' and 'Exhaustion' doctrines) and, thereafter, laching upon an issuance of orders for sanctions and the curing of PLAINTTFFs' filings, will the Supreme Court of the United States determine a ruling in favor of PLAINTIFFS' sanction claims of estoppel, contempt, and discriminatory delay of court processes (under: U.S. Const. Am. 5, 6, 14 §1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; U.S. S.Ct. Rule 8; 18 U.S.C. §402) against the federal officials and officers of both the District and Appellate courts? "b. Based upon evidence within the accompanying Appendices A to Z, and upon determination of judicial officials and clerical employees of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit intentionally laching upon their 'work product protection' obligations (under the 'Fairness,' 'Extrajudicial Partial Disclosure,' 'Implied Subject Matter' and 'Exhaustion' doctrines), which allegedly induced a threat to national security and to the assets within PLAINTIFFs' claimed beneficial trust (the 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST;' Appendix U; for which WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18-12064(LLS)(SDNY)'s COMPLAINT (Appendix H) was sought for relief as an antitrust, subversion and national security matter), will the Supreme Court of the United States vacate and remand the 'In re von Bulow' judgment of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.)? "4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), (f)(1): "a. Should the 'STRIKE ORDER' (Doc. '104' of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.) (Appendix C), striking the filing of an injunction and other supporting documents (see PLATNTTFF's June 21, 2019 filing of a replacement T-1080, a non-clerically requested curing a prior defect of) (including PLATNTTFF's 'Letter To Chief Clerk Ms./Mrs. Kathleen O'Hagan: Validation Of Filing An Affidavit (Doc. 82),' Doc. '88' of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.) (see Appendix D of the associated certiorari of 'Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.)') and 'Motion To Strike Defectiveness (Doc. 84)' Doc. "89-1" of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.) (Appendix E) (both filed on June 3, 2019, prior to the Appellate Court requesting clarification of PLAINTTFF's strike motion, and again on June 10, 2019 (see PLAINTIFF's "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE' for June 10, 2019, Doc. '98-1' of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.; Appendix F. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi))), have been provided, whether or not enforced under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(1)? "5. U.S. Const. Am. 11(c); U.S. S.Ct. Rules 8, 12 to 14, 16, 19, 20; 28 U.S.C. §1254: "a. Should a waiver of sovereign immunity petition be denied for filing with a certiorari petition (under the above U.S. S.Ct. Rules and 28 U.S.C. §1254), when the certiorari pertains to a sanctions action under U.S. Const. Am. 11(c)? Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Duplicate Filing on Docket) Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Duplicate Filing on Docket), 2019 Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Duplicate Filing on Docket) "11. This matter, un... more Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) (Duplicate Filing on Docket) "11. This matter, under U.S. Con t. Art. 3 §2, Cl. 1; U.S. S.Ct. Rule 12, is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States... from an appeal of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v United States, et al , 1 8cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2 nd Cir. Ct.), questions the (i) 'ORDER' Doc. 108, Appendix A, of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), dated September 5, 2019) and (ii) STRIKE ORDER ('Strike Or.,' Appendix C, Doc. 104 of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), dated June 27, 2019),...." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact U.S. S.Ct. DUPLICATE FILINGS (December 15, 2019), Williams v. United States, et al., 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) U.S. S.Ct. DUPLICATE FILINGS (December 15, 2019), Williams v. United States, et al., 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.), 2019 DUPLICATE FILINGS OF THE DOCKET Printed - December 7, 2019 (excluded); Printed - December 15, 201... more DUPLICATE FILINGS OF THE DOCKET Printed - December 7, 2019 (excluded); Printed - December 15, 2019 (duplicates) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact ALL U.S. S.Ct. DUPLICATE FILINGS, Williams v. United States, et al., 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) ALL U.S. S.Ct. DUPLICATE FILINGS, Williams v. United States, et al., 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.), 2019 Steven Talbert Williams v. United ... more Steven Talbert Williams v. United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.),19-6565(U.S. S.Ct.) https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-6565.html IN FORMA https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-6565/121890/20191118103201578_20191118-102557-95748949-00000152.pdf IN FORMA 2 https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-6565/121890/20191213105432199_20191108-154052-95748821-00000556.pdf PETITION https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-6565/121890/20191118103202063_20191118-102557-95748949-00000153.pdf PETITION 2 https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-6565/121890/20191213105432590_20191108-154052-95748821-00000557.pdf APPENDIX https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-6565/121890/20191118103202406_20191118-102557-95748949-00000154.pdf APPENDIX 2 https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-6565/121890/20191213105433420_20191108-154052-95748821-00000558.pdf PROOF OF SERVICE https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-6565/121890/20191118103202672_20191118-102557-95748949-00000155.pdf PROOF OF SERVICE 2 https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-6565/121890/20191213105433748_20191108-154052-95748821-00000559.pdf Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY), "Application to Justice Ginsburg," Doc. 20, p.2, 4-5, 7 "January 3, 2020 "RE: Williams v. United States " Application to Justice Ginsburg " ... more "January 3, 2020 "RE: Williams v. United States " Application to Justice Ginsburg " No. 19-6565 "This office is unable to determine what it is you are attempting to file... If you attempting to file an application to an individual Justice, your application must be filed in compliance with Rule 22." "ON APPLICATION TO HON. RUTH BADER GINSBURG (DOCK. NO. 19cv11547-UA(SDNY)) "DATED: DECEM BER 26 , 2019 "JURISDICTION: U.S. Const. Art. 3 §2, Cl. 1; U.S. S.Ct. Rules 21.1, 22 "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS , 'PLAINTIFF ,' Pro Sé,... 6565(U.S. S.Ct.), inform the Supreme Court of the United States and HON. RUTH BADER GINSBERG of the recently docketed trial of Williams v. United States, et al., 19-11547-UA(SDNY),... where such trial, as anticipated, may clarify any confusion the court may have in determining whether the justices of the District and Appellate Courts lached upon the pursuance of a valid antitrust claim (under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Post Filing Delayed Review doctrine) for the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST, where a complaint may not be dismissed until evidence is provided of a valid trust contract and securitized assets in amounts over $75,000. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, 679 (2007), 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 2007 U.S. LENS 5901[.]“ Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) - (DRAFTED) "APPLICATION TO CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JOHN G. ROBERTS & JUDGE RUTH BADER: INTENT TO INITIATE AN EXPEDITED TRIAL FOR MATTER OF CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS...," ALLEGEDLY FILED, Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.) APPLICATION TO CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JOHN G. ROBERTS & JUDGE RUTH BADER: INTENT TO INITIATE AN EXPEDITED TRIAL FOR MATTER OF CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS..., 2017 "APPLICATION TO CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JOHN G. ROBERTS & JUDGE RUTH BADER: INTENT TO INITIATE AN EXPED... more "APPLICATION TO CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JOHN G. ROBERTS & JUDGE RUTH BADER: INTENT TO INITIATE AN EXPEDITED TRIAL FOR MATTER OF CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS (REVIEW OF IN RE.: PEOPLE (N.Y.P.D., OATH) V. STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS (CESTUI QUE) & CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, DOCKET NOS. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 16M111(U.S. S.Ct., MAR. 15, 2017), VIA WRIT OF ERROR; OVERSIGHT OF ORIGINAL CLAIM, 15 U.S.C. §26)" "I, MR. STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE (DEFENDANT in a trial of Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings ('OATH') concerning Appearance Ticket No. 0203004955(OATH)), being of sound mind, hereby state I am over the age of Twenty-One years and have been living on the streets of New York City, as a displaced resident, for the past roughly Six and a half years due to a claimed illegal eviction from the community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST') in May of the year 2012, provide this letter to CHIEF JUSTICE HON. JOHN G. ROBERTS and HON. RUTH BADER of the United States Supreme Court ('U.S. S.Ct.') with the intent to , not solely to provide notification to the Court of the district, but to seek intervention within OATH by supplying a sua sponte mandated order for intervention and oversight by the United States Attorney General (Fed. R. Civ. P. 43) for matters relating to the enjoining of DEFENDANT’s acquired Appearance Ticket No. 0203004955(OATH) within a sought after reopening (via writ of error) and remanded trial of CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Docket Nos. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 16M111(U.S. S.Ct., Mar. 15, 2017) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ('2nd Cir. Ct.'), via a sought after vacate of default judgment (due to a late appearance within OATH, a demurrer of Appearance Ticket No. 0203004955(OATH) and motion to dismiss (seeking immediate financial relief for axiomatic offenses). U.S. S.Ct. R. 22; Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(E); CPLR §§306, 306b, 307, 320, 7203; UCT 400(3), 403, 407, 409. See 5 C.F.R. §2635.101(b)(1), '[p]ublic interest is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws and ethical principles above private gain[.]' See also PEOPLE v GRIFFIN, 2005 NY Slip Op. 25466, 10 Misc.3d 626. See also LEADER v. MARONEY, PONZINI, 97 N.Y.2d 95 (2001), 761 N.E.2d 1018, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291 'service… [is] a prerequisite.' "This application is accompanied with a copy of a letter of intent (Appendix A) addressed and provided to the New York Attorney General, United States Attorney General and the United States Attorney’s Office (in New York County, once having jurisdiction for the above referenced U.S. S.Ct. trial), as such is claimed to provide a detailing of antitrust claims originally neglected by the federal courts and lached upon the providing of protective orders which is claimed to have induce a major threat to national security." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) - "Gmail - Seeking Intervention by USDOJ - Steven Talbert Williams" (Correspondences with ANTITRUST_ATR@usdoj.gov) (Highlighted), Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 137 S.Ct. 1611(2017) Gmail - Seeking Intervention by USDOJ - Steven Talbert Williams, 2018 October, 2018 Attempt by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams to initiate intervention with the New York ... more October, 2018 Attempt by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams to initiate intervention with the New York Attorney General Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) - "Gmail - RE Supreme Court Submission" (Correspondences with the U.S. Supreme Court, "Re.: Application denied/Prior antitrust claim 15 U.S.C. §26") (Highlighted), Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 137 S.Ct. 1611(2017) Re.: Application denied/Prior antitrust claim 15 U.S.C. §26, 2018 November, 2018 "Subject: Re.: Application denied/Prior antitrust claim 15 U.S.C. §26" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 2, COMPLAINT, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.) COMPLAINT, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.), 2020 "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUÉ ('PLAINTIFF,” Pro Sé),... present this brief as a claimed... more "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUÉ ('PLAINTIFF,” Pro Sé),... present this brief as a claimed factual testimony of relevant events surrounding an alleged conspired antitrust, economic espionage scheme, via the corruption of enterprises, within and without government agencies of the UNITED STATES (namely the I.R.S. and S.S.A. See Exhibit 7); violating PLAINTIFFs’ rights as claimed 'sole beneficiary' to the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Exhibit 1) and as the beneficiary to a rent stabilized real property within the estate of LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS ('DECEDENT,' PLAINTIFFs’ mother) (enforced under: U.S. Const.[,]... including...Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§1–11), Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§12–38), Donnelly Act, Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, Security Act of 1933[ (as amended)], Securities & Exchange Act of 1934 (§§10(b), 13)[ (as amended)], Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Investment Company Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §§1681, et seq.), and Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. §§ 77aaa, et. seq.). "As claimed, the conspired scheme was perpetrated so as to deter PLAINTIFF from: " (i) the acquisition of securitized beneficial assets of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST, confirmed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ('F.D.I.C.') as having 'a certificate of ownership of an investment… [from] 1987 with Microsoft Corporation' [emphasis added] (Appendix A & Exhibit 10), containing an Individual Retirement Account ('IRA,' Exhibit 2); " (ii) legal malpractice claims against DECEDENTs’ legal representative, MR. AVROM R. VANN, who allegedly denied PLAINTIFF the 'irrevocable' (Ex. 1, Id. at 1.3) beneficial assets of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST upon reaching the custodial age of his 'Thirtieth birthday' (Ex. 3, Id. at 3.2 of DECEDENTs’ Last Will & Testament, Exhibit 3); and " (iii) retaining rights to rent stabilized succession (9 NYCRR §2522.8) for DECEDENTs’ dwelling unit within Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST'), through a claimed unconstitutional eviction (despite having a renter’s insurance policy from State Farm Life Insur. Co., 'State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.' Exhibit 4), where the claimed illegal fiduciary acquisition of DECEDENTs’ IRA (by the controlling entities of PERSHING (B.N.Y.), UBS, and FMR from Correspondent Services Corp.); originally formed from Kirlin Securities, Inc. of Syosset, NY (Ex. 5), transferred to PERSHING and UBS/PaineWebber (Ex. 2.4, 2.5), and split into the above controlling entities) allegedly incurred the claimed illegal advertising and trading of securitized assets within the world financial markets,... "See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 556, 570, 679 (2007), 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-67, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 5901, 'a plausible claim for relief.' See also Cryer v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, No. 8118-09 (U.S. T.C., 2013), '[t]he presence or absence of fraud is never presumed[.]" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 4 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 129, BRIEF, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) BRIEF, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 "HON. CHIEF J. McMAHON is claimed to have misconstrued the action of all trials by associating th... more "HON. CHIEF J. McMAHON is claimed to have misconstrued the action of all trials by associating the antitrust claim (under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act), where UNITED STATES defendants were named as aiders and abettors to the claimed reinvestments of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST,... as if never reading the COMP.[ " The Comp. a]llegedly referenc[es] the 'plausibility standard' [ ] for antitrust claims, specifically delineated by: [ "] '(i) [Bell Atlantic Corp. v. ]Twombly[, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 5901]; [ "] '(ii) Erickson [v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (2007), 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 6814 ](see COMP. at PLAINTIFFs’ specified page 18, 19, 'parallelism,' 'parallelism plus' and 'plausibility stan[dard],' Id. at 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200); [ "] '(iii) Ashcroft v. Iqbal [ ], 556 U.S. 662, 678(2009); and [ "] '(iv) Cryer[ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services, Dock. No. 8118-09 (U.S. T.C., 2013))]... "stating previous actions of 'Williams v. United States, ECF 1:18-CV-12064, 4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2018)' and 'Williams v. United States, ECF 1:15-CV-5114, 18 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2015)' were 'related to [PLAINTIFFs’] eviction from his late mother’s apartment, administration of her estate, and other unrelated matters' [ ] (Dismissal, at 2)... "HON. CHIEF J. McMAHON further stated PLAINTIFFs’ claims against the UNITED STATES were frivolous and malicious, based upon the Court having to 'dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)' [ ] (Dismissal, at 1); as such 'subject matter' against the UNITED STATES for PLAINTIFFs’ COMP. is asserted as the Court having jurisdiction to waiver immunity, or dismiss the action, only after responsive pleadings..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 15 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact ADR PROPOSAL: SEMI-SAFE HARBOR ECONOMIC BENEFIT AGREEMENT, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.) ADR PROPOSAL: SEMI-SAFE HARBOR ECONOMIC BENEFIT AGREEMENT, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.), 2022 ADR PROPOSAL: SEMI-SAFE HARBOR ECONOMIC BENEFIT AGREEMENT(FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET), COMPLAINT, Doc... more ADR PROPOSAL: SEMI-SAFE HARBOR ECONOMIC BENEFIT AGREEMENT(FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET), COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, dated December 13, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.): “III.A.1. CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES… “1. Relief is sought... where, upon a plea of nolo contendere (Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(1), (a)(3)), and as an alternative to severe repercussions, defendants are provided the option of agreeing to a settlement for performing community service and partaking in a financial investment opportunity (a semi-safe harbor agreement, under the economic benefit doctrine, enforced under: Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998, 28 U.S.C. 651-658), eliminating any damage to their careers as federal agents. See PART III.G. for PLAINTIFFs’ proposed settlement… “III.G. PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROPOSAL “[246]. In expectation of damage awards for claimed axiomatic offenses (pending acceptance nolo contendere) and so as to diminish the financial burden placed upon the UNITED STATES Government and the citizen’s which inhabit PLAINTIFFs’ country of birth, a preliminary dispute resolution proposal (‘Prelim. ADR Petition’) is sought for negotiation (under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) and various other provisions of federal and local law, such as UDC §802), wherein highlighted contracts, amendments to congressional Acts and executive orders[ ] (U.S. Const. Art. 1 §8 Cl. 18; U.S. Const. Art. 2 §3) may be approved for the use of business structured investments and criminal moral-reform platform (designed to promote an alternative to institutional reform (Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)) and the education of children), as well as: (i) financial and experimental programs (such as revolving credit investments with the U.S. TREAS., including opportunities mentioned within 31 C.F.R.); (ii) tax incentive credit opportunities; and (iii) other conceptualized programs (tailored to individual defendants and their professional industries), all of which are promoted as providing not only relief from financial burden placed upon defendants, but tremendous financial gain for the U.S. Government, its citizen’s and even defendants (such as investment trust accounts for their children or family members)..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 442 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE IMMUNITY W/IN SOVEREIGNTY), Williams, 18cv12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE IMMUNITY W/IN SOVEREIGNTY), Williams, 18cv12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 2022 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, A FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET (A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE IMMUNITY W/IN SOVE... more INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, A FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET (A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE IMMUNITY W/IN SOVEREIGNTY), Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 21), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.): “ I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS (‘PLAINTIFF,’ Pro Sé),… move for injunctive relief (including forfeiture, discovery and restraining orders) for sanctioned orders on claims (FRAP 62.1(a)(3), (b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)) of contempt and conspired retaliatory and discriminatory judicial estoppel (promissory and collateral) (including criminal. 18 U.S.C. Ch. 233… which aided in subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact to antitrust claims sought within CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, App. Dock. Nos.19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.); where any injunctive order for damages may be stayed upon acceptance of an alternative dispute resolution agreement…" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 453 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact “FITTED R.E." (A Financial & Business Trade Secret of a Real Property Investment Fund Under "Fitted Sole Bank" (a Private Investment Bank), Williams, 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) “FITTED R.E." (A Financial & Business Trade Secret of a Real Property Investment Fund Under "Fitted Sole Bank" (a Private Investment Bank), Williams, 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 2022 * “'FITTED R.E.' (FINANCIAL & BUSINESS TRADE SECRET OF A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER ‘FSB... more * “'FITTED R.E.' (FINANCIAL & BUSINESS TRADE SECRET OF A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER ‘FSB’ (FITTED SOLE BANK; A PRIVATE INVESTMENT BANK))," Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) See "Motion For Injunctive Relief: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Sé Intake Unit" (Doc. 21, Williams, 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.)) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 464 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "FITTED FUND," A Real Property Investment Fund Under "Fitted Sole Bank" (a Private Investment Bank) "FITTED FUND," A Real Property Investment Fund Under "Fitted Sole Bank" (a Private Investment Bank), 2022 * "FITTED FUND - (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET OF A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER 'FSB' (FITTED S... more * "FITTED FUND - (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET OF A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER 'FSB' (FITTED SOLE BANK; A PRIVATE INVESTMENT BANK))," dated April 4, 2022, Doc. 21, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.). See "Motion For Injunctive Relief: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Sé Intake Unit" (Doc. 21, dated April 18, 2019, Williams, 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.)). See also “'FITTED R.E.' & 'FSB' (TRADE SECRET: CONCEPTUALIZED INTERNET-BASED BUSINESS PLATFORM),' Williams, 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.)" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact ADR PROPOSAL: SEMI-SAFE HARBOR ECONOMIC BENEFIT AGREEMENT (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET), COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) ADR PROPOSAL: SEMI-SAFE HARBOR ECONOMIC BENEFIT AGREEMENT(FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET), Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 2022 ADR PROPOSAL: SEMI-SAFE HARBOR ECONOMIC BENEFIT AGREEMENT(FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET), COMPLAINT, Doc... more ADR PROPOSAL: SEMI-SAFE HARBOR ECONOMIC BENEFIT AGREEMENT(FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET), COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, dated December 13, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.): “III.A.1. CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES… “1. Relief is sought... where, upon a plea of nolo contendere (Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(1), (a)(3)), and as an alternative to severe repercussions, defendants are provided the option of agreeing to a settlement for performing community service and partaking in a financial investment opportunity (a semi-safe harbor agreement, under the economic benefit doctrine, enforced under: Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998, 28 U.S.C. 651-658), eliminating any damage to their careers as federal agents. See PART III.G. for PLAINTIFFs’ proposed settlement… “III.G. PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROPOSAL “[246]. In expectation of damage awards for claimed axiomatic offenses (pending acceptance nolo contendere) and so as to diminish the financial burden placed upon the UNITED STATES Government and the citizen’s which inhabit PLAINTIFFs’ country of birth, a preliminary dispute resolution proposal (‘Prelim. ADR Petition’) is sought for negotiation (under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) and various other provisions of federal and local law, such as UDC §802), wherein highlighted contracts, amendments to congressional Acts and executive orders[ ] (U.S. Const. Art. 1 §8 Cl. 18; U.S. Const. Art. 2 §3) may be approved for the use of business structured investments and criminal moral-reform platform (designed to promote an alternative to institutional reform (Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)) and the education of children), as well as: (i) financial and experimental programs (such as revolving credit investments with the U.S. TREAS., including opportunities mentioned within 31 C.F.R.); (ii) tax incentive credit opportunities; and (iii) other conceptualized programs (tailored to individual defendants and their professional industries), all of which are promoted as providing not only relief from financial burden placed upon defendants, but tremendous financial gain for the U.S. Government, its citizen’s and even defendants (such as investment trust accounts for their children or family members). See “Ex. Ord. No. 12866, Sept. 30, 1993, 58 F.R. 51735, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 13258, Feb. 26, 2002, 67 F.R. 9385; Ex. Ord. No. 13422, Jan. 18, 2007, 72 F.R. 2763; Ex. Ord. No. 13497, §1, Jan. 30, 2009, 74 F.R. 6113” (Sec. 4) (5 U.S.C.A. 601), ‘to provide for coordination of regulations, to maximize consultation and the resolution of potential conflicts at an early stage[.]’…" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 9 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 1, "Petition In Camera Conference (Nunc Pro Tunc/Protective Order/Other Matters of Importance)" (Highlighted), Doc. 15, Id. at 6, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) https://www.academia.edu/61725999/Doc_15_ESTOPPEL_PETITION_IN_CAMERA_CONFERENCE_NUNC_PRO_TUNC_PROTECTIVE_ORDER_OTHER_MATTERS_OF_IMPORTANCE_Williams_v_U_S_et_al_15_cv_5114_LAP_S_D_N_Y_highlighted_, 2015 ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 1, Petition In Camera Conference (Nunc Pro Tunc/Protective Orde... more ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 1, Petition In Camera Conference (Nunc Pro Tunc/Protective Order/Other Matters of Importance) (Highlighted), Doc. 15, dated November 23, 2015, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al.,15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.): "9. Alternative Dispute Resolution... " a. In order to expedite proceedings (partitioned or under a single judgment), Petitioner,... stipulates a foundation of non-altered riders to contractual agreemen[ts] utilized for the negotiation process,... " b. Subsequently,... such foundation, to establish a speedy resolution, is to eliminate any possible imprisonment for named defendan[ts,]... as such would promote expansion of monetary /allodial priveleges to damage claims notmally executed by moral reform in prison systems." Id. at 6. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 2, "Motion For Emergency Reconsideration," Doc. 46, Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.) ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 2, "Motion For Emergency Reconsideration," Doc. 46, Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2022 ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 2, "Motion For Emergency Reconsideration," Doc. 46, dated July ... more ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 2, "Motion For Emergency Reconsideration," Doc. 46, dated July 6, 2016, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.): “ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RECONSIDERATION “ I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams (‘Plaintiff,’ Pro Sé), being of sound mind, state I am over the age of 18 (currently displaced), and in reference to the ‘MOTION ORDER’ (‘MANDATE,’ labeled ‘Document 35,’ filed May 18, 2016, ‘…denying motion to proceed in forma pauperis [16]…; denying motion for stay of limitations [21]…; denying motion to amend the caption [22]…; denying motion to extend time [28]… by ALK, DJ, BDP…’), moves to reconsider and further reinstate the above referenced docket within the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals (‘2nd Cir. Ct.’), for which this matter pertains, in light of references to legal and factual matters of emergency presented within this document. Fed. R. App. P. 27(a)(1); LR 27.1(d), (g), 40.2; 22 NYCRR 500.20(d). See JASER v. JASER, 37 Conn. App. 194, 203, 655 A.2d 790 (1995), ‘…reconsideration hearing[s] involves consideration of the trial evidence…’ “ PART V - ALTERNATIVE DISPUTED RESOLUTION PROPOSAL “10. Due to the extent of all claimed offenses (as such shall be presents alongside statutory penalties, as well as sought after compensatory, punitive, and injunctive relief), Plaintiff stipulates his intent to provide all named defendants an opportunity to acquire an alternative resolution prior to trial commencement (previously mentioned within complaints, yet can further be elaborated upon completion of all complaints, with the inclusion of new matters pertaining to claims against officers and officials of S.D.N.Y.) and the 2nd Cir. Ct.’s granting of reinstatement. “11. Such alternative dispute proposal, Plaintiff adds, is complex, yet provides for the opportunity for an alternative procedure of reform (moral and ethical), providing the United States Government and other named defendants an opportunity to: “ a. recuperate financial losses; “ b. aid in environmental conservation; “ c. retain employment or seek early retirement (after a contingently specified two year suspension/probation and community service period, elaborated forthcoming); and “ d. other mandatory rules and protocols, as such are specified aspects for any anticipated negotiation.” [highlighting and emphasis omitted] Id. at 1, 48, 49. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 3, "Affidavit In Support of Complaint (Part '1')," Doc. 7, Williams, 18-cv-12064 (S.D.N.Y.) ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 3, "Affidavit In Support of Complaint (Part '1')," Doc. 7, Williams, 18-cv-12064 (S.D.N.Y.), 2022 ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 3, "Affidavit In Support of Complaint (Part '1')," Doc. 7, date... more ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 3, "Affidavit In Support of Complaint (Part '1')," Doc. 7, dated December 28, 2018, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (S.D.N.Y.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 4, "Letter, In Re.: Appeal Conf....," Doc. 24, Williams, 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.)) ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 4, "Letter, In Re.: Appeal Conf....," Doc. 24, Williams, 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.)), 2022 ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 4, "Letter, In Re.: Appeal Conf....," Doc. 24, dated January 11... more ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 4, "Letter, In Re.: Appeal Conf....," Doc. 24, dated January 11, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.)) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 5, "NOTICE OF MOTION, re: for Leave to File 'Altenative Dispute Resolution,'...," Doc. 27, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.) ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 5, "NOTICE OF MOTION, re: for Leave to File 'Altenative Dispute Resolution,'...," Doc. 27, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 5, "NOTICE OF MOTION, re: for Leave to File 'Altenative Dispute... more ADR PROPOSAL (TRADE SECRET), Part 5, "NOTICE OF MOTION, re: for Leave to File 'Altenative Dispute Resolution,' 'Petition for Waiver of Official Sovereign Immunity,' 'Affidavit in support of Complaint: Antitrust Subversion to Domestic Housing Terrorism,' etc. Document filed by Steven Talbert Williams.(sc) (Entered: 01/20/2020)" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROPOSAL: HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y." (Highlighted), Doc. 114, In Re. Doc 133, Williams, 18-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (2nd Cir. Ct.) "ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROPOSAL: HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y." (Highlighted), Doc. 114, In Re. Doc 133, Williams, 18-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2019 "ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROPOSAL: HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y." (... more "ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROPOSAL: HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y." (Highlighted), Doc. 114, dated April 18, 2019, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.): https://www.academia.edu/69447197/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_24_v_1_ADR_PROPOSAL_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_ "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... provide this Alternate Dispute Resolution ('ADR') proposal as a supplemental brief in anticipation of defendants (namely UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON. LOUIS L. STANTON and officers of the SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK’s ('S.D.N.Y.’s') PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT) accepting a settlement for a plea of nolo contendere (18 U.S.C. §3438; Fed. R. Crim. P. 11) and to an agreement for a lesser penalty of damage awards, an investigative administrative qui tam auditing (only, without penalties), and nonincarcerated probation (community service obligations) with monetary incentives through the formation of revolving accounts, Intellectual Property ('IP') contributions, and participation within lectures throughout the U.S. Nation (as such may incorporate 'confession[s] made or given voluntarily[,]...or given orally or in writing.' 18 U.S.C. §3501(a), (b)(3), (b)(5), (d)) and abroad. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C); UDC §802; 18 U.S.C. §3296(a); 28 U.S.C. §651." See Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SANCTIONS).pdf" (Highlighted), Doc. 114 (In Re.: Doc. 133), Williams, 18-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (2nd Cir. Ct.) "MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SANCTIONS).pdf" (Highlighted), Doc. 114 (In Re.: Doc. 133), Williams, 18-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2019 "MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT: (SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE U... more "MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT: (SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y.)" (Highlighted), Doc. 114, dated April 18, 2019, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.): ""I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... move for a preliminary summary judgment for sanctions against HON. LOUIS L. STANTON and employees of the SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK‘s ('S.D.N.Y.') PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT (namely 'rdz[,… ]mro[,… ]tp[,… ]aea[,… ] sc[… and ]rjm,' [highlighting and emphasis added] for this mandamus action for the trial of 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), where the main appellate trial is within Dock. No. 1939(2nd Cir. Ct.). Fed. R. Civ. P. 56." See Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.pdf" (Highlighted), Doc. 114 (In Re.: Doc. 133), Williams, 18-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (2nd Cir. Ct.) "MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.pdf" (Highlighted), Doc. 114 (In Re.: Doc. 133), Williams, 18-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2019 "MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER W/ NOTICE: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ ... more "MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER W/ NOTICE: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT" (Highlighted), Doc. 114, dated April 18, 2019, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... move for a temporary restraining order and other security (including criminal/civil forfeiture and discovery) in relation to sanctioned orders for claims of contempt and conspired retaliatory and discriminatory judicial estoppel against the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON. LOUIS L. STANTON and employees of the SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK‘s ('S.D.N.Y.') PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, namely rdz, mro, tp, aea, sc and rjm. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2), (b)(1), (c), (d)(2)." See Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir.). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER W/ NOTICE: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT" (Allegedly Filed & Returned), Williams, 18-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) "MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER W/ NOTICE: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT" (Allegedly Filed & Returned), Williams, 18-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.), 2019 "MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER W/ NOTICE: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE ... more "MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER W/ NOTICE: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT" (PART 2) (Allegedly Filed & Returned), Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT," Doc. 21, Williams, 18cv12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT," Doc. 21, Williams, 18cv12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) , 2019 "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT (EXHIBIT... more "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT (EXHIBITS 1 TO 48)," Docs. 112, 113, 133, dated April 18, 2019, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 21), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.): “ I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS (‘PLAINTIFF,’ Pro Sé),… move for injunctive relief (including forfeiture, discovery and restraining orders) for sanctioned orders on claims (FRAP 62.1(a)(3), (b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)) of contempt and conspired retaliatory and discriminatory judicial estoppel (promissory and collateral) (including criminal. 18 U.S.C. Ch. 233… which aided in subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact to antitrust claims sought within CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, App. Dock. Nos.19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.); where any injunctive order for damages may be stayed upon acceptance of an alternative dispute resolution agreement…" See https://independent.academia.edu/Williams_v_US_18_12064_and_19_39: https://www.academia.edu/69661176/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_10_Form_T_1080_rev12_13_1_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_pdf_Doc_113_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69660640/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_10_v_1_Form_T_1080_rev12_13_1_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_113_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69525733/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_15_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_112_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69525000/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_16_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_1_TO_4_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69522617/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_17_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_5_TO_9_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69522310/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_18_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_10_TO_19_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69522098/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_19_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_20_TO_29_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69521769/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_20_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_30_TO_39_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69520610/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_21_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_40_TO_48_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share _________________________________________ https://www.academia.edu/69024621/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LLS_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_INJ_PART_1_UNDOCUMENTED_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_U_S_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69024446/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LOUIS_L_STANTON_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_INJ_PART_2_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69024047/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LOUIS_L_STANTON_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_EXHIBITS_1_TO_48_INJ_PART_2_1_vol_1_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69023398/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LOUIS_L_STANTON_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_EXHIBITS_1_TO_48_INJ_PART_2_2_vol_2_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 22 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT)" (Allegedly Filed & Returned), Williams, 18-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) "MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT)" (Allegedly Filed & Returned), Williams, 18-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.), 2019 "MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE ... more "MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT)" (PART 2) (Allegedly Filed & Returned), Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT" (EXHIBITS 1-21 OF 48), Doc. 21, Williams, 18cv12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT" (EXHIBITS 1-21 OF 48), Doc. 21, Williams, 18cv12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT" (EXHIBI... more "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT" (EXHIBITS 1-21 OF 48), Docs. 112, 113, 133, dated April 18, 2019, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 21), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.): “ I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS (‘PLAINTIFF,’ Pro Sé),… move for injunctive relief (including forfeiture, discovery and restraining orders) for sanctioned orders on claims (FRAP 62.1(a)(3), (b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)) of contempt and conspired retaliatory and discriminatory judicial estoppel (promissory and collateral) (including criminal. 18 U.S.C. Ch. 233… which aided in subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact to antitrust claims sought within CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, App. Dock. Nos.19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.); where any injunctive order for damages may be stayed upon acceptance of an alternative dispute resolution agreement…" See https://independent.academia.edu/Williams_v_US_18_12064_and_19_39: https://www.academia.edu/69661176/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_10_Form_T_1080_rev12_13_1_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_pdf_Doc_113_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69660640/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_10_v_1_Form_T_1080_rev12_13_1_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_113_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69525733/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_15_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_112_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69525000/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_16_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_1_TO_4_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69522617/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_17_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_5_TO_9_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69522310/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_18_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_10_TO_19_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69522098/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_19_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_20_TO_29_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69521769/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_20_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_30_TO_39_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69520610/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_21_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_40_TO_48_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share _________________________________________ https://www.academia.edu/69024621/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LLS_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_INJ_PART_1_UNDOCUMENTED_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_U_S_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69024446/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LOUIS_L_STANTON_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_INJ_PART_2_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69024047/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LOUIS_L_STANTON_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_EXHIBITS_1_TO_48_INJ_PART_2_1_vol_1_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69023398/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LOUIS_L_STANTON_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_EXHIBITS_1_TO_48_INJ_PART_2_2_vol_2_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT" (EXHIBITS 22-48 OF 48), Doc. 21, Williams, 18cv12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT" (EXHIBITS 22-48 OF 48), Doc. 21, Williams, 18cv12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT (EXHIBIT... more "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT (EXHIBITS 22-48 OF 48)," Docs. 112, 113, 133, dated April 18, 2019, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 21), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.): “ I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS (‘PLAINTIFF,’ Pro Sé),… move for injunctive relief (including forfeiture, discovery and restraining orders) for sanctioned orders on claims (FRAP 62.1(a)(3), (b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)) of contempt and conspired retaliatory and discriminatory judicial estoppel (promissory and collateral) (including criminal. 18 U.S.C. Ch. 233… which aided in subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact to antitrust claims sought within CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, App. Dock. Nos.19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.); where any injunctive order for damages may be stayed upon acceptance of an alternative dispute resolution agreement…" See https://independent.academia.edu/Williams_v_US_18_12064_and_19_39: https://www.academia.edu/69661176/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_10_Form_T_1080_rev12_13_1_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_pdf_Doc_113_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69660640/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_10_v_1_Form_T_1080_rev12_13_1_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_113_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69525733/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_15_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_112_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69525000/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_16_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_1_TO_4_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69522617/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_17_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_5_TO_9_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69522310/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_18_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_10_TO_19_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69522098/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_19_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_20_TO_29_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69521769/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_20_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_30_TO_39_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69520610/In_Re_Doc_133_DUPLICATE_FILINGS_PART_3_21_v_1_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_EXHIBITS_40_TO_48_pdf_Highlighted_Doc_114_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_1392_RSP_BDP_RR_2nd_Cir_Ct_?source=swp_share _________________________________________ https://www.academia.edu/69024621/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LLS_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_INJ_PART_1_UNDOCUMENTED_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_U_S_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69024446/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LOUIS_L_STANTON_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_INJ_PART_2_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69024047/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LOUIS_L_STANTON_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_EXHIBITS_1_TO_48_INJ_PART_2_1_vol_1_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share https://www.academia.edu/69023398/_MOTION_FOR_INJUNCTIVE_RELIEF_SANCTIONS_UPON_HON_LOUIS_L_STANTON_and_PRO_SE_INTAKE_UNIT_EXHIBITS_1_TO_48_INJ_PART_2_2_vol_2_Allegedly_Filed_and_Returned_Williams_v_United_States_et_al_18_cv_11547_LLS_S_D_N_Y_19_39_JAC_PWH_Walker_rcsd_2nd_Cir_Ct_19_6565_U_S_S_Ct_?source=swp_share Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "FITTED FUND - (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET OF A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER 'FSB' (FITTED SOLE BANK; A PRIVATE INVESTMENT BANK))," Williams, 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.) "FITTED FUND - (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET OF A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER 'FSB' (FITTED SOLE BANK; A PRIVATE INVESTMENT BANK))," Williams, 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.), 2022 * "FITTED FUND - (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET OF A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER 'FSB' (FITT... more * "FITTED FUND - (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET OF A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER 'FSB' (FITTED SOLE BANK; A PRIVATE INVESTMENT BANK))," dated April 4, 2022, Doc. 21 (dated April 18, 2019), Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.): " As stated within the 'Motion For Injunctive Relief: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Sé Intake Unit' ('Inj.,' Doc. 21 of Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.)), Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), sought damages against: (i) officers and officials of the United States Department of Justice ('U.S.D.O.J.') for claims of 'contempt and conspired retaliatory and discriminatory judicial estoppel (promissory and collateral)[,]… as an accessory after the fact to antitrust claims' (Id. at Inj. 38); (ii) financial institutions of the 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST' ('Trust LPSW.' Id. at 'Exhibit 4,' 3, 44, 69, 70); (iii) financial institutions in ownership of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST'); and (iv) other defendants for claims of civil rights offenses related to the illegal reinvesting of Trust LPSW assets into the community of PCV/ST, which induced a claimed illegal eviction and subversion within impoverishment. As proposed within the Inj., PLAINTIFF sought damages to acquire 'appropriated gifts… as an additional interest (under FRAP 37(a); U.S. S.Ct. Rule 42.1), appropriated from funding for the validation of civil rights offenses (under Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 18 U.S.C. Ch. 13; 42 U.S.C. §2000d, et. seq., including 28 C.F.R. Part 0, 1, 9, Subpart I and J)…[as a reporting] crime victim[ ]' (Id. at 61), as well as other assets (including 'civil and criminal forfeiture (28 U.S.C. §2461).' Id. at 49), 'in conjunction with an offered settlement' (Id. at 45), where '[t]he establishment of a contract with the U.S. TREAS.,… may provide for numerous revolving accounts' (Id. at 86) and 'acquisition of federally owned lands as provided gifts (¶¶22, 30), or feoffment' (Id. at 125). The Fitted Fund, is depicted within the Inj. as 'a contractual real property investment fund… sought so as to lift any monetary burden placed upon defendants' (Id. at 50) upon acceptance of the settlement offer. The Fitted Fund is requested for establishment as a 'bonded surety revolving account, sought as a contractual real property investment fund' (Id.); 'as such may provide for the revising or establishing of local and federal legislation' (Id.), 'incorporating the use of contractual agreements within local counties for the acquisition of real property assets from deed and lien auctions' (Id. at 90). The Fitted Fund’s establishment as a Revolving Loan Fund ('RLF'), 'set[s] a plausible scenario for profitable gain from the sale of one-hundred (100) properties within a three month period, where interest is distributed to the U.S. Government' (Id. at 98). The Fitted Fund’s investment use as a RLF has been conceptualized to provide a structural investment strategy with the use of tax sale property prior to their sale at auction, as well as incorporate securitized investments as financial security to the fund. The Fitted Fund’s real property investment platform is presented as a structurally tiered surety of mortgage scheme, to stabilize any concern the U.S. Government may have over a pro sé litigant acquiring a settlement account through the U.S. Department of Treasury. In furtherance of explanation, the Fitted Fund utilizes an initial three (3) properties per one (1) defendant, where the sale of one (1) property may be utilized to fund the assigning and 'sale of [ ] two other properties (one (1) distressed and one (1) equivalent in value to their existing home)' (Id. at 101). The Fitted Fund is sought for 'overs[ight] by PLAINTIFF [so as to] monitor[ ] construction to [ ] distressed property and… investments at closing (ensuring longevity to the Fitted Fund[)].' The Fitted Fund seeks to incorporate intellectual property ('IP') as a surety of mortgage 'where IP may be used… at closing; as well as a clause to provide… three (3) other property investments (accrued from sale of the original two properties; two of which are distressed) [from the sale of one (1) of the two (2) properties with the use of IP, thereby] inducing another investment opportunity for the [defendant, after acquiring an appraisers and inspectors license, to indoctorate an ]‘apprentice investor’ [when] offer[ing an agreement at] closing, and so on.'" * FOOTNOTE 1: This document is enforced under Federal laws pertaining to copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. §502), as well as financial and business trade secrets (5 U.S.C. §§552, 552a). See "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT (EXHIBITS 1 TO 48)," Docs. 112, 113, 133, dated April 18, 2019, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 21), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 9 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [***] IGNORED INSPECTOR GENERAL COMPLAINT (June 2021) (Against a Clerk (SCNY) and the N.Y.A.G.), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) [***] IGNORED INSPECTOR GENERAL COMPLAINT (June 2021) (Against a Clerk (SCNY) and the N.Y.A.G.), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2021 IGNORED INSPECTOR GENERAL COMPLAINT (June 22, 2021), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A... more IGNORED INSPECTOR GENERAL COMPLAINT (June 22, 2021), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY): "See this complaint claimed to be in relation to the U.S. Supreme Ct. cases of: "16M111[ ] (Index No.) see also certiorari in 16-189(2nd Cir.); 19-5398; 19-5399; 19-5405; 19-6227; 19-6565... "Where is the subject assigned "ALBANY (NYAG) [and] NEW YORK COUNTY SURROGATES COURT "Title of Employee "MR. KEVIN LEE (CLERK); NYAG... "Mr. Kevin Lee,... unconstitutionally denied Petitioner's filing of a citation[,]... undermining Petitioner's intelligence by insulting him ([ ]puffery). See Appendix A, "AFFIDAVIT OF CLERRICAL ESTOPPEL," filed within the Surr. Ct. on June 7, 2021 (see the appendices of the affidavit within the filings of the Surr. Ct.). See also Appendices A through C. "Ms./Mrs. Letitia James, New York Att. Gen., is claimed to have lached upon responding to Mr. Williams' intervention motion of Williams c, U.S., et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd Cir.), Docs. 73-77 (2nd Cir.), and Mr. Williams' ,ailing of five complaints to her offices... See Appendices D through I. "---> Both claims claimed in relation to Mr. Williams antitrust and civil rights claims as aiding and abetting the illegal reinvesting of assets within the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST." Stamped by Office of the Inspector General "10:46A 6/22/2021 CMIT" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [***] PREVENTING PROBATE,... CLERK DENIES CITATION (3rd Attempt to Serve a Citation, Feb. 2022), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) PREVENTING PROBATE,... CLERK DENIES CITATION (3rd Attempt to Serve a Citation, Feb. 2022), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2022 "Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, Case# 2013-3538/A, Letters Testamentary," Gmail (Feb. 28... more "Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, Case# 2013-3538/A, Letters Testamentary," Gmail (Feb. 28, 2022 to Mar. 1, 2022), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY): Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, Case# 2013-3538/A, Letters Testamentary: "Probate_General <Probate_General@nycourts.gov>... Feb 28, 2022... "To: Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>,... "Process is required on all parties under SCPA 1403 PRIOR to the Will being admitted. "You’re requesting for the Will to be admitted even after process was not effectuated... ----------------------------------------------------------- "Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>... Feb 28, 2022... "To: Probate_General <Probate_General@nycourts.gov>... "Process was effectuated; sent to the cited party. "I am named Alternate Executor. "The named Executor (the cited party; Mr. Williams, Jr.), by not responding to the citation, is waiving his rights to administer the estate... "See... SCR §§706[(2)]... ('when all persons serving as trustee... are removed[ (see Petition For Probate, ¶2(f), the custodial age, of the filed copy of the ‘LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST’]... successor may complete the administration of the estate...[to] enforce a judgment, order or decree'),... 1403(1)(b) ('in the event the designated executor cannot act or fails to qualify need not be served'),... See Matter of Estate of Kirwood, 2010 NY Slip Op 51532(U), 28 Misc 3d 1228(A) (2010). ----------------------------------------------------------- "Diana Sanabria <dsanabri@nycourts.gov>... Feb 28, 2022... "To: Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>... "Process was not effectuated because the recipient of the citation did not receive the citation. "We know that the citation was not received because it was returned to you... ----------------------------------------------------------- "Probate_General <Probate_General@nycourts.gov>... Feb 28, 2022... "To: Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>,... "Jurisdiction over party being cited has not been obtained due to party not being served (mailing not delivered)... "Until that party is served, jurisdiction IS NOT complete. "See SCPA 309 for when service of process is complete... ----------------------------------------------------------- "Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>... Feb 28, 2022... "To: Probate_General <Probate_General@nycourts.gov>... "service was attempted... ----------------------------------------------------------- "Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>... Mar 1, 2022... "To: Probate_General <Probate_General@nycourts.gov>, Diana Sanabria <dsanabri@nycourts.gov>... "Hello Diana Sanabria and Probate General, "The named Executor (the cited party) has neglected the estate for 12 (Twelve) years. "The named Executor (the cited party; Mr. Willis Eugene Williams, Jr.), by not responding to the citation, is waiving his rights to administer the estate: "SCR §1403(1)(b) ('in the event the designated executor cannot act or fails to qualify need not be served' [emphasis added])" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re.: PREVENTING PROBATE,... CLERK DENIES CITATION (Mailing of Two COVID-19 Notices) (Nov. 2022), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) In Re.: PREVENTING PROBATE,... CLERK DENIES CITATION (Mailing of Two COVID-19 Notices) (Nov. 2022), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2020 "E/O Linda Williams, 2013-3538/A, RE: Probate petition," Gmail (Nov. 2020), Estate of Linda Willi... more "E/O Linda Williams, 2013-3538/A, RE: Probate petition," Gmail (Nov. 2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [***] PREVENTING PROBATE,... CLERK DENIES LETTERS TESTAMENTARY (4 Attempted Citations, 2.5 years), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) CLERKS DENY LETTERS TESTAMENTARY (4 Attempted Citations, 2.5 years), PREVENTING PROBATE, Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2022 "In Re.: 2013-3538/A, Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams (Aka: Linda Williams), highlighted, ... more "In Re.: 2013-3538/A, Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams (Aka: Linda Williams), highlighted, Gmail ("stwlegal@gmail.com"), dated May 10, 2022, Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY): In Re.: 2013-3538/A, Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams (Aka: Linda Williams): "Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>... May 10, 2022... "To: Timothy Ameres <tjameres@nycourts.gov> "Cc: Probate_General <probate_general@nycourts.gov>, Recordroom_General <recordroom_general@nycourts.gov>, Diana Sanabria <dsanabri@nycourts.gov>... "Hi Tim, "I did serve the citation in compliance with the order. "The order stated service was to be made by 'certified mail,' not a regular mailing... "The mailing was NOT for return receipt requested. "The order specified that it was a last attempt to serve; it was a 'supplemental citation,'... ---------------------------------------------- "On Mon, Apr 11, 2022... Timothy Ameres <tjameres@nycourts.gov> wrote:... "Please note that you have to serve the citation, notice, and a copy of the will in compliance with the attached order. "Your last attempt at service was done by certified mail return receipt requested, which was returned, and not in compliance with the Judge’s order." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re.: PREVENTING PROBATE,... CLERK DENIES LETTERS TESTAMENTARY (Supplemental Citation, SCPA §1403(1)(a)) (March 1, 2022), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) In Re.: PREVENTING PROBATE,... CLERK DENIES LETTERS TESTAMENTARY (Supplemental Citation, SCPA §1403(1)(a)) (March 1, 2022), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2022 "Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, Case# 2013-3538/A, Letters Testamentary" (Supplemental C... more "Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, Case# 2013-3538/A, Letters Testamentary" (Supplemental Citation, "certified mail" delivery), Gmail (Mar. 2022), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY): In Re.: "Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, Case# 2013-3538/A, Letters Testamentary" "Mar 1, 2022" "Probate_General <Probate_General@nycourts.gov>... To: Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>,... "SCPA 1403(1)(a) still applies. "The decedent’s spouse IS a distributee, see EPTL 4-1.1." ---------------------------------------- See SCPA Art. 14, "Probate Proceedings; Construction of Wills; Right of Election" See also SCPA §1402: "1. Who may petition. A petition for the probate of a will may be presented by "(a) any person designated in the will... "(c) any party to an action brought or about to be brought in which action the decedent, if living, would be a party;... "3.Direction of court... "(b) Where necessary, the court... may incorporate the will or any part thereof in the decree." See also SCPA §1403: "1. In a proceeding for the probate of a will process must issue to the following persons if not petitioners: "(a) The distributees of the testator. "(b) The person or persons designated in the will as executor except that a person designated in the will as substitute or successor executor in the event the designated executor cannot act or fails to qualify need not be served where the designated executor is under no disability." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re.: PREVENTING PROBATE,... CLERK DENIES LETTERS TESTAMENTARY (Supplemental Citation, "certified mail" delivery), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) In Re.: PREVENTING PROBATE,... CLERK DENIES LETTERS TESTAMENTARY (Supplemental Citation, "certified mail" delivery), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2022 "Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, Case# 2013-3538/A, Letters Testamentary" (Supplemental C... more "Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, Case# 2013-3538/A, Letters Testamentary" (Supplemental Citation, "certified mail" delivery), Gmail (Mar. 2022), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY): In Re.: "Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, Case# 2013-3538/A, Letters Testamentary" "Mar 1, 2022" "Probate_General <Probate_General@nycourts.gov>... To: Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>,... "SCPA 1403(1)(a) still applies. "The decedent’s spouse IS a distributee, see EPTL 4-1.1." ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Probate_General <Probate_General@nycourts.gov>... Mar 2, 2022... "To: Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>, Probate_General <Probate_General@nycourts.gov> "Cc: Diana Sanabria <dsanabri@nycourts.gov> "Please read the statute. "You are offering the Will to be admitted to probate.... "You’re choosing to pick words from different statutes that do not apply the issue at hand, please avoid doing so... ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>... Mar 2, 2022... "To: Probate_General <Probate_General@nycourts.gov>... "Are you attempting to say the Will I filed is not valid? "Do you know the named Executor?... ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>... Mar 7, 2022... "To: Diana Sanabria <dsanabri@nycourts.gov>... "The USPS returned the mailed citation. I sent the parcel certified mail, without confirmation of delivery. I tried to leave the citation at the dwelling USPS made attempts instead. I have tried for two years to acquire a response to fiduciary control of the estate, where it is my right to claim the estate according to the Last Will & Testament (¶3 of the filed Last Will & Testament). I should not have to cite the named Executor who has acted. SCR §1403(1)(b) (“in the event the designated executor cannot act or fails to qualify need not be served” [highlighting and emphasis added] "This is also preventing myself from Letters of Trusteeship (the 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST'). See EPTL §13- 3.2(a) ('the rights of persons so entitled or designated and the ownership of money, securities or other property thereby received shall not be impaired or defeated by any statute or rule of law governing the transfer of property by will[.]' [highlighting and emphasis added])" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [***] MISSING COMPULSARY ACCOUNTING PETITION (Filed Oct., 2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) [***] MISSING COMPULSARY ACCOUNTING PETITION (Filed Oct., 2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) "In Re: 2013-3538(Nov., 2020) Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams," Gmail (Nov. 2020), Estate ... more "In Re: 2013-3538(Nov., 2020) Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams," Gmail (Nov. 2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY): "Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>... Nov 2, 2020... "To: dsanabri@nycourts.gov, misc_general@nycourts.gov, probate_general@nycourts.gov... "I have not heardfrom the Court regarding Letters Testamentary or Letters of Trusteeship. "Should I file another motion for default judgment... "[I]n the beginning of Oct., I dropped off a Compulsory Accounting Petition[ ], waiver and citation with the Misc. Dept., which was not placed on the docket... I was told a Mr. Lionell Gardiner (Misc. Dept. Clerk) is in the process of scanning them... "Is there any way to confirm their filing[?]..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In. Re.: MISSING COMPULSARY ACCOUNTING PETITION (Filed Oct., 2020) (Dec. 2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) In. Re.: MISSING COMPULSARY ACCOUNTING PETITION (Filed Oct., 2020) (Dec. 2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2020 "(resending) In Re.: Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, 2013-3538/A," Gmail (December 29, 20... more "(resending) In Re.: Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, 2013-3538/A," Gmail (December 29, 2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY): "Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>... Dec 29, 2020... "To: Timothy Ameres <tjameres@nycourts.gov>, Kevin Lee <kevinlee@nycourts.gov>, misc_general@nycourts.gov... "(resending) " 'In Re.: Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, 2013-3538/A "Hi Timothy Ameres, "I filed an affidavit for non-response to the citation on December 15, 2020. "Are letters provided immediately after the response date? "[Are letters, confirming my executorship, needed for an affidavit of the estate or can I file an affidavit of the estate now?] "I'm also having a problem with the Accounting/Misc. Dept. not filing my Compulsory Accounting Petition (w/ waiver of filing fees). I dropped them off for filing but did not see them on the docket..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [***] MISSING Affidavit of BIRTH CERTIFICATE - (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET) (Apr. to May 2021), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) [***] MISSING Affidavit of BIRTH CERTIFICATE - (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET) (Apr. to May 2021), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2021 "LETTERS TESTAMENTARY Case #2013-3538," Gmail (Apr. to May 2021), Estate of Linda Williams, File ... more "LETTERS TESTAMENTARY Case #2013-3538," Gmail (Apr. to May 2021), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY): LETTERS TESTAMENTARY Case #2013-3538: "Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>... Apr 28, 2021... "To: Timothy Ameres <tjameres@nycourts.gov>, Kevin Lee <kevinlee@nycourts.gov>... "I would like to make an appointment to discuss acquisition of letters testamentary and letters of trusteeship. It has been six months since my filing of neglect to respond to the citation. "I also filed an affidavit with an exhibit of a copy of my birth certificate in it. This filing has not been placed on the docket... ------------------------------------------ "Timothy Ameres <tjameres@nycourts.gov>... Apr 28, 2021... "To: Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>, Kevin Lee <kevinlee@nycourts.gov>... "After I have review your file to see what is still needed we can meet... "We[re] you able to successfully serve the citation and a copy of the will?... ------------------------------------------ "Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>... May 3, 2021... "To: Timothy Ameres <tjameres@nycourts.gov>... "I filed everything showing I was able to serve and that it was not responded to 6 months ago and have been waiting for letters. "Can I make an appointment to acquire them? ------------------------------------------ "Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>... May 11, 2021... "To: Timothy Ameres <tjameres@nycourts.gov>, Kevin Lee <kevinlee@nycourts.gov> "Cc: Erica Gomez <egomez@nycourts.gov>, probate_general@nycourts.gov, recordroom_general@nycourts.gov... "I filed everything showing I was able to serve and that it was not responded to for 6 months ago. I have been waiting for letters testamentary and trusteeship. "I filed an affidavit which has not been filed (containing a copy of my birth certificate as evidence). "Can I make an appointment to acquire the letters?... ------------------------------------------ "Probate_General <Probate_General@nycourts.gov>... May 11, 2021... "To: Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>... "Please mail in affidavit of service for the Citation and your affidavit with the Birth certificate to "NY County Surrogates Court "31 Chambers St room 504 "NY NY 10007... ------------------------------------------ "Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>... May 12, 2021... To: Probate_General <Probate_General@nycourts.gov>... "All of it is filed...." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "ATTN: Honorable Judge A. Gail Prudenti," Gmail (F'wd) (7.9.2015), CLAIMS AGAINST S.C.N.Y., Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) "ATTN: Honorable Judge A. Gail Prudenti," Gmail (F'wd), CLAIMS AGAINST S.C.N.Y., Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2015 "ATTN: Honorable Judge A. Gail Prudenti," Gmail, dated July 9, 2015, from Petitioner ("<attgenstw... more "ATTN: Honorable Judge A. Gail Prudenti," Gmail, dated July 9, 2015, from Petitioner ("<attgenstw@gmail.com>") to "question@nycourts.gov," Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY): " In 2013 I filed a petition which contains a death certificate displaying the decedents' social security number, Index #2013-3538. A few days ago I attempted to file a suppression motion with the Miscellaneous Office in order to conceal ONLY the death certificate and other filed exhibits and was told such motion was unacceptable,... However, when explaining how I wished to conceal such exhibits, I was provided with a COURTESY impounding of all filed documents. "Although, I did request a confirmation of their impounding, due to their exposure to the public, and was denied... "Today (July 9, 2015), I attempted to have a letter of verification, enforcing section 207.63 of the Surrogate Code,... I was told such letter would not be signed due to the documents being filed prior to the rule's effective date... "I then visited the Office of Court Administration and was directed to contact yourself, Judge Prudenti... Please help to relieve this discrepancy and to commence with the impounding of the exhibits only, as such may be detrimental to the estate, and is the reason, I believe, why Rule 207.63 was enacted in the first place. Thank you for your time." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact DOCKET (printed 5.17.2022), File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), Estate of Linda Williams DOCKET (printed 5.17.2022), File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), Estate of Linda Williams, 2022 Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), Document and Info Sheet, Linda Williams,... more Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), Document and Info Sheet, Linda Williams, Decedent Steven Talbert Williams, Beneficiary "File # Document Date Filed.... Impounded "2013-3538 Compel Production Of Will- 09-17-2013... Y [HIDDEN] "2013-3538 Affidavit Of Urgency- 09-24-2013... N "2013-3538 Affidavit -To Discontinue 10-21-2013... N (* Compel was sought for comparison of MR.VANN's copy of the Last Will & Testament within his computer files) "2013-3538/A Linda Williams Beneficial Trust 01-20-2020... N (* Incorrect date of filing - See evidence of the Clerks stamped filing on "JAN 30 2020") "2013-3538/A Probate Petition- 01-30-2020... N "2013-3538/A Affidavit- 01-30-2020... N "2013-3538/A Death Certificate- 01-30-2020... N "2013-3538/A Affidavit of Comparison With 01-30-2020... N Copy Of Will- "2013-3538/A Clerk's notes 01-30-2020... Y [HIDDEN] "2013-3538/A Court Record Sheet-Fee Sheet 01-30-2020... Y [HIDDEN] "2013-3538/B Preliminary Probate Petition- 01-30-2020... N "2013-3538/A Affidavit- 01-31-2020... N "2013-3538/A Affidavit- 01-31-2020... N "2013-3538/A Family Tree- 02-03-2020... N "2013-3538/A Family Tree Affidavit- 02-03-2020... N "2013-3538/A Amended Probate Petition- 02-04-2020... N "2013-3538/C Application To Proceed As A 02-04-2020... N Poor Person-Re: Petition To Compel Accounting "2013-3538/A Affidavit- 02-06-2020... N "2013-3538/C Unsigned Proposed Order(S)- 02-06-2020... Y [HIDDEN] "2013-3538/A "Motion" For Preliminary Default 02-19-2020... N Summary Judgment- Procedurally Defective "2013-3538/A Citation-03-31-2020 02-21-2020... N "2013-3538/C Order- Denied, Poor Person Relief 02-21-2020... N "2013-3538/B Order And Written Decision- 02-24-2020... N Decision "2013-3538/C Clerk To Notify-Copy Of Order, 02-27-2020... N Dated 2/21/2020 "2013-3538/B Clerk To Notify-Decision 02-28-2020... N "2013-3538/A Affidavit Of Attempted Service- 03-02-2020... N "2013-3538/C Affidavit In Support Of Application 03-03-2020... N To Proceed As poor person-Resubmitted "2013-3538/C Affidavit- 03-04-2020... N "2013-3538/C Order Denying Application- 03-10-2020... N Poor Person "2013-3538/C Clerk To Notify- 03-10-2020... N "2013-3538/A Order For Service- 07-28-2020... N" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact DOCKET (printed 8.10.2020), File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), Estate of Linda Williams DOCKET (printed 8.10.2020), File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), Estate of Linda Williams, 2020 Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), Document and Info Sheet, Linda Willi... more Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), Document and Info Sheet, Linda Williams, Decedent Steven Talbert Williams, Beneficiary "File # Document Date Filed.... Impounded "2013-3538 Compel Production Of Will- 09-17-2013... Y [HIDDEN] "2013-3538 Affidavit Of Urgency- 09-24-2013... N "2013-3538 Affidavit -To Discontinue 10-21-2013... N (* Compel was sought for comparison of MR.VANN's copy of the Last Will & Testament within his computer files) "2013-3538/A Linda Williams Beneficial Trust 01-20-2020... N (* Incorrect date of filing - See evidence of the Clerks stamped filing on "JAN 30 2020") "2013-3538/A Probate Petition- 01-30-2020... N "2013-3538/A Affidavit- 01-30-2020... N "2013-3538/A Death Certificate- 01-30-2020... N "2013-3538/A Affidavit of Comparison With 01-30-2020... N Copy Of Will- "2013-3538/A Clerk's notes 01-30-2020... Y [HIDDEN] "2013-3538/A Court Record Sheet-Fee Sheet 01-30-2020... Y [HIDDEN] "2013-3538/B Preliminary Probate Petition- 01-30-2020... N "2013-3538/A Affidavit- 01-31-2020... N "2013-3538/A Affidavit- 01-31-2020... N "2013-3538/A Family Tree- 02-03-2020... N "2013-3538/A Family Tree Affidavit- 02-03-2020... N "2013-3538/A Amended Probate Petition- 02-04-2020... N "2013-3538/C Application To Proceed As A 02-04-2020... N Poor Person-Re: Petition To Compel Accounting "2013-3538/A Affidavit- 02-06-2020... N "2013-3538/C Unsigned Proposed Order(S)- 02-06-2020... Y [HIDDEN] "2013-3538/A "Motion" For Preliminary Default 02-19-2020... N Summary Judgment- Procedurally Defective "2013-3538/A Citation-03-31-2020 02-21-2020... N "2013-3538/C Order- Denied, Poor Person Relief 02-21-2020... N "2013-3538/B Order And Written Decision- 02-24-2020... N Decision "2013-3538/C Clerk To Notify-Copy Of Order, 02-27-2020... N Dated 2/21/2020 "2013-3538/B Clerk To Notify-Decision 02-28-2020... N "2013-3538/A Affidavit Of Attempted Service- 03-02-2020... N "2013-3538/C Affidavit In Support Of Application 03-03-2020... N To Proceed As poor person-Resubmitted "2013-3538/C Affidavit- 03-04-2020... N "2013-3538/C Order Denying Application- 03-10-2020... N Poor Person "2013-3538/C Clerk To Notify- 03-10-2020... N "2013-3538/A Order For Service- 07-28-2020... N" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact PETITION FOR PROBATE (1.30.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) PETITION FOR PROBATE (1.30.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2020 PETITION FOR PROBATE, stamped 1.30.2020 Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) A... more PETITION FOR PROBATE, stamped 1.30.2020 Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) Attempted for acquisition of Letters Testamentary and Trusteeship. Unconstitutionally denied opportunity to obtain Letters of Trusteeship. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (1.30.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (1.30.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2020 LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST, stamped 1.30.2020 Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (... more LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST, stamped 1.30.2020 Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) See DOCKET (stating the Trust's Testamentary Instrument was filed on January 20, 2020). Prima facie (UCC §1--307) of falsifying information (PEN §175.25, CPLR §3016(b), STF §§189(1)(b), (4)(a), 192(1-a)) Petitioner alleges, on January 30, 2020, the Clerks within the Probate Office of the New York County Surrogates Court refused to take the original Testamentary Trust Instrument of the "LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST" for filing. Petitioner alleges, on January 30, 2020, he made a copy of the Testamentary Trust Instrument at the Probate Office and filed it. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact STOLEN DOCUMENTS, Police Report (10.12.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) STOLEN DOCUMENTS, Police Report (10.12.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2020 Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) STOLEN DOCUMENTS (ORIGINAL OF LINDA WILLIAMS... more Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) STOLEN DOCUMENTS (ORIGINAL OF LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST TESTAMENTARY INSTRUMENT INCLUDED) See scanned original w/in the Deferred Appendix of Williams v. United States, et al., 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), Doc. 221-4 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] AFFIDAVIT (2.5.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) [*****] AFFIDAVIT (2.5.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2020 "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION & SCANNING OF AMENDED PETITION FOR PROBATE & COMPULSORY ACCOUNTING," da... more "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION & SCANNING OF AMENDED PETITION FOR PROBATE & COMPULSORY ACCOUNTING," dated 2.5.2020 Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), Affidavit, 02.06.2020 "On February 4, 2020, I filed: (1) an amended petition for probate (to included letters of trusteeship); (2) a citation to MR. AVROM R. VANN for compulsory accounting; and (3) a compulsory accounting petition, which are all missing from files recorded" "On February 5, 2020, I... noticed my driver's license numbers exposed to the general public... [D]river's license numbers should be blackened out from viewing... ([see ]NYCRR 207.64(5))..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY DEFAULT SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF EXECUTOR/TRUSTEES..." (2.18.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) "MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY DEFAULT SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF EXECUTOR/TRUSTEES..." (2.18.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2020 "MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY DEFAULT SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF EXECUTOR/TRUSTEES (RENUNCIATION OF EUGENE WIL... more "MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY DEFAULT SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF EXECUTOR/TRUSTEES (RENUNCIATION OF EUGENE WILLIAMS)," dated February 18, 2020, Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), filed "02.19.2020:" See: Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.), Doc. 206-2 (filed 4.8.2020) "I, MR. STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PETITIONER,' Pro Sé; aka: 'CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS' or 'STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE'), in association with the Petition For Probate (in abidance with: U.S. Const. Art. 1 §7, EPTL §5-1.1(f) ('release of right of election... without consideration'), SCR §§202, 207.15, 207.19, 207.37(a), 210, 706(2), 707(1)(b) ('incompetent'), (1)(e) ('improvidence, want of understanding, or who is otherwise unfit'), (2) ('court may declare ineligible'), 720 ('entry of a decree... removing a fiduciary'), 2101(3), 2102, 2103, 2104, 2211; and CPLR §§2214, 2215, 3211(c), 3212, 3213 (('action is based upon an instrument… and the supporting papers,' see forthcoming affidavit in support of preliminary default summary judgment), 3215 (default judgment) (a) ('for any other neglect'), (f) ('proof')), move for a preliminary default summary judgment in favor of the renunciation of MR. WILLIS EUGENE WILLIAMS, JR., DECEDENT’s ('MRS. LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS’')[ ]husband and named 'Executor,' and to provide a decree of fiduciary control over her estate to PETITIONER, as named 'alternate Executor' (see Petition For Probate, ¶3 of the filed original Last Will & Testament of DECEDENT). 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(2) ('legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent'); EPTL §5-1.1(b)(1)(E) ('by the express provisions of the disposing instrument'), (e)(1) ('election shall be served upon any personal representative'), (e)(2) ('decree settling the account of the personal representative'); SCR §§706(1) ('in order to comply with the express terms of a will or lifetime trust instrument… [the Court must] proceed and complete the administration of the estate pursuant to the letters or lifetime trust instrument' [ ]), (2) ('when all persons serving as trustee... are removed[ (see Petition For Probate, ¶2(f), the custodial age, of the filed copy of the ‘LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST’]... successor may complete the administration of the estate...[to] enforce a judgment, order or decree'[ ]), 715, 1416(1)(b)('person chosen by virtue of a power in a will does not qualify... after the filing of the instrument'), 1417(1) ('renounce... by an acknowledged instrument'), 1402(1)(a) ('any person designated in the will as legatee'), (1)(c), (3), 1403(1)(b) ('in the event the designated executor cannot act or fails to qualify need not be served'[ ]), (1)(d) (“rights or interests are adversely affected by any other instrument' [ ]); See Matter of Estate of Kirwood, 2010 NY Slip Op 51532(U), 28 Misc 3d 1228(A) (2010)[.]" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact DECISION (Hon. Surr. Mella, S) (2.24.2020) (PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) DECISION (Hon. Surr. Mella, S) (2.24.2020) (PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2020 ***** PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL ***** DECISION (Hon. Surr. Mella, S) (2.24.2020) Estate of Linda Willi... more ***** PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL ***** DECISION (Hon. Surr. Mella, S) (2.24.2020) Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) "Decedent's will nominates proponent as successor executor." "Proponent has not given notice of the instant application to the nominated executor." "The application for preliminary letters testamentary is denied..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF CITATION (2.28.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF CITATION (2.28.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2020 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF CITATION (notarized and filed 2.28.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File... more AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF CITATION (notarized and filed 2.28.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) "I, MR. STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS,... on February 27, 2020 served a copy of the citation..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING (2.28.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING (2.28.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY), 2020 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING (notarized and filed 2.28.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538... more AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING (notarized and filed 2.28.2020), Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY) "On February 27, 2020, I served a copy of the Citation[,]... dated February 21, 2020 (cited before 3/1/2020)..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(JAC)(RJS)(SJM)(2nd Cir.), "LETTER OF PROBATE FILINGS (ESTATE OF LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS, FILE 2013-3538," Doc. 206-1, Ex. 1 ("MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY DEFAULT SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF EXECUTOR/TRUSTEES (RENUNCIATION OF EUGENE WILLIAMS)") "Exhibit 1 "Surrogate's Court New York County "Motion For preliminary Default Summary Judgment ... more "Exhibit 1 "Surrogate's Court New York County "Motion For preliminary Default Summary Judgment Of Executor/Trustees (Renunciation Of Eugene Williams) "I, MR. STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PETITIONER,' Pro Sé; aka: 'CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS' or 'STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE'), in association with the Petition For Probate (in abidance with: U.S. Const. Art. 1 §7, EPTL §5-1.1(f) ('release of right of election... without consideration'), SCR §§202, 207.15, 207.19, 207.37(a), 210, 706(2), 707(1)(b) ('incompetent'), (1)(e) ('improvidence, want of understanding, or who is otherwise unfit'), (2) ('court may declare ineligible'), 720 ('entry of a decree... removing a fiduciary'), 2101(3), 2102, 2103, 2104, 2211; and CPLR §§2214, 2215, 3211(c), 3212, 3213 (('action is based upon an instrument… and the supporting papers,' see forthcoming affidavit in support of preliminary default summary judgment), 3215 (default judgment) (a) ('for any other neglect'), (f) ('proof')), move for a preliminary default summary judgment in favor of the renunciation of MR. WILLIS EUGENE WILLIAMS, JR., DECEDENT’s ('MRS. LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS’')[ ]husband and named 'Executor,' and to provide a decree of fiduciary control over her estate to PETITIONER, as named 'alternate Executor' (see Petition For Probate, ¶3 of the filed original Last Will & Testament of DECEDENT). 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(2) ('legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent'); EPTL §5-1.1(b)(1)(E) ('by the express provisions of the disposing instrument'), (e)(1) ('election shall be served upon any personal representative'), (e)(2) ('decree settling the account of the personal representative'); SCR §§706(1) ('in order to comply with the express terms of a will or lifetime trust instrument… [the Court must] proceed and complete the administration of the estate pursuant to the letters or lifetime trust instrument' [ ]), (2) ('when all persons serving as trustee... are removed[ (see Petition For Probate, ¶2(f), the custodial age, of the filed copy of the ‘LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST’]... successor may complete the administration of the estate...[to] enforce a judgment, order or decree'[ ]), 715, 1416(1)(b)('person chosen by virtue of a power in a will does not qualify... after the filing of the instrument'), 1417(1) ('renounce... by an acknowledged instrument'), 1402(1)(a) ('any person designated in the will as legatee'), (1)(c), (3), 1403(1)(b) ('in the event the designated executor cannot act or fails to qualify need not be served'[ ]), (1)(d) (“rights or interests are adversely affected by any other instrument' [ ]); See Matter of Estate of Kirwood, 2010 NY Slip Op 51532(U), 28 Misc 3d 1228(A) (2010)[.]" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(JAC)(RJS)(SJM)(2nd Cir.), "LETTER OF PROBATE FILINGS (ESTATE OF LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS, FILE 2013-3538," Doc. 206-1 "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... in abidance with Fed. R. Crim. ... more "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... in abidance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 60 and FRAP 10, 16, 17, 25(c), 27, 32(c)(2), 35 to 37, 62.1(a)(3), (b), inform defendants and the United States Court Appeals for the Second Circuit of PLAINTIFFs’ New York County Housing Court filings of a petition for probate (below) and accompanying 'Motion For Preliminary Default Summary Judgment Of Executor/Trustees' (Exhibit 1). Such filings (and others) are insisted as being seen as pertinent to the acquisition of letters of testamentary and trusteeship for this trial and the assets within the LINDA WILLIAMS TRUST." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact COMPLAINT (U.S. Department Of Justice) - CW Capital Asset Mgmt., LLC (May 31, 2022) COMPLAINT (U.S.D.O.J.) - CW Capital Asset Mgmt., LLC (May 31, 2022), 2022 COMPLAINT (U.S. Department Of Justice) - CW Capital Asset Mgmt., LLC (May 31, 2022) "5/31/22, ... more COMPLAINT (U.S. Department Of Justice) - CW Capital Asset Mgmt., LLC (May 31, 2022) "5/31/22, 12:07 PM Submission complete... "Thank you for submitting a report to the Civil Rights Division... "Your record number is: 165143-NZS... "Your name... Steven Talbert Williams... Email address... stwlegal@gmail.com "Organization name... CW Capital Asset Mgmt., LLC... " Address... 701 13th Street, NW... Washington, D.C., District of Columbia "In your own words, describe what happened "- See https://steventalbertwilliams.academia.edu "- See also Complaint, Doc. 2 (Petition For Redress, HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.). "- See also Complaint, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.). "- See also Deferred Appendix (Brief), Doc. 221.4, Williams, 20-451cv (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.). "- See also ST OWNER, LP v. WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC) evidenced in Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), Doc. 2. "(Tishman Speyers & BlackRock; PCV/ST Owner, LP; ST Owner, LP; WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-C30) "CW Capital Asset Mgmt., LLC (CWCAM, subsidiary of Walker & Dunlop), interim ownership of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town (PCV/ST), is claimed to have used assets of the 'irrevocable' 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST' (EPTL §7-1.16; 12 C.F.R. §330.13) (Decedent, Linda Williams', trust accounts, within Pershing, LLC, now B.N.Y.; UBS AG; and FMR, Fidelity) through the IPO of Pershing Square Holdings Grp.(UBS AG, custodian) to reinvest the trust into PCV/ST's trust (TRUST 2007-C30, including tranche trusts). "CWCAM (PCV/ST) denied Plaintiff (Steven Talbert Williams) rights to rent stabilized succession (9 NYCRR §2522.8) from his Mother's (Decedent's) apartment. "CWCAM (PCV/ST) denied Plaintiff rights to a Renewal Lease. "CWCAM (PCV/ST) denied Plaintiff rights to Decedent's renter’s insurance policy from State Farm Life Insur. Co. (ISC §3420(a)(1), 'insolvency of the insured’s estate, shall not release the insurer from the payment of damages for injury sustained or loss... within the coverage of such policy or contract') "CWCAM is claimed to have used Decedent's trust and evicting him and his father in coordination with an alternate claimed scheme to evict other rent stabilized and elderly tenants (see FACT SHEET #36, Department of Housing and Community Renewal of New York); lowering the number of tenants to maliciously raise rental prices to market-rate value (Decedent's rent of $1200 to new prices of $5000), or convert the PCV/ST community into co-op’s or condominiums (Domestic Housing Terrorism). "The LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST was confirmed in an email from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as having 'a certificate of ownership of an investment… [from] 1987 with Microsoft Corporation' "Plaintiff, after the eviction and bad relationship with his father, was not able to probate Decedent's Last Will & Testament. "CWCAM is claimed to have executed a scheme in a malicious attempt to keep him in a deprived socioeconomic state for the past 10 years. "Plaintiff attempted to seek information about Decedent's trust from the I.R.S., who is claimed to have denied the existence of any information concerning the trust, while unconstitutionally receiving a faxed copy of: (1) the first page of the trust's testamentary instrument (proving Plaintiff as sole beneficiary); (2) PLAINTIFFs’ driver’s license; and (3) DECEDENT’s death certificate. "See Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 2), evidencing Decedent's trust: (i) a U.S. TREAS. 'SS-4' form (Appendix D.12); (ii) an I.R.S. 'W-9' form filing (Appendix E); and (iii) a Correspondent Services Corporation (now Fidelity) 'TRUST ERISA PLAN TRUSTEE CERTIFICATION' form (Exhibit 10). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact COMPLAINT (U.S. Department Of Justice) - Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins, & Goidel, P.C. (May 31, 2022) COMPLAINT (U.S.D.O.J.) - Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins, & Goidel, P.C. (May 31, 2022), 2022 "5/31/22, 12:23 PM Submission complete... "T... more "5/31/22, 12:23 PM Submission complete... "Thank you for submitting a report to the Civil Rights Division... "Your record number is: 165147-HVD... "Your name... Steven Talbert Williams... Email address... stwlegal@gmail.com "Organization name... Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins, & Goidel, P.C.... " Address... 377 Broadway... Zip: 10013-3993... New York, New York "In your own words, describe what happened "- See https://steventalbertwilliams.academia.edu "- See also Complaint, Doc. 2 (Petition For Redress, HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.). "- See also Complaint, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.). "- See also Deferred Appendix (Brief), Doc. 221.4, Williams, 20-451cv (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.). "- See also ST OWNER, LP v. WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC) evidenced in Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), Doc. 2. "(Tishman Speyers & BlackRock; PCV/ST Owner, LP; ST Owner, LP; WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-C30) "Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins, & Goidel, P.C. (BGANG), the law firm of ST Owner, LP for Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town (PCV/ST), is claimed to have conspired to aid the use of assets of the 'irrevocable' 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST' (EPTL §7-1.16; 12 C.F.R. §330.13) (Decedent, Linda Williams', trust accounts, within Pershing, LLC, now B.N.Y.; UBS AG; and FMR, Fidelity) through the IPO of Pershing Square Holdings Grp.(UBS AG, custodian) to reinvest the trust into PCV/ST's trust (TRUST 2007-C30, including tranche trusts). "CWCAM (PCV/ST) denied Plaintiff (Steven Talbert Williams) rights to rent stabilized succession (9 NYCRR §2522.8) from his Mother's (Decedent's) apartment. "CWCAM (PCV/ST) denied Plaintiff rights to a Renewal Lease. "CWCAM (PCV/ST) denied Plaintiff rights to Decedent's renter’s insurance policy from State Farm Life Insur. Co. (ISC §3420(a)(1), 'insolvency of the insured’s estate, shall not release the insurer from the payment of damages for injury sustained or loss... within the coverage of such policy or contract') "CWCAM is claimed to have used Decedent's trust and evicting him and his father in coordination with an alternate claimed scheme to evict other rent stabilized and elderly tenants (see FACT SHEET #36, Department of Housing and Community Renewal of New York); lowering the number of tenants to maliciously raise rental prices to market-rate value (Decedent's rent of $1200 to new prices of $5000), or convert the PCV/ST community into co-op’s or condominiums (Domestic Housing Terrorism). "The LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST was confirmed in an email from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as having 'a certificate of ownership of an investment… [from] 1987 with Microsoft Corporation' "Plaintiff, after the eviction and bad relationship with his father, was not able to probate Decedent's Last Will & Testament. "CWCAM is claimed to have executed a scheme in a malicious attempt to keep him in a deprived socioeconomic state for the past 10 years. "Plaintiff attempted to seek information about Decedent's trust from the I.R.S., who is claimed to have denied the existence of any information concerning the trust, while unconstitutionally receiving a faxed copy of: (1) the first page of the trust's testamentary instrument (proving Plaintiff as sole beneficiary); (2) PLAINTIFFs’ driver’s license; and (3) DECEDENT’s death certificate. "See Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 2), evidencing Decedent's trust: (i) a U.S. TREAS. 'SS-4' form (Appendix D.12); (ii) an I.R.S. 'W-9' form filing (Appendix E); and (iii) a Correspondent Services Corporation (now Fidelity) 'TRUST ERISA PLAN TRUSTEE CERTIFICATION' form (Exhibit 10). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact COMPLAINT (U.S. Department Of Justice) - UBS Group, AG (May 31, 2022) COMPLAINT (U.S.D.O.J.) - UBS Group, AG (May 31, 2022), 2022 "Your name... Steven Talbert Williams... Email address... stwlegal@gmail.com "Organizat... more "Your name... Steven Talbert Williams... Email address... stwlegal@gmail.com "Organization name... UBS Group, AG... "Address... 1285 Avenue of Americas... Zip: 10019... New York, New York "In your own words, describe what happened "- See https://steventalbertwilliams.academia.edu "- See also Complaint, Doc. 2 (Petition For Redress, HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.). "- See also Complaint, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.). "- See also Deferred Appendix (Brief), Doc. 221.4, Williams, 20-451cv (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.). "- See also ST OWNER, LP v. WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC) evidenced in Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), Doc. 2. "(LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST; WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-C30) "CW Capital Asset Mgmt., LLC (CWCAM, subsidiary of Walker & Dunlop), interim owner of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town (PCV/ST), is claimed to have used assets of the 'irrevocable' 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST' (EPTL §7-1.16; 12 C.F.R. §330.13) (Decedent, Linda Williams', trust accounts, within Pershing, LLC, now B.N.Y.; UBS AG; and FMR, Fidelity) through the IPO of Pershing Square Holdings Grp. (UBS AG, custodian. See Elysium Fund Mgmt.) to reinvest the trust into PCV/ST's trust (TRUST 2007-C30, including tranche trusts). "CWCAM (PCV/ST) denied Plaintiff (Steven Talbert Williams) rights to rent stabilized succession (9 NYCRR §2522.8) from his Mother's (Decedent's) apartment. "CWCAM (PCV/ST) denied Plaintiff rights to a Renewal Lease; laching upon performing a death index search (under ISC §3240(d)(1); E.P.T.L. §5-1.1-a) with their insurance company. "CWCAM (PCV/ST) denied Plaintiff rights to Decedent's renter’s insurance policy from State Farm Life Insur. Co. (ISC §3420(a)(1), 'insolvency of the insured’s estate, shall not release the insurer from the payment of damages for injury sustained or loss... within the coverage of such policy or contract') "CWCAM is claimed to have used Decedent's trust and evicting him and his father in coordination with an alternate claimed scheme to evict other rent stabilized and elderly tenants (see FACT SHEET #36, Department of Housing and Community Renewal of New York); lowering the number of tenants to maliciously raise rental prices to market-rate value (Decedent's rent of $1200 to new prices of $5000), or convert the PCV/ST community into co-op’s or condominiums (Domestic Housing Terrorism). "The LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST was confirmed in an email from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as having 'a certificate of ownership of an investment… [from] 1987 with Microsoft Corporation' "Plaintiff, after the eviction and bad relationship with his father, was not able to probate Decedent's Last Will & Testament. "CWCAM is claimed to have executed a scheme in a malicious attempt to keep him in a deprived socioeconomic state for the past 10 years. "Plaintiff attempted to seek information about Decedent's trust from the I.R.S., who is claimed to have denied the existence of any information concerning the trust, while unconstitutionally receiving a faxed copy of: (1) the first page of the trust's testamentary instrument (proving Plaintiff as sole beneficiary); (2) PLAINTIFFs’ driver’s license; and (3) DECEDENT’s death certificate. "See Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 2), evidencing Decedent's trust: (i) a U.S. TREAS. 'SS-4' form (Appendix D.12); (ii) an I.R.S. 'W-9' form filing (Appendix E); and (iii) a Correspondent Services Corporation (now Fidelity) 'TRUST ERISA PLAN TRUSTEE CERTIFICATION' form (Exhibit 10). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [***] IGNORED INSPECTOR GENERAL COMPLAINT (June 2021) (Against a Clerk (SCNY) and the N.Y.A.G.), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) [***] IGNORED INSPECTOR GENERAL COMPLAINT (June 2021) (Against a Clerk (SCNY) and the N.Y.A.G.), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2021 IGNORED INSPECTOR GENERAL COMPLAINT (June 22, 2021); Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A... more IGNORED INSPECTOR GENERAL COMPLAINT (June 22, 2021); Estate of Linda Williams, File # 2013-3538/A (SCNY); Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "See this complaint claimed to be in relation to the U.S. Supreme Ct. cases of: "16M111[ ] (Index No.) see also certiorari in 16-189(2nd Cir.); 19-5398; 19-5399; 19-5405; 19-6227; 19-6565... "Where is the subject assigned "ALBANY (NYAG) [and] NEW YORK COUNTY SURROGATES COURT "Title of Employee "MR. KEVIN LEE (CLERK); NYAG... "Mr. Kevin Lee,... unconstitutionally denied Petitioner's filing of a citation[,]... undermining Petitioner's intelligence by insulting him ([ ]puffery). See Appendix A, "AFFIDAVIT OF CLERRICAL ESTOPPEL," filed within the Surr. Ct. on June 7, 2021 (see the appendices of the affidavit within the filings of the Surr. Ct.). See also Appendices A through C. "Ms./Mrs. Letitia James, New York Att. Gen., is claimed to have lached upon responding to Mr. Williams' intervention motion of Williams c, U.S., et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd Cir.), Docs. 73-77 (2nd Cir.), and Mr. Williams' ,ailing of five complaints to her offices... See Appendices D through I. "---> Both claims claimed in relation to Mr. Williams antitrust and civil rights claims as aiding and abetting the illegal reinvesting of assets within the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST." Stamped by Office of the Inspector General "10:46A 6/22/2021 CMIT" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 448 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact *** ESTOPPEL *** N.Y.A.G. (May 4, 2021), Gmail, "Re: Our File Number: 21-022897 Subject: ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.))," Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017) N.Y.A.G. (May 4, 2021), stwlegal@gmail.com, "Re: Our File Number: 21-022897 Subject: ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.))," Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017), 2021 N.Y.A.G. Letitia James, "Re: Our File Number: 21-022897 Subject: ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY... more N.Y.A.G. Letitia James, "Re: Our File Number: 21-022897 Subject: ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.))," stwlegal@gmail.com, dated May 4, 2021, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017): State of New York Office of the Attorney General "Dear Steven Talbert Williams:... "We appreciate your alerting us to this matter. We believe the agency shown below may be able to assist you and we are forwarding your correspondence there. "If you do not receive a response in the near future, please follow up directly with that agency... "Thank you for writing to our office. We will keep your correspondence on file for future reference. "Very truly yours, "James Sfiroudis "Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection "cc: NYC Department of Homeless Services" --------------------------------------------------- "Form submission from: Contact Attorney General Letitia James," sent Mar 2, 2021 to nysag@ag.ny.gov. "ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY "Steven Talbert Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.), "Dismissed UNCONSTITUTIONALLY "I, Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, have been living on the street for 8 1/2 years due to a claimed antitrust matter which the trust assets of my deceased mother were reinvested illegally into the community of PCV/ST, evicting myself from her rent stabilized apartment, without offering myself a renewal lease after her death. "As claimed, the PCV/ST community have been attempting for years to evict/lower the amount of rent stabilized and elderly tenants in order to eliminate their tax exemption status. Eliminating the exemption status would provide the owners an opportunity to either raise rents to market rate prices or turn the community into co-op's or condos. "My first trial, 5 1/2 years ago (Williams v. United States, et al.,15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY, Dec. 10, 2015), 16-189(2d Cir. May 18, 2016), 137 U.S. 1611(2017) (Index No. 16M111, denying 'Motion To Direct The Clerk To File The Petition Out Of Time') (U.S. S.Ct., Mar. 15, 2017)), was dismissed, whereby the case was taken as an illegal lockout/eviction and not an antitrust claim, under the Sherman Antitrust Act/Clayton Act, where such claim provides for a MANDATORY DISCOVERYCONFERENCE prior to trial (to validate the trust agreement and assets over $75,000, 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)) for a trial to commence. I have been denied my right to a discovery conference and, because of it, have lost numerous cases in the United States Supreme Court. See Williams v. US, et al., 19-5398, 19-5399, 19-5405,19-6227 (mandamus), 19-6565(U.S. S.Ct.) - ALL CASES DENIED UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. "PLEASE HELP! "Thanks" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact *** ESTOPPEL *** N.Y.A.G. (May 12, 2021), Gmail, "Re: Our File Number: 21-022897 Subject: ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.))," Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017) N.Y.A.G. (May 12, 2021), stwlegal@gmail.com, "Re: Our File Number: 21-022897 Subject: ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.))," Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017), 2021 N.Y.A.G. Letitia James, "Re: Our File Number: 21-022897 Subject: ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY... more N.Y.A.G. Letitia James, "Re: Our File Number: 21-022897 Subject: ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY (see Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.))," stwlegal@gmail.com, dated May 12, 2021, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017): State of New York Office of the Attorney General "Dear Steven Talbert Williams: "I am writing to notify you that we have received your correspondence. We appreciate your bringing your complaint to our attention and will keep the information on file. "Please be advised that we cannot intervene in this matter because the dispute is or has been in litigation. The Attorney General may not provide individual legal advice and must defer to court proceedings and determinations. If you wish to pursue the matter further, the judicial system maintains independent review procedures, including the appeals process. "If you have not already done so, you may wish to discuss this matter with a private attorney... Typically, initial consultations are relatively inexpensive and do not commit you to further representation. This office cannot represent individual consumers in court or give individual legal advice. "For help in collecting a judgment, you have several options... In addition, the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) provides assistance in collecting small claims judgments... "I hope you reach a fair resolution. "Very truly yours, "James Sfiroudis "Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection "55 Hanson Place, Suite 1080, Brooklyn, NY 11217" ------------------------------------------- "Form submission from: Contact Attorney General Letitia James," sent Mar 2, 2021 to nysag@ag.ny.gov. "ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY "Steven Talbert Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.), "Dismissed UNCONSTITUTIONALLY "I, Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, have been living on the street for 8 1/2 years due to a claimed antitrust matter which the trust assets of my deceased mother were reinvested illegally into the community of PCV/ST, evicting myself from her rent stabilized apartment, without offering myself a renewal lease after her death. "As claimed, the PCV/ST community have been attempting for years to evict/lower the amount of rent stabilized and elderly tenants in order to eliminate their tax exemption status. Eliminating the exemption status would provide the owners an opportunity to either raise rents to market rate prices or turn the community into co-op's or condos. "My first trial, 5 1/2 years ago (Williams v. United States, et al.,15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY, Dec. 10, 2015), 16-189(2d Cir. May 18, 2016), 137 U.S. 1611(2017) (Index No. 16M111, denying 'Motion To Direct The Clerk To File The Petition Out Of Time') (U.S. S.Ct., Mar. 15, 2017)), was dismissed, whereby the case was taken as an illegal lockout/eviction and not an antitrust claim, under the Sherman Antitrust Act/Clayton Act, where such claim provides for a MANDATORY DISCOVERYCONFERENCE prior to trial (to validate the trust agreement and assets over $75,000, 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)) for a trial to commence. I have been denied my right to a discovery conference and, because of it, have lost numerous cases in the United States Supreme Court. See Williams v. US, et al., 19-5398, 19-5399, 19-5405,19-6227 (mandamus), 19-6565(U.S. S.Ct.) - ALL CASES DENIED UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. "PLEASE HELP! "Thanks" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "REQUESTING INTERVENTION OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES," Gmail (Apr. 2013), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams "REQUESTING INTERVENTION OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES," Gmail (Apr. 2013), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams, 2013 Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams "Apr 22, 2013... "To: Askdoj@usdoj.gov, phishing@irs.gov, ... more Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams "Apr 22, 2013... "To: Askdoj@usdoj.gov, phishing@irs.gov, hotline@oig.treas.gov, Complaints@tigta.treas.gov, oigcouncel@oig.treas.gov, WhistleblowerProtection@tigta.treas.gov, webmaster@fincen.gov, insurance-research@fdic.gov, fdicadvisory@fdic.gov, OnGuardOnline@ftc.gov, ighotline@fdic.gov, assessments@fdic.gov, fr@fdic.gov, depositorservices@fdic.gov, OCCAlertResponses@occ.treas.gov, Publicaffairs3@occ.treas.gov, oigmail@ncua.gov, ombudsman@ncua.gov "Bcc: stwlegal@gmail.com... "To the representatives of the IRS, DEPARMENT OF TREASURY, FDIC, INSPECTOR GENERAL, and other governmental agencies: "My name is STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, I have been informed... [by] the IRS concerning tax fraud and I believe it is due to my mother, LINDA STREGER WILLIAMS, not filing taxes in my name of a LIVING TRUST set up in 2000 and acquiring a TIN in 2002 with the Department of Treasury. "The Trust, named the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST, had within it a number of accounts. One of these accounts was set up by the financial institution KIRLIN SECURITIES (a wholly owned subsidiary of Kirlin Holding Corporation, nka Zen Holdings Corp.), located in Syosset, NY,... "There are other accounts and financial institutions involved within the Trust including a IRA Pension Plan set up by the NEW YORK TIMES (NYT), whom my mother worked as an employee for over 25 years. I have been unable to acquire any information concerning these accounts... "There is also a LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT associated with my mother and her death that has not gone to probate, This document mentions the existence of the Trust as well as naming myself as the beneficiary of the Will and SOLE BENEFICIARY of the Trust. "Currently, I have been homeless for nearly a year due to an ILLEGAL LOCK-OUT by the owners of STUYVESANT TOWN AND PETER COOPER VILLAGE (PCV/ST), trying to acquire financial documents of the Will and Trust. I will also send an appropriate letter concerning these matters." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE HON. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., CHIEF J.," Williams, 16-189cv (2nd Cir. Ct.) "APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE HON. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., CHIEF J.," Williams, 16-189cv (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2016 "Application to Individual Justice Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief J.," ALLEGED SENT TO U.S. S.C... more "Application to Individual Justice Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief J.," ALLEGED SENT TO U.S. S.CT., dated August 3, 2016, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017) "To Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief J. Of The Supreme Court Of The United States ('U.S. S.Ct.'), "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams, ('Plaintiff,' Pro Sé), present this letter in light of experiencing numerous events of judicial obstruction from the court system within the State of New York which prevent myself from pursuing justice. Currently, Plaintiff has a proceeding within the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ('2nd Cir. Ct.,' CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, et al. ('Matter of Cestui Que S.T. Williams,' for which 'et al.' [emphasis added] is excluded, despite Plaintiff having filed a 2nd Cir. Ct. 'Acknowledgement and notice of appearance form' and 'Motion To Correct Title Caption/Acknowledgment & Case Type,' to include other defendants), Docket No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant U.S. Attorney), as such is an appeal from the Southern District Court of the State of New York ('S.D.N.Y.,' Docket No. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY)) concerning an overall matter of subversion of life through domestic housing terrorism through conspired monopolized, racketeering and antitrust influenced, enterprise corruption, induced by financial institutions against himself as an individual of beneficiary rights to a... trust account and rent stabilized real property dwelling. "Matter of Cestui Que S.T. Williams has yet to be seen within a courtroom, or before a jury, of either the S.D.N.Y. or the 2nd Cir. Ct., despite having requested such, and has been closed. Matter of Cestui Que S.T. Williams is currently pending reinstatement, for which Plaintiff seeks to initiate a proceeding within the U.S. S.Ct. to provide a mandated order to compel the federal employees of the 2nd Cir. Ct. to perform their duties under 28 U.S.C.A. §1361 or to assume supervisory authority under the Due Process Clause of U.S. Const. Am. 5 and 14, wherein the trial may remain in the New York State 2nd Cir. Ct. via diversity jurisdiction." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 514 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "APPLICATION TO CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JOHN G. ROBERTS & JUDGE RUTH BADER: INTENT TO INITIATE AN EXPEDITED TRIAL[,]... VIA WRIT OF ERROR;...," People v. Williams (OATH, Sept. 16 & 17, 2018), Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017) "APPLICATION TO CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JOHN G. ROBERTS & JUDGE RUTH BADER: INTENT TO INITIATE AN EXPEDITED TRIAL[,]... VIA WRIT OF ERROR;...," People v. Williams (OATH, Sept. 16 & 17, 2018), Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017), 2017 "APPLICATION TO CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JOHN G. ROBERTS & JUDGE RUTH BADER: INTENT TO INITIATE AN EXPED... more "APPLICATION TO CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JOHN G. ROBERTS & JUDGE RUTH BADER: INTENT TO INITIATE AN EXPEDITED TRIAL FOR MATTER OF CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS (REVIEW OF IN RE.: PEOPLE (N.Y.P.D., OATH) V. STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS (CESTUI QUE) & CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, DOCKET NOS. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 16M111(U.S. S.Ct., MAR. 15, 2017), VIA WRIT OF ERROR; OVERSIGHT OF ORIGINAL CLAIM, 15 U.S.C. §26)" Dated October 15, 2017, People (N.Y.P.D., 20TH Precinct) v. Steven Talbert Williams (Cestui Que)(OATH, 0203004955, September 16 & 17, 2018), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017): "I, MR. STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE (DEFENDANT in a trial of Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings ('OATH') concerning Appearance Ticket No. 0203004955(OATH)), being of sound mind, hereby state I am over the age of Twenty-One years and have been living on the streets of New York City, as a displaced resident, for the past roughly Six and a half years due to a claimed illegal eviction from the community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST') in May of the year 2012, provide this letter to CHIEF JUSTICE HON. JOHN G. ROBERTS and HON. RUTH BADER of the United States Supreme Court ('U.S. S.Ct.') with the intent to , not solely to provide notification to the Court of the district, but to seek intervention within OATH by supplying a sua sponte mandated order for intervention and oversight by the United States Attorney General (Fed. R. Civ. P. 43) for matters relating to the enjoining of DEFENDANT’s acquired Appearance Ticket No. 0203004955(OATH) within a sought after reopening (via writ of error) and remanded trial of CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Docket Nos. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 16M111(U.S. S.Ct., Mar. 15, 2017) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ('2nd Cir. Ct.'), via a sought after vacate of default judgment (due to a late appearance within OATH, a demurrer of Appearance Ticket No. 0203004955(OATH) and motion to dismiss (seeking immediate financial relief for axiomatic offenses). U.S. S.Ct. R. 22; Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(E); CPLR §§306, 306b, 307, 320, 7203; UCT 400(3), 403, 407, 409. See 5 C.F.R. §2635.101(b)(1), '[p]ublic interest is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws and ethical principles above private gain[.]' See also PEOPLE v GRIFFIN, 2005 NY Slip Op. 25466, 10 Misc.3d 626. See also LEADER v. MARONEY, PONZINI, 97 N.Y.2d 95 (2001), 761 N.E.2d 1018, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291 'service… [is] a prerequisite.' "This application is accompanied with a copy of a letter of intent (Appendix A) addressed and provided to the New York Attorney General, United States Attorney General and the United States Attorney’s Office (in New York County, once having jurisdiction for the above referenced U.S. S.Ct. trial), as such is claimed to provide a detailing of antitrust claims originally neglected by the federal courts and lached upon the providing of protective orders which is claimed to have induce a major threat to national security." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "Seeking Intervention by USDOJ Steven Talbert Williams," Gmail (Oct. 2018), People v. Williams (OATH, Sept. 16 & 17, 2018), Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017) "Seeking Intervention by USDOJ Steven Talbert Williams," Gmail (Oct. 2018), People v. Williams (OATH, Sept. 16 & 17, 2018), Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017), 2018 "Seeking Intervention by USDOJ Steven Talbert Williams," Gmail (Oct. 2018) Dated Oct. 19 - 25,... more "Seeking Intervention by USDOJ Steven Talbert Williams," Gmail (Oct. 2018) Dated Oct. 19 - 25, 2018, People (N.Y.P.D., 20TH Precinct) v. Steven Talbert Williams (Cestui Que)(OATH, 0203004955, September 16 & 17, 2018), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017): "Oct 19, 2018... "To: antitrust.atr@usdoj.gov, askovc@ncjrs.gov, usadc.webmaster@usdoj.gov, OSGFOIA@usdoj.gov, CRT.FOIArequests@usdoj.gov, info@osc.gov, nsd.public@usdoj.gov... "To whom it may concern at: Department of Justice Antitrust Division Office of Operations, OVC Program Specialist, U.S. Attorneys, D.C., Office of the Solicitor General Attention: FOIA Coordinator, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, FOIA/PA Branch, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Wyn Hornbuckle, Spokesman National Security Division "The following message was sent today to the Victims of Crime division of the U.S.D.O.J. (see previous message sent below this message): "I am Steven Talbert Williams. I contacted this Webmaster ('Victims of Crime') on 10.16.2018... "I am seeking intervention by the U.S.A.G. for an antitrust/probate (beneficial custodial trust neglect)/illegal eviction case (summarized as being Domestic Housing Terrorism. See CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Docket Nos. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK) (DJ)(BDP), 16M111(U.S. S.Ct., MAR. 15, 2017)) for which intervention is sought for a County hearing matter (at the New York Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, 'OATH') to be enjoined into a federal appellate trial, as such concerns an appearance ticket (summons), where a lot of legal documents were seized by the police and claimed as being intentionally thrown into the garbage when retrieving my belongings. "I have still not received a response from the U.S.D.O.J. and wish to inquire into the status of my previous request on this Webmaster. "I have just finished filing initial documents within People (N.Y.P.D., 20th Precinct) v. Steven Talbert Williams (Cestui Que) (OATH, 0203004955, September 16 & 17, 2018). I also filed a letter of intent to reopen Index No. 16M111 (above) with the N.Y.A.G., U.S. S.Ct. (as an appendix within an application to Chief Justice Roberts and the Second District Judge, Hon. Bader) and provided another copy of such to the U.S. Attorney's Office (86 Chambers, New York City) as proof of service and notice of intent. "Please respond as soon as possible... "P.S. - I am finding complications in acquiring proof confirming delivery of my messages to the U.S.D.O.J. Does the U.S.D.O.J. provide an automatic response email?... "'"Hello. My name is Steven Talbert Williams. I am seeking intervention (2 U.S.C. §§288b(c); 288e(a); 28 U.S.C. §§2348, 2403) for a N.Y. County trial (at the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings) for a NYPD ticket (Appearance Ticket No. 0203004955) associated to an antitrust matter, originally tried within U.S. S.Ct. (see Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. U.S.A., 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 16M111(U.S. S.Ct., Mar. 15, 2017)). I wish to retry the matter upon writ of error for the trial dismissed upon 'failure to state a claim,' yet where I presented the complaint as involving the statute of 15 U.S.C. §26 (antitrust matters),... I am visiting USAG and NYAG tomorrow. Filing a letter of intent within your local offices. Please respond.' [highlighting and emphasis added]" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "USDOJ intervention Please review and contact as soon as possible," Gmail (Oct. 2018), People v. Williams (OATH, Sept. 16 & 17, 2018), Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017) "USDOJ intervention Please review and contact as soon as possible," Gmail (Oct. 2018), People v. Williams (OATH, Sept. 16 & 17, 2018), Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017) "USDOJ intervention Please review and contact as soon as possible," Gmail (Oct. 2018) Dated Oc... more "USDOJ intervention Please review and contact as soon as possible," Gmail (Oct. 2018) Dated Oct. 24, 2018, People (N.Y.P.D., 20TH Precinct) v. Steven Talbert Williams (Cestui Que)(OATH, 0203004955, September 16 & 17, 2018), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017): "Oct 24, 2018... "To: OIGHotline@frb.gov, john.p.manibusan@frb.gov, ig_hotline@dodiis.mil, michael.mcroberts@dodiis.mil, tesia.williams@oig.hhs.gov, dhsoig. officepublicaffairs@oig.dhs.gov, erica.paulson@oig.dhs.gov, hotline@oig.treas.gov, delmarr@oig.treas.gov, ighotline@fdic.gov, fgibson@fdic.gov, oig@ftc.gov, rmazer@ftc.gov "To whom it may concern at: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Mr. John Manibusan); Defense Intelligence Agency (Ms./Mrs. Kristi Waschull and Mr. Michael M. McRoberts); Department of Health & Human Services (Ms./Mrs. Tesia Williams); Department of Homeland Security (Ms./Mrs. Erica Paulson); Department of Treasury (Mr. Rich Delmar); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Mr. Fred Gibson); Federal Trade Commission (Ms./Mrs. Roslyn Mazer);[ "]The following message was sent to the Victims of Crime division of the U.S.D.O.J. (see previous message sent below this message):..." --------------------------------------------------------------- "[T]o ANTITRUST.ATR "Hello anonymous @ the Citizen Complaint Center of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, "This was not a complaint. How does my matter 'not raise antitrust issues that warrant further review by the Division?' "I am the beneficiary of securitized assets which has been confirmed by the FDIC. "I was never notified to obtain such assets prior to financial institutions claiming fiduciary control over such assets - the Superintendent of NY, as well as the Banking and Insurance Commissioner of NJ, to the best of my knowledge, la[t]ched upon performing an auditing of the financial institutions to order them to contact myself as the beneficiary. "The securitized assets within the IRA were advertised illegally for reinvesting through the Assets Under Management of a partnered financial institution to the IRA, which were then reinvested into the community I lived in, who then evicted me illegally. "All of the above was stated within the U.S. S.Ct. trial of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. U.S.A., 16M111(U.S. S.Ct., Mar. 15, 2017) "Decedent's lawyer refused to acknowledge myself as a third party client. "I am homeless now for six years and unable to obtain such assets without judicial intervention. "The securitized assets of the IRA have now been reinvested for 15 years. "This matter will go to the press (foreign and domestic) if intervention by the USDOJ cannot be had. "PS - As reiterated, the USDOJ is already named defendant due to the District Attorney's Office of NYC claimed as la[t]ching upon tran[s]fer[r]ing a criminal court matter to a superior court after I filed a motion to dismiss with relief sought within a counterclaim trial (an enjoining matter). Please do not escalate this matter by obstructing my rights as a crime victim." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "RE: Supreme Court Submission," (Reply) "Re: Application denied/Prior antitrust claim 15 U.S.C. §26," Gmail (Nov. 2018), People v. Williams (OATH, Sept. 16 & 17, 2018), Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017) "RE: Supreme Court Submission," (Reply) "Re: Application denied/Prior antitrust claim 15 U.S.C. §26," Gmail (Nov. 2018), People v. Williams (OATH, Sept. 16 & 17, 2018), Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017), 2018 "RE: Supreme Court Submission," (Reply) "Re: Application denied/Prior antitrust claim 15 U.S.C. §... more "RE: Supreme Court Submission," (Reply) "Re: Application denied/Prior antitrust claim 15 U.S.C. §26," Gmail (Nov. 2018) Dated Nov. 5, 2018, People (N.Y.P.D., 20TH Precinct) v. Steven Talbert Williams (Cestui Que)(OATH, 0203004955, September 16 & 17, 2018), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017): "PIO NoReply <PIONoReply@supremecourt.gov>... Nov 5, 2018... "To: "Stwlegal@gmail.com" <SPIONoReply@supremecourt.gov> "We are writing in response to your email to the Supreme Court of the United States... "Supreme Court of the United States "The Office of the Clerk... "Originated 65.88.88.76, 23.46.238.86, 104.96.220.36... "Attn: Clerk's Office of the U.S. Supreme Court To whom it may concern, I am Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que. I recently had a filed Index No. of 16M111 (see CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Docket Nos. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 16M111(U.S. S.Ct., MAR. 15, 2017)). Certiorari was denied for a late filing (I was allegedly not notified by postal mail of the App. Ct.'s dismissal order, obtaining knowledge of the order only when visiting the court - not having enough time to type a certiorari in time due to living on the street - I was in the midst of writing other documents for the App. Ct.). I am intending on reopening the trial via writ of error... "I recently attempted to obtain intervention by the U.S. and N.Y. Attorney Generals into a local NY County hearing sought for enjoining into the reopening of Index No. 16M111, while also sending an application to the U.S. S.Ct. (sent during the weeks of Oct. 14 to the 27th) attempting to notify them of my intent to reopen Index No. 16M111 and to possibly see intervention by the Supreme Court to expedite the process of Attorney General involvement. "The recently sent application to the U.S. S.Ct. was allegedly denied under an Art. III stipulation, however, stamped for filing by the clerk of the Court, Mr. Scott Harris... It is disheartening to find such letter allegedly returned to myself and not having any aid provided by the superior court. "Please review the allegedly filed and stamped application... "P.S. - "In terms of the denied certiorari and intent to reopen the matter via writ of error (so as to be left to the U.S. S.Ct. via the federal court), the la[t]che of adherence to 15 U.S.C. §26's jurisdiction by the district court is sought for review within the intended trial. See ASHCROFT v. IQBAL, 556 U.S. 678 (2002) and BELL ATLANTIC CORP. v. TWOMBLY, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). See Iqbal, at 678, 679, referencing the ''plausibility standard,'… [where ]a district court must… 'draw [upon ]judicial experience and common sense[;]'' See also Twombly, 'the Court found it necessary first to discuss the antitrust principles implicated by the complaint[.]' [highlighting and emphasis added] See also 'Tightening Twiqbal: Why Plausibility Must Be Confined to the Complaint' (http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/pdf/RandVol9Iss2FinalPublication.pdf), referencing CONLEY v. GIBSON, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) and SWIERKIEWICZ v. SOREMA N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 509 (2002),..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "Complaint," Gmail (Dec. 2018), People v. Williams (OATH, Sept. 16 & 17, 2018), Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017) "Complaint," Gmail (Dec. 2018), People v. Williams (OATH, Sept. 16 & 17, 2018), Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017) "Complaint," Gmail (Dec. 2018) Dated December 19, 2018, People (N.Y.P.D., 20TH Precinct) v. St... more "Complaint," Gmail (Dec. 2018) Dated December 19, 2018, People (N.Y.P.D., 20TH Precinct) v. Steven Talbert Williams (Cestui Que)(OATH, 0203004955, September 16 & 17, 2018), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017): "Pinto, Yvonne <Yvonne.Pinto@ag.ny.gov>... Dec 19, 2018... "To: 'stwlegal@gmail.com'... "Your complaint is not an Antitrust matter. You can contact Diana Nickel from the Real Estate Bureau, since it’s a real estate issue. You can write to her at this address: "State of New York "Office of the Attorney General "Real Estate Bureau "Diana Nickel "28 Liberty Street "New York, NY 10005 "Yvonne Pinto[, ]Office Assistant "New York State Office of the Attorney General "Antitrust Bureau... Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re.... Confirming email address for... The New York Attorney General...," Gmail (Nov. 2018), Williams, 18-cv-12064 (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.) In Re.... Confirming email address for... The New York Attorney General...," Gmail (Nov. 2018), Williams, 18-cv-12064 (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2019 "In Re. Cestui Que Williams v. USA, et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.), dated 1/... more "In Re. Cestui Que Williams v. USA, et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.), dated 1/11/2019: Confirming email address for legal representation of The New York Attorney General (located at 28 Liberty Street NY, NY 10005)," Gmail (Jan. 2019) Dated January 12, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.): "Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com>... Jan 12, 2019... "To: "EFile@nycourts.gov" <EFile@nycourts.gov>... "Please reply on whether the Court (which I believe this email address is specifically for the Court of Claims) is willing to accept filings of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit via an email address of a point of contact for Cestui Que Williams v. USA, et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.), of which the NYAG is not only named a defendant, but is also sought as a liaison for the USAG for intervention within appeal conferences to discuss an alternate dispute resolution proposal ( after viewing of axiomatic evidence and pretrial determinations which may provide for a gifts - as detailed within a letter of intent, previously filed in the Managing Office of 28 Liberty St. and sent to the Criminal division of the NYAG - I have also been in contact with NYAG's Antitrust division regarding intervention). "Respectfully, "Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que... ---------------------------------------------- "NYSCEF Resource Center <efile@nycourts.gov>... Jan 14, 2019... "To: Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com> "This office isn’t the court of claims. Their number is 518 432-3423 "Erlon Hodge "E-filing Resource Center "60 Centre Street "New York, NY 10007 "Tel: (646) 386-3033" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "Form submission from: Contact Attorney General Letitia James," Gmail (Mar. 2021), Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017), 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-5399 (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-6227 (Man.) (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) "Form submission from: Contact Attorney General Letitia James," Gmail (Mar. 2021), Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017), 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-5399 (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-6227 (Man.) (U.S. S.Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.), 2021 "Form submission from: Contact Attorney General Letitia James," Gmail (Mar. 2021) Dated Mar 2,... more "Form submission from: Contact Attorney General Letitia James," Gmail (Mar. 2021) Dated Mar 2, 2021, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al.: 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017); 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-5398 (Cert. Denied); 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-240 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-5399 (Cert. Denied); 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-5405 (Cert. Denied); 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6227 (Man.. Denied); 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (Cert. Denied); "NYS Office of the Attorney General <nysag@ag.ny.gov>... Mar 2, 2021... "Reply-To: nysag@ag.ny.gov "To: STWLegal@gmail.com... "Thank you for sending your comment to the New York State Attorney General. "This is an automatic confirmation of your e-mail to us. Please do not respond to this message. Submitted on Tuesday, March 2, 2021 - 17:23 Submitted values are: "Subject Scheduling Request... "Comments "ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY "Steven Talbert Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.), "Dismissed UNCONSTITUTIONALLY "I, Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, have been living on the street for 8 1/2 years due to a claimed antitrust matter which the trust assets of my deceased mother were reinvested illegally into the community of PCV/ST, evicting myself from her rent stabilized apartment, without offering myself a renewal lease after her death. "As claimed, the PCV/ST community have been attempting for years to evict/lower the amount of rent stabilized and elderly tenants in order to eliminate their tax exemption status. Eliminating the exemption status would provide the owners an opportunity to either raise rents to market rate prices or turn the community into co-op's or condos. "My first trial, 5 1/2 years ago (Williams v. United States, et al.,15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY, Dec. 10, 2015), 16-189(2d Cir. May 18, 2016), 137 U.S. 1611(2017) (Index No. 16M111, denying 'Motion To Direct The Clerk To File The Petition Out Of Time') (U.S. S.Ct., Mar. 15, 2017)), was dismissed, whereby the case was taken as an illegal lockout/eviction and not an antitrust claim, under the Sherman Antitrust Act/Clayton Act, where such claim provides for a MANDATORY DISCOVERY CONFERENCE prior to trial (to validate the trust agreement and assets over $75,000, 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)) for a trial to commence. I have been denied my right to a discovery conference and, because of it, have lost numerous cases in the United States Supreme Court. See Williams v. US, et al., 19-5398, 19-5399, 19-5405, 19-6227 (mandamus), 19-6565(U.S. S.Ct.) - ALL CASES DENIED UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. "PLEASE HELP! "Thanks" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] "'Letter Of Intent'... filed... NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL on October 17, 2018..." (Highlighted) ("AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT, PART II"), In Re.: Doc. 12, EX. NO. 2, Williams, 18-cv-12064 (S.D.N.Y.) "'Letter Of Intent'... filed... NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL on October 17, 2018..." (Highlighted), Williams, 18-cv-12064 (S.D.N.Y.), 2018 "'Letter Of Intent'... filed... NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL on October 17, 2018..." (Highlighted), ... more "'Letter Of Intent'... filed... NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL on October 17, 2018..." (Highlighted), In Re. Doc. 12, Ex. No. 2, Williams, 18-cv-12064 (S.D.N.Y.): Exhibit No. 2 "'Letter Of Intent' (Title page & 123 pages) - filed in the Managerial Office of the NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL on October 17, 2018 (allegedly transferred to the Criminal Appeals Division and additionally filed within the U.S. Attorney's Office of N.Y. on the same day) See visitation pass and clerk's notes below[ ]" [Docketed January 3, 2019] "AFFIDAVIT of Steven T. Williams IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT('PART II')In Association with: 'Notice of Appeal' Etc., re: 2 Complaint. Document filed by Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams. (sc) (Entered: 01/10/2019)," Doc. 10, Id. at Ex. No. 2 (Doc. 12). [Docketed January 4, 2019] "EXHIBIT NOS. 1, 2, & 3 In association with: "Complaint" (Form) Etc. Document filed by Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams.(sc) (Entered: 01/10/2019)," dated Doc. 12: ( Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 478 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "LETTER TO CHIEF JUDGE, HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN," Doc 22 (Part 1, 19-39), People v. Williams (OATH, Sept. 16 & 17, 2018), Williams, 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.) "LETTER TO CHIEF JUDGE, HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN," Doc 22 (Part 1, 19-39), People v. Williams (OATH, Sept. 16 & 17, 2018), Williams, 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2019 "LETTER TO CHIEF JUDGE, HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN," Doc 22 (Part 1), dated January 9, 2019, Cestui ... more "LETTER TO CHIEF JUDGE, HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN," Doc 22 (Part 1), dated January 9, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Se), present this pretrial deposing letter under the Equal Access to Justice Act (LR. 39.2; 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1 )(8)) primarily to address... "d. the immediate pre-trial intervention by the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL and NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL ('N.Y.A.G.'), so as to coordinate cooperation within an appeal conference (seeking resolution upon axiomatic matters and other sought after determinations) and proceedings to verify the existence of other prima facie evidence for claimed rights to damage awards (as such was recently sought through PLAINTIFFs' filing of a 'LETTER OF INTENT' in the N.Y.A.G.'s Criminal Appeals and Antitrust Divisions; associated to Violation No. 0203004955(N.Y. Co., OATH (2018)) (prior to PLAINTIFFs intent of providing a release press to the media);... Id. at 2, 3. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "LETTER TO CHIEF JUDGE, HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN," Doc 22 (Part 2, 19-39), People v. Williams (OATH, Sept. 16 & 17, 2018), Williams, 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.) "LETTER TO CHIEF JUDGE, HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN," Doc 22 (Part 2, 19-39), People v. Williams (OATH, Sept. 16 & 17, 2018), Williams, 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2019 "LETTER TO CHIEF JUDGE, HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN," Doc 22 (Part 2, 19-39), dated January 9 & 11, 2... more "LETTER TO CHIEF JUDGE, HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN," Doc 22 (Part 2, 19-39), dated January 9 & 11, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "Motion for: LETTER TO CHIEF JUDGE, HON. ROBERT A.KATZMANN (curing of Jan. 9, 2019 filing)... "Under Equal Access to Justice Act, to address filings excluded from 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY) and Plaintiffs ' previous amended complaint of Williams v. USA, et al. No.15-cv-5114(LAP) (SONY) having jurisdiction of 15 USC §26 (¶21) for antitrust claims. FRAP 25(a)(3), 27(c). "Date: Jan. 11, 2019" ----------------------------------------- "Motion for: Letter To Chief Judge, Hon. Robert A. Katzmann... "Seeking intervention by U.S. Attorney General... "Date: Jan. 9, 2019" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "LETTER RE.: APPEAL CONF.; AFFIDAVIT (NUNC PRO TUNC); PROTECTIVE ORDER; IN LIMINE; RULE 60 MOTIONS; INTERVENTION (U.S.A.G., ALT. RES.)," Doc 24, Williams, 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.) "LETTER RE.: APPEAL CONF.; AFFIDAVIT (NUNC PRO TUNC); PROTECTIVE ORDER; IN LIMINE; RULE 60 MOTIONS; INTERVENTION (U.S.A.G., ALT. RES.)," Doc 24, Williams, 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2019 "LETTER RE.: APPEAL CONF.; AFFIDAVIT (NUNC PRO TUNC); PROTECTIVE ORDER; IN LIMINE; RULE 60 MOTION... more "LETTER RE.: APPEAL CONF.; AFFIDAVIT (NUNC PRO TUNC); PROTECTIVE ORDER; IN LIMINE; RULE 60 MOTIONS; INTERVENTION (U.S.A.G., ALT. RES.)," Doc 24, dated January 11, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "Motion for: LETTER RE.: APPEAL CONF.; AFFIDA PROTECTIVE ORDER; IN LIMINE ; RULE 60 MOTIONS ;INTERVENTION(U.S .A.G .,ALT. RES.... "Under Equal Access to Justice Act (L.R. 39.2 ; 28 U.S .C. §2412(d)(1 )(8)) , to address matters of importance surrounding the referenced 'Prelim. ADR Proposal' of 18-cv-12064's affidavit Part 1. FRAP 25(a)(3) , 27(c) , (d).... -------------------------------- "LETTER RE.: APPEAL CONF.; AFFIDAVIT (NUNC PRO TUNC); PROTECTIVE ORDER; IN LIMINE; RULE 60 MOTIONS; INTERVENTION (U.S.A.G., ALT. RES.) "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS (Pro Se), present this letter, under the Equal Access to Justice Act (LR. 39.2; 28 U.S.C. §2412(d)(1)(B)), to address matters of importance. FRAP 25(a)(3), 27(c), (d)... "BILL OF PARTICULARS "1. This letter is presented to address matters surrounding the accompanying 'Emergency Motion To Commence Pretrial Appeal Conference,' where further pretrial determinations may allow for the granting of the accompanying:... (iv) 'Emergency Motion For Intervention: United States Attorney General;'... reopening of trials via Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (mentioned in 'Affidavit In Support Of Complaint ('Part 1')' in Dock. No. 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY)[ ]), the referenced 'Prelim. ADR Proposal' of 18-cv-12064's affidavit Part 1, the commencement of pretrial rulings upon axiomatic (prima facie) claims... and other matters of importance." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "MOTION, for agency intervention,... FILED. No service," Doc 32, DENIED FROM DOCKET, Williams, 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.) "MOTION, for agency intervention,... FILED. No service," Doc 32, DENIED FROM DOCKET, Williams, 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.) "MOTION, for agency intervention,... FILED. No service," Doc 32, DENIED FROM DOCKET, Cestui Que S... more "MOTION, for agency intervention,... FILED. No service," Doc 32, DENIED FROM DOCKET, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.): See Doc. 34: “DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT,... Motion for agency intervention,... [19], [20], [21], [33], [32], [31], [30], [29], [28], [27], [26], [25], on behalf of Appellant Steven Talbert Williams, FILED,” dated January 14, 2019 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING" (Intervention), Doc 34, Williams, 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.) "NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING" (Intervention), Doc 34, Williams, 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2019 "NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING" (Intervention), Doc 34, dated January 14, 2019, Cestui Que Steven T... more "NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING" (Intervention), Doc 34, dated January 14, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.): “DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT,... Motion for agency intervention,... [19], [20], [21], [33], [32], [31], [30], [29], [28], [27], [26], [25], on behalf of Appellant Steven Talbert Williams, FILED” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL[: ]ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & NOTICE OF APPEARANCE DOCUMENTS (PART 1)" (Intervention, Pages 9, 10, 15, 19), Williams, 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.) "JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL[: ]ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & NOTICE OF APPEARANCE DOCUMENTS (PART 1)" (Intervention, Pages 9, 10, 15, 19), Williams, 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2022 "JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL[: ]ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & NOTICE OF APPEARANCE DOCUMENTS (PART 1)" (Intervention, P... more "JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL[: ]ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & NOTICE OF APPEARANCE DOCUMENTS (PART 1)" (Intervention, Pages 9, 10, 15, 19) Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.): Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] Motion For Intervention (NYAG) (Highlighted), Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), Estoppel (Docs. 44, 45, 48-52, 98-102 of 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.)) [*****] Motion For Intervention (NYAG) (Highlighted), Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), Estoppel (Docs. 44, 45, 48-52, 98-102 of 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.)), 2019 "Motion For Intervention: New York State Attorney General Ms./Mrs. Letitia James" (highlighted), ... more "Motion For Intervention: New York State Attorney General Ms./Mrs. Letitia James" (highlighted), dated January 27, 2020 (19-cv-11547-UA) and February 7, 2020 (20-451), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.) and Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): See Williams v. US, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.): Docs. 10-12 (18-cv-12064); Docs. 22, 24, 32, 34 (19-39): i. Doc. 12, "EXHIBIT NOS. 1, 2, & 3 In association with: 'Complaint' (Form) Etc. Document filed by Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams.(sc) (Entered: 01/10/2019)," 18-cv-12064 (S.D.N.Y.) ii. Doc. 32, "MOTION, for agency intervention, on behalf of Appellant Steven Talbert Williams, FILED. No service.[2474368] [19-39] [Entered: 01/14/2019 12:58 PM]," 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.) See also Williams v. US, et al.,19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): Docs. 20, 21, 29-31, (19-cv-11547-UA); Docs. 13, 14, 19-22, 35-38, 42, 44, 45, 48-52, 73-77, 97-102 (20-451): i. Doc. 29, "NOTICE OF MOTION, re: for the intervention of the New York State Attorney General, Ms. Letitia James, acting on behalf of t he United States Attorney General, William Barr, within this trial, as her appearance is insisted for participation within the sought after preliminary discovery conference( see Doc. 22) etc. Document filed by Steven Talbert Williams.(sc) (Entered: 01/29/2020)," 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.) ii. Doc. 13, "RECORD ON APPEAL STATUS UPDATE LETTER, on behalf of Party Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, informing court of record delays, RECEIVED.[ ] Service date 02/07/2020 by CM/ECF, email, US mail. [2778777] [20-451] [Entered: 02/14/2020 11:35 AM]," 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) iii. Doc. 19, "RECORD ON APPEAL STATUS UPDATE LETTER, on behalf of Party Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, informing court of record delays, RECEIVED.[ ] Service date 02/14/2020 by CM/ECF, email, US mail. [2778897] [20-451] [Entered: 02/14/2020 12:20 PM]," 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) iv. Doc. 35, "RECORD ON APPEAL STATUS UPDATE LETTER, on behalf of Party Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, informing court of record delays, RECEIVED.[ ] Service date 02/14/2020 by CM/ECF, email, US mail. [2779150] [20-451] [Entered: 02/14/2020 02:43 PM]," 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 527 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 1), Oct. 2018 N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 1), Oct. 2018, 2018 N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 1), Oct. 2018, Cestui Que Steven Talb... more N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 1), Oct. 2018, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.): "USDOJ intervention - Please review and contact as soon as possible" "Oct 24, 2018... "To: OIGHotline@frb.gov, john.p.manibusan@frb.gov, ig_hotline@dodiis.mil, michael.mcroberts@dodiis.mil, tesia.williams@oig.hhs.gov, dhsoig. officepublicaffairs@oig.dhs.gov, erica.paulson@oig.dhs.gov, hotline@oig.treas.gov, delmarr@oig.treas.gov, ighotline@fdic.gov, fgibson@fdic.gov, oig@ftc.gov, rmazer@ftc.gov... "To whom it may concern at: Department of Justice Antitrust Division Office of Operations, OVC Program Specialist, U.S. Attorneys, D.C., Office of the Solicitor General Attention: FOIA Coordinator, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, FOIA/PA Branch, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Wyn Hornbuckle, Spokesman National Security Division... "I contacted this Webmaster ('Victims of Crime') on 10.16.2018 (under JUSTICE/DOJ-003, 'Correspondence Management Systems (CMS) for the Department of Justice,'... "I am seeking intervention by the U.S.A.G. for an antitrust/probate (beneficial custodial trust neglect)/illegal eviction case (summarized as being Domestic Housing Terrorism. See CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Docket Nos. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 16M111(U.S. S.Ct., MAR. 15, 2017)) for which intervention is sought for a County hearing matter (at the New York Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, 'OATH')... "People (N.Y.P.D., 20th Precinct) v. Steven Talbert Williams (Cestui Que) (OATH, 0203004955, September 16 & 17, 2018)..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 2), Oct. 2018 N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 2), Oct. 2018, 2018 N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 2), Oct. 2018, Cestui Que Steven Talb... more N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 2), Oct. 2018, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.): "USDOJ intervention - Please review and contact as soon as possible" "Oct 24, 2018... "To: OIGHotline@frb.gov, john.p.manibusan@frb.gov, ig_hotline@dodiis.mil, michael.mcroberts@dodiis.mil, tesia.williams@oig.hhs.gov, dhsoig. officepublicaffairs@oig.dhs.gov, erica.paulson@oig.dhs.gov, hotline@oig.treas.gov, delmarr@oig.treas.gov, ighotline@fdic.gov, fgibson@fdic.gov, oig@ftc.gov, rmazer@ftc.gov... "I contacted this Webmaster ('Victims of Crime') on 10.16.2018 (under JUSTICE/DOJ-003, 'Correspondence Management Systems (CMS) for the Department of Justice,'... "I am seeking intervention by the U.S.A.G. for an antitrust/probate (beneficial custodial trust neglect)/illegal eviction case (summarized as being Domestic Housing Terrorism. See CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Docket Nos. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 16M111(U.S. S.Ct., MAR. 15, 2017)) for which intervention is sought for a County hearing matter (at the New York Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, 'OATH')... "People (N.Y.P.D., 20th Precinct) v. Steven Talbert Williams (Cestui Que) (OATH, 0203004955, September 16 & 17, 2018)..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 3), Nov. 2018 N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 3), Nov. 2018, 2018 N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 3), Nov. 2018, Cestui Que Steven Talb... more N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 3), Nov. 2018, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.): Public Information Officer, U.S. Supreme Court "Re: Application denied/Prior antitrust claim 15 U.S.C. §26" "Attn: Clerk's Office of the U.S. Supreme Court... "(see CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Docket Nos. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)[(2nd Cir. Ct.)], 16M111(U.S. S.Ct., MAR. 15, 2017))..." Response "PIO NoReply <PIONoReply@supremecourt.gov>... Mon, Nov 5, 2018... "We are writing in response to your email to the Supreme Court of the United States..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 4), Dec. 2018 - Aug. 2021 N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 4), Dec. 2018 - Aug. 2021, 2018 N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 4), Dec. 2018 - Aug. 2021, Cestui Que... more N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 4), Dec. 2018 - Aug. 2021, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.): "Complaint" "Pinto, Yvonne <Yvonne.Pinto@ag.ny.gov>... Wed, Dec 19, 2018... "Your complaint is not an Antitrust matter... "Yvonne Pinto[, ]Office Assistant "New York State Office of the Attorney General "Antitrust Bureau..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 5), Jan. 2019 N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 5), Jan. 2019, 2019 N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 5), Jan. 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talb... more N.Y.A.G. IGNORED INTERVENTION, Emailed Communications (Part 5), Jan. 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC)(PWH)(Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "In Re. Cestui Que Williams v. USA, et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.), dated 1/11/2019: Confirming email address for legal representation of The New York Attorney General (located at 28 Liberty Street NY, NY 10005)" Steven Talbert Williams <stwlegal@gmail.com> To: "EFile@nycourts.gov" <EFile@nycourts.gov> Response "NYSCEF Resource Center <efile@nycourts.gov>... Mon, Jan 14, 2019 "Erlon Hodge "E-filing Resource Center" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) - (DRAFTED) "LETTER OF INTENT: INTERVENTION OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL (APPEARANCE TICKET NO. 0203004955(OATH))" (Highlighted), ALLEGEDLY FILED, Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.) LETTER OF INTENT: INTERVENTION OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL (APPEARANCE TICKET NO. 0203004955(OATH)), 2017 "I, MR. STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE (DEFENDANT), being of sound mind, hereby state I am o... more "I, MR. STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE (DEFENDANT), being of sound mind, hereby state I am over the age of Twenty-One years and have been living on the streets of New York City, as a displaced resident, for the past roughly Six and a half years due to a claimed illegal eviction from the community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST') in May of the year 2012, provide this letter to the Attorney General’s offices within New York State with the intent to incorporate oversight by the United States Attorney General (Fed. R. Civ. P. 43) for matters relating to the enjoining of DEFENDANT’s acquired Appearance Ticket No. 0203004955(OATH) within a sought after reopening (via writ of error) and remanded trial of CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Docket Nos. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 16M111(U.S. S.Ct., Mar. 15, 2017) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ('2nd Cir. Ct.'), via a sought after vacate of default judgment (due to a late appearance within OATH, a demurrer of Appearance Ticket No. 0203004955(OATH) and motion to dismiss (seeking immediate financial relief for axiomatic offenses). "In order to achieve intervention by the Attorney Generals, an accompanying OATH form, entitled ENFORCEMENT AGENCY’S REQUEST FOR A NEW HEARING DATE (RESCHEDULE) [highlighting added] (Appendix A), is provided for signature approval in affirmation of the enforcement agency’s authoritative oversight, as such may not only intervene within the rescheduling of a hearing within OATH, but also 2nd Cir. Ct. pretrial conferences and preliminary hearings, where a determination to provide DEFENDANT preliminary injunctive relief may be had in anticipation of the providing of damage awards, where such may alleviate DEFENDANTs’ current state of homelessness to a location within the District of Columbia area, provide for preliminary determinations within the 2nd Cir. Ct. and allow for a continuance period in anticipation of remanding such enjoined trials to the U.S. S.Ct., upon its next available term. See 5 C.F.R. §2635.101(b)(1), '[p]ublic interest is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws and ethical principles above private gain[.]'” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 3 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) - "Gmail - USDOJ intervention - Please review and contact as soon as possible" (Correspondences with government agencies), Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 137 S.Ct. 1611(2017) Gmail - USDOJ intervention - Please review and contact as soon as possible, 2018 October, 2018 "To whom it may concern at: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Mr.J... more October, 2018 "To whom it may concern at: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Mr.John Manibusan); Defense Intelligence Agency (Ms./Mrs. Kristi Waschull andMr. Michael M. McRoberts); Department of Health & Human Services (Ms./Mrs. Tesia Williams); Department of Homeland Security (Ms./Mrs. EricaPaulson); Department of Treasury (Mr. Rich Delmar); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Mr. Fred Gibson); Federal Trade Commission (Ms./Mrs. Roslyn Mazer); "The following message was sent to the Victims of Crime division of the U.S.D.O.J. (see previous message sent below this message): "Hello, "I am Steven Talbert Williams. I contacted this Webmaster ('Victims of Crime') on 10.16.2018 (under JUSTICE/DOJ-003, 'Correspondence Management Systems (CMS) for the Department of Justice,' 66 Fed. Reg. 29992 (6-04-2001); 66 Fed. Reg. 34743 (6-29-2001); 67 Fed. Reg.65598 (10-25-2002); 82 Fed. Reg. 24147 (5-25-2017)). "I am seeking intervention by the U.S.A.G. for an antitrust/probate (beneficial custodial trust neglect)/illegal eviction case (summarized as being Domestic Housing Terrorism. See CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Docket Nos. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 16M111(U.S. S.Ct., MAR. 15, 2017)) for which intervention is sought for a County hearing matter (at the New York Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, 'OATH') to be enjoined into a federal appellate trial, as such concerns an appearance ticket (summons), where a lot of legal documents were seized by the police and claimed as being intentionally thrown into the garbage when retrieving my belongings. "I have still not received a response from the U.S.D.O.J. and wish to inquire into the status of my previous request on this Webmaster. "I have just finished filing initial documents within People (N.Y.P.D., 20th Precinct) v. Steven Talbert Williams (Cestui Que) (OATH, 0203004955,September 16 & 17, 2018). I also filed a letter of intent to reopen Index No. 16M111 (above) with the N.Y.A.G., U.S. S.Ct. (as an appendix within anapplication to Chief Justice Roberts and the Second District Judge, Hon. Bader) and provided another copy of such to the U.S. Attorney's Office (86 Chambers, New York City) as proof of service and notice of intent. "Please respond as soon as possible. "Mr. Steven Talbert Williams" (sent "Wed. Oct 24, 2018") Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) - "Gmail - Form submission from Contact Attorney General Letitia James" (Correspondences with "nysag@ag.ny.gov") (Highlighted), Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 137 S.Ct. 1611(2017) Gmail - Form submission from Contact Attorney General Letitia James, 2018 March, 2021 "Thank you for sending your comment to the New York State Attorney General. This is ... more March, 2021 "Thank you for sending your comment to the New York State Attorney General. This is an automatic confirmation of your e-mail to us. Please do not respond to this message. Submitted on Tuesday, March 2, 2021... "Subject[ - ]Scheduling Request "ANTITRUST CLAIM DENIED ILLEGALLY "Steven Talbert Williams v. US, et al., 19cv11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd cir.), "Dismissed UNCONSTITUTIONALLY "I, Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, have been living on the street for 8 1/2 years due to a claimed antitrust matter which the trust assets of my deceased mother were reinvested illegally into the community of PCV/ST, evicting myself from her rent stabilized apartment, without offering myself a renewal lease after her death. "As claimed, the PCV/ST community have been attempting for years to evict/lower the amount of rent stabilized and elderly tenants in order to eliminate their tax exemption status. Eliminating the exemption status would provide the owners an opportunity to either raise rents to market rate prices or turn the community into co-op's or condos. "My first trial, 5 1/2 years ago (Williams v. United States, et al.,15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY, Dec. 10, 2015), 16-189(2d Cir. May 18, 2016), 137 U.S. 1611(2017) (Index No. 16M111, denying 'Motion To Direct The Clerk To File The Petition Out Of Time') (U.S. S.Ct., Mar. 15, 2017)), was dismissed, whereby the case was taken as an illegal lockout/eviction and not an antitrust claim, under the Sherman Antitrust Act/Clayton Act, where such claim provides for a MANDATORY DISCOVERY CONFERENCE prior to trial (to validate the trust agreement and assets over $75,000, 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)) for a trial to commence. I have been denied my right to a discovery conference and, because of it, have lost numerous cases in the United States Supreme Court. See Williams v. US, et al., 19-5398, 19-5399, 19-5405, 19-6227 (mandamus), 19-6565(U.S. S.Ct.) - ALL CASES DENIED UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. "PLEASE HELP! "Thanks" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), S.D.N.Y. CM-ECF Document Selection Menu, Doc. 2 to 2-10, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), S.D.N.Y. CM-ECF Document Selection Menu, Doc. 2 to 2-10, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Complaint ( [*****] MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), S.D.N.Y. CM-ECF Document Selec... more In Re. Complaint ( [*****] MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), S.D.N.Y. CM-ECF Document Selection Menu, Doc. 2 to 2-10, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): 2 Main Document 72 pages 8.8 mb 1 Exhibit 71 pages 8.4 mb 2 Exhibit 27 pages 1.8 mb [*****] 3 Exhibit 16 pages 9.5 mb [*****] 4 Exhibit 14 pages 9.3 mb 5 Exhibit 42 pages 9.9 mb 6 Exhibit 102 pages 9.8 mb 7 Exhibit 112 pages 10.0 mb 8 Exhibit 91 pages 9.9 mb 9 Exhibit 122 pages 10.0 mb 10 Exhibit 8 pages 381 k Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), (7) Seven Page Appellate Information Sheet (Hiding App. A, F.D.I.C. Response Email, at Page 8), Doc. 2-2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), (7) Seven Page Appellate Information Sheet (Hiding App. A, F.D.I.C. Response Email, at Page 8), Doc. 2-2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), Doc. 2-2, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Wil... more In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), Doc. 2-2, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.) (7) Seven Page Appellate Information Sheet (Hiding App. A, F.D.I.C. Response Email, at Page 8) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX A to C (App.D Hidden), Doc. 2-2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX A to C (App.D Hidden), Doc. 2-2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX A to C (App.D Hidden), Doc. 2-... more In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX A to C (App.D Hidden), Doc. 2-2, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.) (Doc. 2-2 at 8-11) APPENDIX A - F.D.I.C. response email of “Microsoft” assets in the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Doc. 2-2 at 12-13) APPENDIX B - Department of Housing & Community Renewal’s FACT SHEET #36 (Doc. 2-2 at 14-26) APPENDIX C - ESTATE OF LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS, File No. 2013-3538(SCNY) (Doc. 2-2 at 27) APPENDIX D [MISSING] - U.S. TREAS.’s “SS-4” form filing of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Doc. 2-2 to 2-3) APPENDIX E [MISSING] - I.R.S.’s “W-9” form filing of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Doc. 2-2 to 2-3) APPENDIX F [MISSING] - PLAINTIFFs’ visit to N.Y.S.S.A. (stamped SSA-1694 form and ticket receipt stub) (Doc. 2-3, App.G.1 to App. G.11) APPENDIX G [MISSING] - ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(NYHC) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX G.12 to G.26 (MISSING), Doc. 2-3, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX G.12 to G.26 (MISSING), Doc. 2-3, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX G.12 to G.26 (MISSING), Doc. 2... more In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX G.12 to G.26 (MISSING), Doc. 2-3, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.) (Doc. 2-2 at 8-11) APPENDIX A - F.D.I.C. response email of “Microsoft” assets in the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Doc. 2-2 at 12-13) APPENDIX B - Department of Housing & Community Renewal’s FACT SHEET #36 (Doc. 2-2 at 14-26) APPENDIX C - ESTATE OF LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS, File No. 2013-3538(SCNY) (Doc. 2-2 at 27) APPENDIX D [MISSING] - U.S. TREAS.’s “SS-4” form filing of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Doc. 2-2 to 2-3) APPENDIX E [MISSING] - I.R.S.’s “W-9” form filing of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Doc. 2-2 to 2-3) APPENDIX F [MISSING] - PLAINTIFFs’ visit to N.Y.S.S.A. (stamped SSA-1694 form and ticket receipt stub) (Doc. 2-3, App.G.1 to App. G.11) APPENDIX G [MISSING] - ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(NYHC) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX G.27 to G.40, Doc. 2-4, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX G.27 to G.40, Doc. 2-4, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX G.27 to G.40, Doc. 2-4, Cestui... more In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX G.27 to G.40, Doc. 2-4, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.) (Doc. 2-2 at 8-11) APPENDIX A - F.D.I.C. response email of “Microsoft” assets in the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Doc. 2-2 at 12-13) APPENDIX B - Department of Housing & Community Renewal’s FACT SHEET #36 (Doc. 2-2 at 14-26) APPENDIX C - ESTATE OF LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS, File No. 2013-3538(SCNY) (Doc. 2-2 at 27) APPENDIX D [MISSING] - U.S. TREAS.’s “SS-4” form filing of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Doc. 2-2 to 2-3) APPENDIX E [MISSING] - I.R.S.’s “W-9” form filing of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Doc. 2-2 to 2-3) APPENDIX F [MISSING] - PLAINTIFFs’ visit to N.Y.S.S.A. (stamped SSA-1694 form and ticket receipt stub) (Doc. 2-3, App.G.1 to App. G.11) APPENDIX G [MISSING] - ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(NYHC) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX G.41 to G.50 (Excluding App.H to App. L.5), Doc. 2-5, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX G.41 to G.50 (Excluding App.H to App. L.5), Doc. 2-5, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX G.41 to G.50 (Excluding App.H ... more In Re. Complaint (MISSING APPENDICES, App.D to App.G.11), APPENDIX G.41 to G.50 (Excluding App.H to App. L.5), Doc. 2-5, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.) (Doc. 2-2 at 8-11) APPENDIX A - F.D.I.C. response email of “Microsoft” assets in the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Doc. 2-2 at 12-13) APPENDIX B - Department of Housing & Community Renewal’s FACT SHEET #36 (Doc. 2-2 at 14-26) APPENDIX C - ESTATE OF LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS, File No. 2013-3538(SCNY) (Doc. 2-2 at 27) APPENDIX D [MISSING] - U.S. TREAS.’s “SS-4” form filing of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Doc. 2-2 to 2-3) APPENDIX E [MISSING] - I.R.S.’s “W-9” form filing of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST (Doc. 2-2 to 2-3) APPENDIX F [MISSING] - PLAINTIFFs’ visit to N.Y.S.S.A. (stamped SSA-1694 form and ticket receipt stub) (Doc. 2-3, App.G.1 to App. G.11) APPENDIX G [MISSING] - ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(NYHC) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8), COMPLAINT (App.G.12 to G.26, App.G.1 to G.11 HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), Doc. 2-3, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8), COMPLAINT (App.G.12 to G.26, App. G.1 to G.11 HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), Doc. 2-3, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.12 to G.26), App. G.1 to G.11 HIDDEN FROM DOCKET RENT OVER... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.12 to G.26), App. G.1 to G.11 HIDDEN FROM DOCKET RENT OVERCHARGE COMPLAINT FORM RA-89.1 (APPENDICES), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): ST OWNER LP V. EUGENE WILLIAMS, INDEX NO. 52069/12(CHAN)(JHS)(NYHC) (Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, "BGANG," Plaintiff v. Steven Talbert Williams, Only Defendant) G.1 - BGANG's PETITION NON-PAYMENT OF RENT G.2 - BGANG's RENEWAL LEASE FORM (Decedent, Linda Williams, and Mr. Willis Eugene Williams) G.3 - Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, Appendices, Duplicated), RENT OVERCHARGE COMPLAINT FORM RA-89.1, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, Appendices, Duplicated), RENT OVERCHARGE COMPLAINT FORM RA-89.1, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 APPENDICES [RENT OVERCHARGE] (Duplicated), "COMPLAINT: New York Attorney General (Form RA-89.1)" ... more APPENDICES [RENT OVERCHARGE] (Duplicated), "COMPLAINT: New York Attorney General (Form RA-89.1)" (App. G.1 to G.50) (In re.: Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA(CM)(S.D.N.Y.), Doc. 2, “COMPLAINT” (App. G, December 13, 2019)) RENT OVERCHARGE COMPLAINT FORM RA-89.1 ("Tenant's Complaint of Rent and/or Other Specific Overcharges in a Rent Stabilized Apartment"), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): See accompanying appendices: Doc. 2, “COMPLAINT” (MISSING APPENDICES D to G.11) APPENDIX G ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(NYHC) (missing G.1 to G.11) APPENDIX N PEOPLE (N.Y.P.D., 20TH PRECINCT) v. WILLIAMS, STEVEN, Ticket No. 0203004955, Dock. No. 0203004955(OATH)(Sept. 16 & 17, 2018) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.1), COMPLAINT, App. G.1 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), PETITION NON-PAYMENT OF RENT, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.1), COMPLAINT, App. G.1 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), PETITION NON-PAYMENT OF RENT, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.1), COMPLAINT, App. G.1 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), Cestui Que St... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.1), COMPLAINT, App. G.1 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) G.1 - BGANGs PETITION NON-PAYMENT OF RENT "178. Information of HON. CHAN’s order of eviction is evidenced by such action initially commencing on January 6, 2012 (App. G, Id. at G.11; confirmed by CHIEF CLERK CAROL ALT, after BGANG petitioned for eviction in N.Y.H.C. for non-payment of rent (prior to the date of lease termination of a rent stabilized apartment, February 28, 2012); confirmed again on February 1, 2012 by N.Y.H.C., where the trial was assigned No. '12N052069' (App. G, Id. at G.1). a. On such petition, MR. WILLIAMS, JR.’s name is typed as a resident, where PLAINTIFFs’ name (as 'occupant') was hand written in, over white-out. b. Furthermore, as opinionated, such filing by BGANG was not the filing PLAINTIFF thought the legal representation of PCV/ST would file when waiting for a renewal lease; as such was within a week after he allegedly supplied BGANG’s representative, MR. CLAUDE, two years of claimed succession proof, further alleged as being accompanied with an I.R.S. letter (addressed to him; in fulfillment of demand for further proof of succession, aforementioned claimed as being a national origin offense, under 42 U.S.C. §2000d)." Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 14. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.2), COMPLAINT, App. G.3 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), RENEWAL LEASE FORM, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.2), COMPLAINT, App. G.3 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), RENEWAL LEASE FORM, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.2), COMPLAINT, App. G.3 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), RENEWAL LEASE... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.2), COMPLAINT, App. G.3 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), RENEWAL LEASE FORM, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) G.1 - BGANGs RENEWAL LEASE FORM "144. In order for BGANG to obtain possession of Apt. 7d (Building 449) through a judicial decree, the law firm provided N.Y.H.C. the following documented exhibits: a. a 'RENEWAL LEASE FORM' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.3, signed by an unknown representative for ST OWNER LP, dated February 17, 2010, originally depicted as 'Exhibit B' within BGANG’s initial filings for ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(NYHC), and additionally presented as evidence within WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Dock. No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.) as 'APPENDIX N.2'), containing a renewal commencement date of 'Mar. 01, 2010.' [emphasis added] Id. ¶6 of the form) upon the '2 year lease,' as such signature date (affixed by the ST OWNER LP, DECEDENT and MR. WILLIAMS, JR.) was provided merely a few months prior to DECEDENTs’ passing, where she was clearly worsening in her health from Ovarian Cancer and dialysis treatments; as such worsening health begs to question whether the owners were prepared to conspire the act of eviction by depriving MR. WILLIAMS, JR. or PLAINTIFF of an alternate renewal lease, specifically in alignment with: i. the expiration of PLAINTIFFs’ custodial age of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST’s testamentary instrument (a few months prior to reinvesting in PCV/ST); and ii. the forthcoming 'bailing out' of TISHMAN/BLACKROCK’s mortgaged debt (for a mezzanine trust within TRUST2007-C30) by P.S.H., with the use of assets within Trust LPSW, through UBS’s AUM within the IPO of P.S.H. (as such initial IPO agreements were dated during the year 2010, where it is insisted to deduce the existence of their initial business meetings were had almost five years prior to and during this timeframe. iii. Additionally noteworthy, information contained in this renewal lease stipulates the existence of two 'written agreements between owner and tenant [had been] attached,' [emphasis added] as such factual evidence of the two documents were allegedly nonexistent from accompanying court documents of Index No. 52069/12 (Chan)(NYHC). A. It begs to question why BGANG had not filed the two accompanying referenced documents as evidence within the overall trial of ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC), claimed as withholding of evidence, which may have prevented the claimed unlawful eviction; a conspired act to mislead the court into inducing an early eviction. U.S. Const. Am. 5, 10, 14 §1. See the appellate opinion of HON. WHITE in BRADY v. MARYLAND, 226 Md. 422, 174 A.2d 167, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), '‘[t]he suppression or withholding by the State of material evidence exculpatory to an accused is a violation of due process.’'" Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 37-38. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.3), COMPLAINT, App. G.22 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), 2011 MRI PRODUCTION, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.3), COMPLAINT, App. G.22 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), 2011 MRI PRODUCTION, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.2), COMPLAINT, App. G.3 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), 2011 MRI Prod... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.2), COMPLAINT, App. G.3 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), 2011 MRI Production, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) "[144.]b. the 2011 MRI Production (App. G, Id. at G.22, dated '12/6/2011' [emphasis added] (filed after the date of death of DECEDENT), presented as evidence in WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Dock. No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) as 'APPENDIX N.13'), where information contained (most likely acquired from ownership by TISHMAN/ BLACKROCK, or of the previous owners, MetLife) is depicted as showing MR. WILLIAMS, JR. being held liable for rental payments, and further indicating: i. a lease expiration date of '2/29/2012' [emphasis added] for the last updated renewed lease, signed by DECEDENT, despite MR. CLAUDE filing the action for eviction on January 6, 2012 (alleged as being immediately after New Years Eve, when PLAINTIFF supplied the legal representative proof of rights to succession). See ADC §26-512(a): '[n]o owner… shall charge or collect any rent in excess of the initial legal regulated rent or adjusted initial legal regulated rent until the end of any lease or other rental agreement[.]' [highlighting and emphasis added] ii. a 'Initial Security' date of '2/1/1990,' with a 'SECURITY DEPOSI[T]' of '[$]1,148.00,' for a previous renewal lease, allegedly manipulative, seeing DECEDENT’s previously signed renewal lease still remained under Rent Stabilization Laws; iii. a total monthly rent of '[$]1,058.49,' [highlighting and emphasis added] having a past due balance in rent being in a totaled amount of '[$]6,599.53;' iv. an initial date of 'Occupancy' being '12/31/1989' (an alleged amended lease from MetLife), as such indicates PLAINTIFFs’ formally signed tenancy as an occupant when becoming 'of age' to be placed upon the lease (most likely when the STATE FARM rental insurance policy was acquired); v. PLAINTIFF as an occupant with a 'Current Potential Rent' [highlighting and emphasis added] amount of '[$]1,152.07,' alluding such would be under a renewed lease, via rights of succession. A. Further, PLAINTIFFs’ identity, type written as 'WILLIAMS, STEVEN,' is axiomatic of the owners and BGANG having no reason to file court documents where PLAINTIFF is labeled 'John Doe;' vi. It begs to question why a the 2011 MRI Production report (signifying 1989 as the Occupancy date) was not additionally supplied from the time period of the original lease (prior to MR. WILLIAMS, JR.’s alleged tenancy in, or around, 1975 to 1978 and under ownership of MetLife, when DECEDENTs’ name would be present on the report) and/or why BGANG failed to accompany the filed MRI report with a copy of the entire original and renewal lease agreements, signifying DECEDENT and MR. WILLIAMS, JR. (including PLAINTIFF under the 'Status' of 'Occupied') as the two residents allowed upon the agreement. A. For continuity purposes, the 2012 MRI Production report (App. G, Id. at G.38) (allegedly acquired upon PLAINTIFFs’ visit to the Housing Court, April 15, 2012) is presented to compare and contrast specified information contained in the 2011 MRI Production report (App. G, Id. at G.22, such as existence of DECEDENT living in the dwelling for, at most, two years after her death)." Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 38-39. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.4), COMPLAINT, App. G.38 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), 2012 MRI PRODUCTION, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.4), COMPLAINT, App. G.38 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), 2012 MRI PRODUCTION, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.4), COMPLAINT, App. G.38 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), 2012 MRI Pro... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.4), COMPLAINT, App. G.38 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), 2012 MRI Production, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) "136. As alleged, PLAINTIFF signed in on April 15th to procure the manila filing folder for both of his trials for ST OWNER LP V. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(JHS)(NYHC) (allegedly receiving Requisition Slip No. 2) and examined the filings, only to notice new documents were allegedly filed from BGANG which were not filed on March 8, 2013; as such were:... b. BGANG’s filing of the 'Resident Profile MRI Production' report ('2012 MRI Production,' App. G, Id. at G.38; different from that of App. G, Id. at G.22), dated August 15, 2012;... "137. Due to monetary constraints at the time of the April 15, 2013 visit, PLAINTIFF only made three pages of printed copies from the allegedly evidenced booklet of BGANG’s AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION (App. G, Id. at G.50) with supporting evidence, as such represents:... b. Page two. Signifying paragraph’s five through thirteen of MR. GOLDSTEIN’s affirmation, where their corresponding 'Exhibits' ('A' through 'E') are provided, where:... iv. ¶8, contrary of other filed documents for BGANG, such as depicting past due rent within the 'AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT FOR ISSUING OF A WARRANT' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.16), in the amount of $6,703.21, wherein this paragraph states: '[a]t time of the eviction the tenant of record owed the sum of $12,463.56 and the last payment for this account was $4.000.00, paid in November of 2011' (referenced in their 'Exhibit ‘D’'). A. As highlighted from the 2012 MRI Production report, MR. GOLDSTEIN’s referenced affirmation fails to note the previous rental payment was, in fact (unless the DHCR depicted otherwise), prior to March of the year 2011, where, during such timeframe, PLAINTIFF (as well as MR. WILLIAMS, JR., although such may be confirmed through a deposing testimony) was awaiting the landlord to provide a renewal lease (through rights of succession) after DECEDENTs’ passing, as well as awaiting the probate of her estate (where the STATE FARM rental insurance policy, solely in his successive name, would have satisfied rental payments through the prevention of loss in property), despite he, himself, alleging to not have any formal financial ties to the dwelling unit until a renewal lease would be signed in his name. B. Furthermore, it is noted, PLAINTIFF was additionally awaiting the filing of his taxes from his previous employment with Cirque du Soleil, as such tax refund amounts alone would have satisfied any past due rent amounts. See copies of PLAINTIFFs’ 2011 and 2012 tax refund checks (as such includes foreign and domestic tax filings) (claimed stolen by the N.Y.P.D.’s 20TH PRECINCT (see DISCLAIMER #1), however, provided as an alternate evidence is PLAINTIFFs’ Canadian refund check he utilized to open his TD Bank account with; related to claims against JP MORGAN and N.Y.S.D.T.F. for dual taxation);... "[142.c.ii. T]he 2012 MRI Production report of the CRAgency (App. G, Id. at G.38), specifically evidencing PLAINTIFFs’ name as an occupant (as well as DECEDENT still alive, two years after her death; a claimed act of perjury under CPLR §2106, 18 U.S.C. §1005, and other provisions of law, and aiding by the Housing Court (18 U.S.C. §2), whether or not HON. CHAN did indeed approve such petition, either in her official capacity, or by being influenced by the owners and legal firm of PCV/ST, or affiliated financial firms of the community or Trust LPSW, where BGANG is claimed to have committed additional acts of perjury and other aforementioned claims of forging documents[.]" "[143.]b. The above referenced 'legal notice' (dated '5/8/12') for ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, LINDA WILLIAMS, Index No. 072690/11(NYHC) additionally depicts:... [ ii.A.](3) Additionally, not only does the mentioning of “Jane Doe” allude to DECEDENT’s existence, but is claimed to be exhibited within BGANG’s filing of the 2012 MRI Production (App. G, Id. at G.38), where her name is clearly depicted on the published report of the CRAgency (DHCR); claimed axiomatic of DECEDENT being alive for nearly two years after her death (a claimed lache by CWCAM, in their interim ownership), where a death index search had seemingly not occurred by their insurance company, or themselves, or the Superintendent of New York State, nor provided MR. WILLIAMS, JR. or PLAINTIFF a renewal lease (whether or not through rights to succession). See 9 NYCRR §2524.1(a), 'no tenant shall be denied a renewal lease.' See also 9 NYCRR §2503.5(a): 'every landlord shall notify the tenant in occupancy not more than 120 days and not less than 90 days prior to the end of the tenant's lease term, by certified mail, of such termination of the lease term and offer to renew the lease at the legal regulated rent permitted for such renewal lease and otherwise on the same conditions as the expiring lease, and shall give such tenant a period of 60 days from the date of mailing of such notice to renew such lease and accept the offer.' [highlighting and emphasis added]... See also ADC §26-511(d)(1)... See also ADC §26-515(a)... See also §10(a) of N.Y.S.’s Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974... "[144.b.vi.]A. For continuity purposes, the 2012 MRI Production report (App. G, Id. at G.38) (allegedly acquired upon PLAINTIFFs’ visit to the Housing Court, April 15, 2012) is presented to compare and contrast specified information contained in the 2011 MRI Production report (App. G, Id. at G.22, such as existence of DECEDENT living in the dwelling for, at most, two years after her death)... "[144.f.ii.A.](1) Furthermore, such contacting of solely MR. WILLIAMS, JR. indicates axiomatic of DECEDENT having previously passed away (in light of not investigating into whether or not DECEDENT was in the military), despite the 2012 MRI Production report depicting her as living (insisted as being utilized for claims surrounding the falsifying of information with the CRAgency (DHCR) and that a death index search had not been performed so as to provide such referenced agencies updated information of DECEDENTs’ death so a renewal lease would be issued; and PLAINTIFF would have had the opportunity to claim succession rights)[.]" Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 22-24, 31-32, 35-36, 39, 41. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.5), COMPLAINT, App. G? (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), N.Y.H.C. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.5), COMPLAINT, App. G? (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), N.Y.H.C. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.5), COMPLAINT, App. G? (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), N.Y.H.C. HISTO... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.5), COMPLAINT, App. G? (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), N.Y.H.C. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC): PETITION FOR NON-PAYMENT, evidenced as being filed on "1/18/12;" see "the 'CASE SUMMARY' [emphasis added] report (App. G, Id. at G.12, filed January 18, 2012 and disposed on May 9, 2012)." Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 14. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.6 - G.9), COMPLAINT, App. G.6 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), BGANGs LEASE AGREEMENT (Copy), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.6 - G.9), COMPLAINT, App. G.6 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), BGANGs LEASE AGREEMENT (Copy), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.6 - G.9), COMPLAINT, App. G.6 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), BGANGs ... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.6 - G.9), COMPLAINT, App. G.6 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), BGANGs LEASE AGREEMENT (Copy), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) "[132.]c. Page three. Alleged handwritten notes made by PLAINTIFF of filed documents (entitled on this page as 'Records Continued') referencing:... vi. a 'Copy of lease,' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.6) signifying the newly signed lease to Apt. 7d (Building 449) of MR. BYER and MR. CROES; Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 18. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.10), COMPLAINT, App. G.10 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), MARSHAL’S LEGAL POSSESSION, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.10), COMPLAINT, App. G.10 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), MARSHAL’S L... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.10), COMPLAINT, App. G.10 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), MARSHAL’S LEGAL POSSESSION, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) "171. PLAINTIFFs’ overall antitrust claims (including conspired enterprise corruption, economic espionage and racketeering) against CWCAM are asserted as being blatant, malicious and knowing illegal actions to evict the Williams family (specifically to discriminate upon himself as a successive tenant with rights to beneficial assets; under U.S. Const. Am. 4, 14 §1); as such includes unquestionably self-evident unconstitutional judicial filings (U.S. Const. Am. 5, 10, 14 §1), and other claimed unconstitutional judicial actions, where the eviction led to: a. PLAINTIFF having to allegedly 'trespass' into Building 449 to understand what happened to his personal property within his dwelling; and b. PLAINTIFFs’ 'illegal' removal of the MARSHAL’S LEGAL POSSESSION (App. G, Id. at G.10; posted upon the apartment door) (as such may question the boundaries of judicial 'entrapment') to allegedly acquire the only evidence from his Housing Court’s eviction... "[142.]e. two 'NOTICE[’s] OF EVICTION' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.48, see subdivision (i) and (ii) of this paragraph) (both dated April 27, 2012, originally presented as evidence in WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Dock. No. 16-189cv (ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) as 'APPENDIX N.11'), where, as claimed, neither PLAINTIFF nor MR. WILLIAMS, JR. received a copy of the notice prior to the eviction... where one of the notice’s envelope (containing PLAINTIFFs’ written notes; allegedly first seen solely when salvaging the property of the eviction from the local government’s supplied storage unit in Bronx, NY; claimed as being placed within a box of pillows) stipulates a 'postage price of… ‘$000.45o' [highlighting and emphasis added] i. Furthermore, after PLAINTIFF allegedly acquired the notices from storage facility of 'Midtown Moving & Storage, Inc.' (see MARSHAL’S LEGAL POSSESSION, App. G, Id. at G.10, salvaged after an auction), the notice addressed solely to MR. WILLIAMS, JR. was, unfortunately, lost during PLAINTIFFs’ displacement, yet replaced by BGANG’s filed 'Exhibit D' of their AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION (App. G, Id. at G.35) for ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC). ii. Both notices, one addressed to MR. WILLIAMS, JR. and the other to PLAINTIFF were issued by MARSHAL [DANNY ]WEINHEIM... "143. As exclaimed, the MARSHAL’S LEGAL POSSESSION (App. G, Id. at G.10, issued on May 8, 2012 and posted on PLAINTIFFs’ door of Apt. 7d; evidenced in 'APPENDIX N.12' of WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Dock. No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.)) was granted for the eviction through the judicial judgments of HON. CHAN. a. The MARSHAL’S LEGAL POSSESSION contains specific information which may verify such the misdemeanor clause of its removal from the door as expanding the boundaries of what is entrapment (PEN §40.05), but by judicial means (“judicial entrapment”), where such is depicted as stating: 'Any one who defaces this legal notice… in any way is guilty of a misdemeanor and will be penalized to the full extent of the law.' [highlighting and emphasis added]... "146. The procedure to file an Order to Show Cause was allegedly first made known to PLAINTIFF when exhausting attempts to locate a legal representative, and thereafter asking how to file a case as a pro sé litigant within the Housing Court, allegedly told by Clerks to present to them the notice of eviction. a. As alleged, after showing the N.Y.H.C. Clerks the MARSHAL’S LEGAL POSSESSION, (App. G, Id. at G.10), PLAINTIFF was told he would have to pay Thirty Dollars for a motion to initiate a trial and to file an order to show cause along with it; as such was, supposedly, the judicial process of the Court when responding to an eviction notice (despite himself being under the impression that paying for a motion would initiate a new trial). "150. HON. STANLEY, as alleged, requested PLAINTIFF to display the eviction notice, whereby he provided the judge the MARSHAL’S LEGAL POSSESSION (App. G, Id. at G.10, his only alleged proof of the eviction, posted upon his door and seized 'illegally' due to being locked out of the building, allegedly not having any other way to document a notice from the Court)." Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 11, 33, 35, 43, 44. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.11), COMPLAINT, App. G.11 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), NOTICE OF PETITION - Non-Payment of Rent, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.11), COMPLAINT, App. G.11 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), NOTICE OF PETITION - Non-Payment of Rent, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.11), COMPLAINT, App. G.11 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), NOTICE OF P... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.11), COMPLAINT, App. G.11 (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), NOTICE OF PETITION - Non-Payment of Rent, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) "177. Keeping consistent with the timeline of events, due to not having acquired the following information until after his trial of ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, No. 52069/12-002(JHS)(NYHC),[ ] on January 6, 2012, MR. CLAUDE and the law firm of CWCAM (TISHMAN/BLACKROCK), BGANG (located at 377 Broadway New York, NY 10013), filed within N.Y.H.C., under the name 'ST Owner LP,' a 'NOTICE OF PETITION - Non-Payment of Rent' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.11; pertaining to the initial action for eviction by HON. MARGARET PUI YEE CHAN in ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, No. 52069/12(Chan)(NYHC)), assigning an personal case number of '37717;' as such number may have been alternatively assigned by the offices of MARSHAL DANNY WEINHEIM... "178. Information of HON. CHAN’s order of eviction is evidenced by such action initially commencing on January 6, 2012 (App. G, Id. at G.11; confirmed by CHIEF CLERK CAROL ALT, after BGANG petitioned for eviction in N.Y.H.C. for non-payment of rent (prior to the date of lease termination of a rent stabilized apartment, February 28, 2012); confirmed again on February 1, 2012 by N.Y.H.C., where the trial was assigned No. '12N052069' (App. G, Id. at G.1). a. On such petition, MR. WILLIAMS, JR.’s name is typed as a resident, where PLAINTIFFs’ name (as 'occupant') was hand written in, over white-out. b. Furthermore, as opinionated, such filing by BGANG was not the filing PLAINTIFF thought the legal representation of PCV/ST would file when waiting for a renewal lease; as such was within a week after he allegedly supplied BGANG’s representative, MR. CLAUDE, two years of claimed succession proof, further alleged as being accompanied with an I.R.S. letter (addressed to him; in fulfillment of demand for further proof of succession, aforementioned claimed as being a national origin offense, under 42 U.S.C. §2000d)... "[132.b.]iv.... BGANG's 'NOTICE OF PETITION,' [emphasis added] (see App. G, Id. at G.11), where PLAINTIFFs’ name is further highlighted as being written in over whiteout;... "[132.f.i.]C. the filed 'NOTICE OF PETITION Non-Payment of Rent' (App. G, Id. at G.11) (dated January 6, 2012), where: (i) PLAINTIFFs’ name is written over whiteout, referencing an Index number of '12N052069;' (ii) the case title of 'ST Owner LP v. Eugene Williams' additionally signifies 'Steven Williams (occupant),' handwritten into the title box; (iii) the 'HOUSING PART' of the court was designated 'DWELLING;' (iv) a stamped confirmation by CHIEF CLERK ALT (dated January 18, 2012) and by the Civil Court LL&T division (on February 1, 2012); and (v) stating the claim amount for back due rent was for $6,703.21; "[132.f.i.E.] An 'AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.34)... (2) Such document additionally shows the division of N.Y.H.C. referenced was in Part 'C-844' (alleged as being written in a deceiving manner by the County Clerk when PLAINTIFF 'responded' to his eviction, which originally designated the N.Y.H.C.’s trial as being held under the labeling of 'DWELLING' (as shown BGANG’s 'NOTICE OF PETITION - Non-Payment of Rent,' [emphasis added] App. G, Id. at G.11), whereby this document is claimed illegitimate, by way of falsifying information, due to the community of PCV/ST (specifically of Apt. 7d) not being designated as a co-op or condo (present in 26 NYCRR Ch. 8); "[142.]c. the NOTICE OF PETITION Non-Payment of Rent (App. G, Id. at G.11, originally presented as evidence in WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Dock. No. 16-189cv(ALK) (DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) as 'APPENDIX N.3'), indicating a type-written signature of CHIEF CLERK ALT on '1/06/12,' for a 'judgment… sum of $ 6703.21,' where: (i) PLAINTIFFs’ name is handwritten (over whiteout) in as an 'occupant;' (ii) MR. WILLIAMS, JR.’s name (typed) is titled as 'Respondent;' (iii) reference to an Index number of '12N052069;' (iv) the trial assigned to the 'HOUSING PART' [emphasis added] of 'DWELLING;' [highlighting and emphasis added] and (v) stamped confirmations by CHIEF CLERK ALT (dated January 18, 2012) and by N.Y.H.C. (on February 1, 2012)[.]" Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 13, 14, 19, 21, 32. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.12 - G.14), COMPLAINT, G.12 - G.14, CASE SUMMARY, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.12 - G.14), COMPLAINT, G.12 - G.14, CASE SUMMARY, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.12 - G.14), COMPLAINT, App. G.12 - G.14, CASE SUMMARY, N.Y.... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.12 - G.14), COMPLAINT, App. G.12 - G.14, CASE SUMMARY, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) "179. As claimed many of the original documents ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC), copied by PLAINTIFF from N.Y.H.C. copier machines (for which N.Y.H.C. restricts an individual from obtaining a receipt for copying), were excluded from the 'CASE SUMMARY' [emphasis added] report (App. G, Id. at G.12, filed January 18, 2012 and disposed on May 9, 2012) (as such filings were allegedly amended by BGANG after the last trial concluded); as such acquisition of filings (see DISCLAIMER #1; despite PLAINTIFF allegedly being able to salvage some copies of evidenced filings from being on his person at the time of the claimed theft of DISCLAIMER #1 or originally photographed on his purchased tablet, bought during his displacement, when he originally saved the filings on flash drives and computers; two of three laptop computers claimed stolen, one by NYPD’s 20TH PRECINCT). a. The records were allegedly acquired from two of three separate visits to N.Y.H.C. (logged in the Court as 'Requisition' slips, see DISCLAIMER #1, for the dates of August 5, 2013 and October 9, 2015) (the first visit on March 8, 2013); where the slips were obtained immediately after signing in to acquire trials records held in Index No. 52069/12’s manila filing folder (DISCLAIMER #1, allegedly evidenced in filings of WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Dock. No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 U.S. 1611 (2017))... "[144.f.vi.] ['[A]n 'AFFIDAVIT OF INVESTIGATION'' contain[ing] ]handwritten names of MR. WILLIAMS, JR. and PLAINTIFF, extremely similar to MARSHAL WEINHEIM or MR. CLAUDE writings, when compared to the MARSHAL’S LEGAL POSSESSION [ ], as such document is also not indexed within the accompanying CASE SUMMARY (App. G, Id. at G.12)." Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 14, 41. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.15), COMPLAINT, App. G.15, G.46, DECISION AND JUDGMENT (No. 52069/12(Chan-001)(NYHC)), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.15), COMPLAINT, App. G.15, G.46, DECISION AND JUDGMENT (No. 52069/12(Chan-001)(NYHC)), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.15), COMPLAINT, App. G.15, G.46, DECISION AND JUDGMENT (No.... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.15), COMPLAINT, App. G.15, G.46, DECISION AND JUDGMENT (No. 52069/12(Chan-001)(NYHC)), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) "130. PLAINTIFF highlights (and stipulates for Congress and the Court to specifically view) the uncommon similarity of the stamp mark ('APR 13 2012') of CHIEF CLERK CAROL ALT, where the number '3' has the identical off-centered qualities as the number '9' in the following dated documents of the Civil Court (L&T) (where there is an alleged obvious use of two different stamps for some documents), listed as: Case Summary Report Appendix Document Name Date of Discrepancy [-] Recorded App. G, Id. at G.15, 'DECISION/JUDGMENT' 'APR 13 2012' [highlighting added] 'CIV-LT-50 (2006)' (001) * (stamped multiple times & not designed L&T) [-] Recorded DISCLAIMER #1, 'RESIDENTIAL DEFAULT' 'MAR 19 2012' [highlighting added] 'DOCKET NO. 403722' * (unsigned by Marshal Weinheim)... "[136.]d. a 'DECISION AND JUDGMENT' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.46) (judgment 'SEQ# 001' of 'INDEX#052069/2012,' dated April 9, 2012, signed by HON. CHAN, as displayed on form 'CIV - LT - 50(2006)'), where such stipulates the judgment was 'granted in favor' to '[ST OWNER LP]' against 'WILLIAMS, EUGENE' [emphasis added] and 'WILLIAMS, STEVEN,' where '[a] counterclaim [wa]s granted in favor of the respondent in the amount of $0.00,' [highlighting and emphasis added] and a 'money judgment' in the same amount. i. The judgment additionally states the '[m]onthly use and occupancy is set at $0.00 per month, as per order, stipulation or decision in record.' [emphasis added] ii. Furthermore, the entry of judgment was provided by CHIEF CLERK ALT (County of New York, stamped April 9, 2012), where issuance of the warrant was granted to MARSHAL WEINHEIM (stamped April 13, 2012); iii. This judgment, such being the initial judgment for authorizing the claimed unlawful eviction, is sought for reopening via writ of error (see a forthcoming Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, writ of error motion, previously depicted within the District Court’s docket of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)). See also PART III.F.)... "[142.]d. two 'DECISION AND JUDGMENT[‘s]' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.46, 47, one labeled 'SEQ# 001' and the other 'SEQ# 002'), both stamped 'APR 09 2012' by HON. CHAN and stamped by CHIEF CLERK ALT on 'APR 09 2012;' where: i. SEQ# 001, for a money judgment ('$0.00') and an 'ENTRY OF JUDGMENT,' signed by MARSHAL WEINHEIM (stamped 'APR 13 2012'); and ii. SEQ# 002, for money judgment ('$65.00') ('for a total amount of $6768.21') and where the ENTRY OF JUDGMENT signature is negated for issuance of a warrant;... "161. PLAINTIFF states, HON. STANLEY made a decision to adjourn trial to have JOHN DOE (4) contact his clients. See DECISION AND JUDGMENT – SEQ# 001 (App. G, Id. at G.46). "162. Due to the existence of new tenants occupancy of the dwelling, HON. STANLEY, ordered PLAINTIFF to “attempt to serve” [emphasis added] them (see DECISION AND JUDGMENT – SEQ# 001), due to the new tenants possibly being affected by a decision; ordering PLAINTIFF specifically to do so in person or at the doorstep to their dwelling by August 20, 2012 (within two days), demanding their presence in court. "163. Orders were signed and PLAINTIFF was given an 'AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE' [highlighting added] (App. G, Id. at G.34) to fill out and distribute to the two tenants, MR. BYER and MR. CROES. a. However, PLAINTIFF mentions, HON. STANLEY, as it appears, is claimed to have misspelled MR. CROES last name in the DECISION AND JUDGMENT – SEQ# 001. "164. The trial was adjourned to August 23, 2012." Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 16, 32, 33, 46. See ST Owner, LP v. Eugene Williams, No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.16), COMPLAINT, App. G.16, Affidavit Of Default For Issuance Of A Warrant, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.16), COMPLAINT, App. G.16, Affidavit Of Default For Issuance Of A Warrant, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.16), COMPLAINT, App. G.16, Affidavit Of Default For Issuanc... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.16), COMPLAINT, App. G.16, Affidavit Of Default For Issuance Of A Warrant, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) "[132.b.]ii. an 'Affidavit of default for issuance of a warrant' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.16);... Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 18. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.17), COMPLAINT, App. G.17, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO RESTORE POSSESSION (EXISTING PROCEEDING), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.17), COMPLAINT, App. G.17, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO RESTORE POSSESSION (EXISTING PROCEEDING), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.17), COMPLAINT, App. G.17, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO RESTORE P... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.17), COMPLAINT, App. G.17, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO RESTORE POSSESSION (EXISTING PROCEEDING), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "[132.f.ii.]D. an 'ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO RESTORE POSSESSION (EXISTING PROCEEDING),' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.34) with an annexed date of August 15, 2012 (an extremely controversial document, due to being provided to all parties during ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12-002 (JHS)(NYHC), on August 16, 2012; mentioned in the document), predating PLAINTIFFs’ “IN HAND DELIVERY” to BGANG the day prior, in service of an order to show cause (see App. G, Id. at G.17), containing another controversial discrepancy, where check marked subdivisions '1)... 2)... [and] 3)' designate: 'UNTIL THE ENTRY OF A COURT ORDER, ALL PROCEEDINGS BY THE PETITIONER, HIS/HER ATTORNEY, AND ANY CITY MARSHAL ARE;...' wherein '1)' signifies a stay from 'RE-LETTING,' '2)' signifies a stay 'FROM REMOVING ANY OF THE CONTENTS OF THE PREMISES;...'[emphasis added] and '3)' gave permission to 'RESPONDENT ACCESS FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF OBTAINING HIS/HER POSSESSIONS;...' [emphasis added]. Furthermore, the document references MARSHAL 'WEINHEIM, DANNY {BADGE3}' crossed out, wherein a 'C' was written in (most likely signifying Housing Court Part C), accompanied with an incomprehensible '9W' written upon it, although it is additionally written on PLAINTIFFs’ Affidavit in Support of an Order to Show Cause (aforementioned evidenced) as well (which may be directly connected to an impression from the use of carbon paper utilized upon another document). (1) A major reason for controversy over this document is why HON. STANLEY, previously having knowledge of property taken from the Apt. 7d dwelling unit (due to information provided from the original ruling of HON. CHAN) would provide a stipulation to not remove the property from the dwelling? (2) The 'Order' seems to imply HON. STANLEY was attempting to show proof of the property still within the dwelling unit, due to its status as a rent stabilized apartment, when, in fact, it was removed on the day of eviction (as aforementioned evidenced on the posted aforementioned MARSHAL’S LEGAL POSSESSION, App. G, Id. at G.10, posted upon the door of Apt. 7d). (3) The claimed providing of falsified information within the Order (a court document) is enforced as being grounds for sanctions for contempt, as well as conspired aiding and abetting the previously provided, and claimed illegal, orders of HON. CHAN (who obviously did not do research into the lease termination date and the apartment’s status as being for rent stabilization), including that of financial institutions of the PCV/ST property, due to bringing action within a court of law prior to lease termination date for a rent stabilized apartment;..." Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 20. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.18), COMPLAINT, App. G.18, DECISION/ORDER (JHS - 002), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.18), COMPLAINT, App. G.18, DECISION/ORDER (JHS - 002), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.18), COMPLAINT, App. G.18, DECISION/ORDER (JHS - 002), N.Y.... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.18), COMPLAINT, App. G.18, DECISION/ORDER (JHS - 002), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "[131.b.]i.... [T]he form[ (JHS - 002)] had previously been given to PLAINTIFF by HON. STANLEY at the initial trial of ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12-001(JHS)(NYHC), as such affidavits were allegedly excluded from filings and where such decision states: 'Respondent Steven Williams was sued as the occupant of the premises in the non-payment proceeding. The eviction occurred in May of 2012. Mr. Williams comes to court in August claims succession… In the interim, the premises has been relet + that party is present today. After the deliberation, the court cannot find an[ ]default in the non-payment proceeding sufficient to such the [moratorium] defense of it alleged by Steven Williams. Respondent’s [notice/motion is dismissed]” [highlighting and emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.18) A. Copies of the service of attendance were allegedly handed to HON. STANLEY during ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12-002(JHS) (NYHC) and received by a court officer for docketing... "132. The following ten evidenced pages (see DISCLAIMER #1) of BGANG’s N.Y.H.C. filed documents for ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, 52069/12(Chan) (JHS)(NYHC)), were acquired on March 8, 2013... *The filings excluded from the trial’s docket are in underlined. The filings depicted upon the trial’s docket are bolded... c. Page three. Alleged handwritten notes made by PLAINTIFF of filed documents (entitled on this page as 'Records Continued') referencing:... viii. an 'DECISION/ORDER,' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.18) (dated August 23, 2012); e. Pages five, six & seven. Three alleged fully printed copies of court documents previously mentioned, being:... ii. Page six. A 'DECISION/ORDER' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.18) by HON. STANLEY (dated August 23, 2012);... [f.ii.]C. a 'DECISION/ORDER' (App. G, Id. at G.18) of HON. STANLEY, emphasizing such was not attached to BGANG’s document (referenced in Page six);... Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 17-20. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.19), COMPLAINT, App. G.19, DECISION/ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.19), COMPLAINT, App. G.19, DECISION/ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.19), COMPLAINT, App. G.19, DECISION/ORDER WITH NOTICE OF EN... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.19), COMPLAINT, App. G.19, DECISION/ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "[131.b.]ii. a 'DECISION/ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.19) (dated August 24, 2012, signed by MS./MRS. CARLA M. SEALS, ESQ.) accompanied with handwritten notes of PLAINTIFF, stating 'THIS WAS NOT MY FATHER! IT WAS ME!!' (stipulating the notice was served upon PLAINTIFF), where the document references MR. WILLIAMS, JR. as the sole respondent, represented as 'Respondent Pro Se' (signed by MS./MRS. SEALS, ESQ.; attorney for Petitioner). A. Such filing, is affirmation of a true copy of HON. STANLEY’s 'DECISION/ ORDER' and not stamped, however, this version was filed in BGANG's personal documents, for which such 'personalized' filings are recognizable by the fold crease at the top of the copy; and iii. a filing slip of BGANG (see DISCLAIMER #1) (undated)., specifically stating its filing is of a 'DECISION/ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY[']... "[132.]e. Pages five, six & seven. Three alleged fully printed copies of court documents previously mentioned, being: i. Page five. A 'DECISION/ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY;' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.19);... f. Pages eight, nine & ten. PLAINTIFFs’ alleged circular patterned copies of evidence of all other filed documents (due to lack of funds), showing: i. Page eight. Allegedly depicting: A. the alleged first page of BGANG’s filed documents, signified by their stapled filing sheet (the top part of the booklet documents being partially cut off); B. the booklet’s cover page, referencing the 'DECISION/ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY; [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.19);... "[143.b.]iii. a 'VERY IMPORTANT' disclaimer, stipulating to 'CALL ABOUT PROPERTY TAKEN FROM PREMISES' [emphasis added] (providing the phone number of “718 542-1440”), claimed in opposition of local rent stabilization laws (ADC Title 26, Chs.3, 4; 9 NYCRR §2504.1), where a tenant is allegedly allotted a month, after the date of eviction, to remove all property from the premises (not to be mistaken for a “rent controlled” tenant (ADC Title 26, Ch.3), where property of the premises is removed on the day of eviction) (as such is claimed directly related to HON. STANLEY providing a judgment to remove the property. See the 'DECISION/ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.19) of Index No. '052069/f2012,' dated 'August 24, 2012' [highlighting and emphasis added], allegedly never notified of its filing);..." Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 17, 19, 37. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.20), COMPLAINT, App. G.20, MS./MRS. FRANCESCA M. ERTS (CURTIS MALLET PREVOST, LLP), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.20), COMPLAINT, App. G.20, MS./MRS. FRANCESCA M. ERTS (CURTIS MALLET PREVOST, LLP), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.20), COMPLAINT, App. G.20, MS./MRS. FRANCESCA M. ERTS (CURT... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.20), COMPLAINT, App. G.20, MS./MRS. FRANCESCA M. ERTS (CURTIS MALLET PREVOST, LLP), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "MS./MRS. FRANCESCA M. ERTS (CURTIS MALLET PREVOST, LLP) is claimed as being unlawfully added to the trial, upon second appearance. The law firm is claimed solely related to the trust of PCV/ST (TRUST2007 C 30) and not the law firm (BGANG) or owners (CWCAM/P.S.H.)." ST Owner, LP v. Eugene Williams, Index No. 52069/12(CHAN)(JHS)(N.Y.H.C.) "139. On October 9, 2015, after allegedly attending S.D.N.Y., he visited the records room of N.Y.H.C. to check filings of Index No. 52069/12 and made additional copies of alleged new filings by BGANG and the Court, which were allegedly not present in the prior March 8, 2013 and April 15, 2013 visits to the Court, as such new filings included: a. Filing form 'CIV-GP-40 (Rev. 1/96)' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.20, dated August 23, 2012) signed by MS./MRS. FRANCESCA M. ERTS (of CURTIS, MALLET – PREVOST, LLP, 'CM-P') for her participation during ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12-002(JHS)(NYHC), as such filing slip is highly controversial, seeing that PLAINTIFF originally filed the Order To Show Cause (seeking action against ST OWNER LP in reaction to the eviction; claimed incorrectly filed by clerical staff of N.Y.H.C.), where, at the onset of the above referenced Index No. 52069/12-002(JHS)(NYHC), PLAINTIFF was allegedly led to believe MS./MRS ERTS was a legal representative solely for BGANG and ST OWNER LP (due to her allegedly acting as primary counsel of oration during trial). i. As claimed, it was only after the acquisition of this filing that PLAINTIFF allegedly researched into who MS./MRS ERTS was, as well as her firm of CM-P (allegedly based out of Queens, NY), as such law firm (as alleged) normally acts on behalf of the mortgaged trusts for TRUST2007-C30, for which the entire PCV/ST community is funded from and not as the legal firm for the owners of the community during the time of the eviction (BGANG, ST OWNER, LP (of P.S.H.), or CWCAM (of W.D.C.)); especially due to PLAINTIFF serving the Order To Show Cause to BGANG and not in reference to B.O.A., or WACHOVIA (for TRUST2007-C30). ii. However, despite MS./MRS ERTS and CM-P allegedly being an affiliated legal representation for mortgaged investments of Trust2007-C30, this filing form indicates MS./MRS ERTS was knowingly and intentionally acting as legal representation for MR. BYER and MR. CROES as well (whose attendance at trial is claimed as simply being a delay of proceedings, under U.S. Const. Am. 6), signified as: 'I represent: [x]Non-Party John Byer [&] Ben Croes,' whereas '[x]Non- Party John Byer [&] Ben Croes' was handwritten allegedly by MS./MRS ERTS;" Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 27, 28. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.21), COMPLAINT, App. G.21, AFFADAVIT OF PERSONAL/SUBSTITUTE SERVICE, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.21), COMPLAINT, App. G.21, AFFADAVIT OF PERSONAL/SUBSTITUTE SERVICE, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.21), COMPLAINT, App. G.21, AFFADAVIT OF PERSONAL/SUBSTITUTE... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.21), COMPLAINT, App. G.21, AFFADAVIT OF PERSONAL/SUBSTITUTE SERVICE, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): ST Owner, LP v. Eugene Williams, Index No. 52069/12(CHAN)(JHS)(N.Y.H.C.) "[132.b.]iii. an 'AFFADAVIT OF PERSONAL/SUBSTITUTE SERVICE,' [highlighting and emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.21) which PLAINTIFF notes the misspelling of the word affidavit;... "[137.a.]ii. MR. GOLDSTEIN’s affirmation as an attorney of the deposing contents of this document as being 'true pursuant to CPLR §2106 and under the penalties of perjury[,]' [highlighting and emphasis added] where the following exhibited paragraphs of the document are highlighted, stating:... D. ¶4, a deposing statement, stating '[t]his summary non payment proceeding was commenced... on or about February 1, 2012' [highlighting and emphasis added] (axiomatic of BGANG violating local laws surrounding ADC §26-515(a) and the restrictive 180 day limitation period for a landlord to pursue action after they provide a notice to tenants), where the statement is alleged as being in reference to their misspelled 'AFFADAVIT OF PERSONAL/SUBSTITUTE SERVICE' [highlighting and emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.21), filed as BGANG’s 'Exhibit B'). (1) The deposing statement, as alleged, additionally makes reference to PLAINTIFF and notification being 'effectuated by substitute service upon Eugene Williams,' [highlighting and emphasis added] as such information, as claimed, is not only contrary to BGANG’s above filed 'AFFADAVIT;' where the identifying individual served neither fit the descriptions of either PLAINTIFF nor MR. WILLIAMS, JR.), but also places blame upon PLAINTIFF (claimed as puffery, under U.S. Const. Am. 1) for BGANG’s neglect to provide MR. WILLIAMS, JR. with a personal notice, due to PLAINTIFF 'not [being] a party' [emphasis added] to the eviction (negating PLAINTIFF rights to succession of a rent stabilized dwelling). (2) Nevertheless, PLAINTIFFs’ claims he was never being delivered a notice... "[139.]c. another 'AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE,' [emphasis added] (see DISCLAIMER #1), where such filing was allegedly placed in BGANG’s 'Exhibit C' of unrecorded documents (see CASE SUMMARY), where discrepancies are found to enforce liability for damages concerning falsifying information (namely under DR §§1- 101, 9-102), as such allegedly are:... iii. an alleged 'checked' off portion of the affidavit, signifying such as being provided by 'CONSPICUOUS SERVICE' on two days, allegedly evidenced as '4-26 2012 at 6:30P.M.' and '4-27 2012 at 11:14 [or 11:44] A.M.'' A. However, an alleged apartment number is excluded from the paragraph concerning the affidavit’s service, cited as, 'upon conspicuous part, to wit: the entrance door of apt#___ of said property[.]' [emphasis added] B. The alleged exclusion to provide a designated apartment number (as such should have depicted the dwelling unit of Apt. 7d of Building 449), is insisted as being seen prima facie for reinforcing claims of the document alleged never being serviced upon either MR. WILLIAMS, JR. or PLAINTIFF, where service did not fit the identifying description of either MR. WILLIAMS, JR. or PLAINTIFF (although evidenced in BGANG’s AFFADAVIT OF PERSONAL/SUBSTITUTE SERVICE, App. G, Id. at G.21; which insinuated such was made upon MR. WILLIAMS, JR.). (1) The exclusion of the apartment number reinforces the appearance of a conspired act to falsify information (namely under DR §§1-101, 9-102; 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, §§241, 371), simply to provide an official document to either a next door neighbor or a stranger, or nobody at all. C. Furthermore, there is no alleged address provided to indicate the property in which the affidavit is referring to;... [iv.]C. additional discrepancies exist within BGANG’s filings of the AFFADAVIT OF CONSPICUOUS SERVICE (dated '12/22/11') and AFFADAVIT OF PERSONAL/SUBSTITUTE SERVICE (dated '02/01/12'), where, despite both being spelled incorrectly, the signified dates were both written into the document by what seems the same individual (a topic of concern presented for a forensics specialist to examine during a sought after, sua sponte, investigation)... "144. In order for BGANG to obtain possession of Apt. 7d (Building 449) through a judicial decree, the law firm provided N.Y.H.C. the following documented exhibits:... c. an 'AFFADAVIT OF PERSONAL/SUBSTITUTE SERVICE' [highlighting and emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.21, dated February 1, 2012; time stamped at 2:44pm), presented as evidence in WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Dock. No. 16- 189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) as 'APPENDIX N.5'), signed by 'DEPONENT,' 'ROBERT COOPER' (residing in N.Y. County, NY with 'LIC# 1350968'), stipulating he, at the time of '10:11 PM,' was able to serve MR. WILLIAMS, JR. and PLAINTIFF 'BY PERSONAL DELIVERY… ON 01/30/12 AT 10:11PM...[with a] NOTICE OF PETITION & PETITION' [highlighting and emphasis added] (not when PLAINTIFF allegedly found the letters in a box of pillows when searching through personal property of the eviction after having such delivered to the storage facility). i. However, as highlighted, this affidavit (incorrectly titled as 'AFFADAVIT' [highlighting and emphasis added]) specifies the individual for whom court documents were served was MR. WILLIAMS, JR., identifying him as a Caucasian male ('WHT'), approximately '36-50' years of age, hair of 'BLK' and weight of approximately '161-200' pounds. A. The above cited information of MR. WILLIAMS, JR. description, as claimed, is falsified (U.S. Const. Am. 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 14 §1; DR §§1-101, 9-102; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3, 241, 371, 402, 1001(c), 1002, 1018, 3285), where MR. ROBERT COOPER’s written deposition is incorrect, seeing that both MR. WILLIAMS, JR. and PLAINTIFF are multiracial (or 'racially ambiguous'), where MR. WILLIAMS, JR. (in his 70’s and of a darker complexion than PLAINTIFF) had at the time mostly gray hair and weighed approximately 200 – 250 pounds (nor does PLAINTIFF allegedly fit the description provided by MR. COOPER). B. Additionally, PLAINTIFF ponders why such official undertaking of court issued papers were provided at such late hour of 10:11pm, and wonders if such service may have been provided to the next door neighbors, who are/were allegedly both Caucasian males, roughly in their mid 30’s to early 40’s. ii. The affidavit is stamped by an MS./MRS. 'IVETTE MOLINA,' [emphasis added] (with a 'Commissioner of Deeds' number of '2-13116'); A. It is mentioned, MS./MRS. MOLINA’s notary stamp for this document contains the same expiration date of December 1, 2012 as stamped in the 'AFFADAVIT OF CONSPICUOUS SERVICE.' [highlighting and emphasis added]" Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 18, 23, 28-30, 38-40. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.22-27), COMPLAINT, App. G.22, Resident Profile MRI Production (2011), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.22-27), COMPLAINT, App. G.22, Resident Profile MRI Production (2011), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.22-27), COMPLAINT, App. G.22, Resident Profile MRI Producti... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.22-27), COMPLAINT, App. G.22, Resident Profile MRI Production (2011), N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): ST Owner, LP v. Eugene Williams, Index No. 52069/12(CHAN)(JHS)(N.Y.H.C.) "132. In the year 1989, PLAINTIFF was named upon the lease to Building 449’s Apt. 7d as an 'occupant' tenant, establishing succession rights to a renewal lease. See App. G (Id. at G.3), BGANG’s Index No. 52069/12(NYHC)’s exhibits of the Department of Housing & Community Renewal’s ('DHCR'). See exhibits of DHCR’s 'MRI Production Report[s]' (2011 and 2012)... "III.E.3.d.ii.B... "132. The following ten evidenced pages (see DISCLAIMER #1) of BGANG’s N.Y.H.C. filed documents for ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, 52069/12(Chan)(JHS) (NYHC)), were acquired on March 8, 2013... *The filings excluded from the trial’s docket are in underlined. The filings depicted upon the trial’s docket are bolded... [b.]vii. a 'Resident Profile MRI Production' [emphasis added] ('2011 MRI Production,' App. G, Id. at G.22) report (dated December 6, 2011), of the L&T offices (CRAgency);... "[137.]b. Page two. Signifying paragraph’s five through thirteen of MR. GOLDSTEIN’s affirmation, where their corresponding 'Exhibits' ('A' through 'E') are provided, where:... [v.]C. As claimed, the absentmindedness of MR. GOLDSTEIN to view the two MRI reports, or other filings of his own law firm, which indicate the dwelling unit as being rent stabilized, provides prima facie evidence he did not have knowledge whatsoever of the events surrounding the eviction, or even the lease agreement for Apt. 7d (Building 449) and simply drew together a legal claim for property rights in order to induce the onset of subversion in aid of financial institutions of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST and affiliated investment companies of TRUST2007-C30 (enforced under U.S. Const. Am. 1, 3 §3 (subversion), 4, 5, 8, 10, 14 §1);... "[143.]b. The above referenced 'legal notice' (dated '5/8/12') for ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, LINDA WILLIAMS, Index No. 072690/11(NYHC) additionally depicts: i. a 'DKT' (docket) number of '403722;' ii. MR. WILLIAMS, JR. and PLAINTIFFs’ handwritten names as defendants; however, PLAINTIFFs’ name overlaps the boundary of the title box, as if to suggest his name was written in after acquiring specific information of his occupancy (most likely from the evidenced 2011 MRI Production or 2012 MRI Production reports). "144. In order for BGANG to obtain possession of Apt. 7d (Building 449) through a judicial decree, the law firm provided N.Y.H.C. the following documented exhibits:... b. the 2011 MRI Production (App. G, Id. at G.22, dated '12/6/2011' [emphasis added] (filed after the date of death of DECEDENT), presented as evidence in WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Dock. No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) as 'APPENDIX N.13'), where information contained (most likely acquired from ownership by TISHMAN/BLACKROCK, or of the previous owners, MetLife) is depicted as showing MR. WILLIAMS, JR. being held liable for rental payments, and further indicating: i. a lease expiration date of '2/29/2012' [emphasis added] for the last updated renewed lease, signed by DECEDENT, despite MR. CLAUDE filing the action for eviction on January 6, 2012 (alleged as being immediately after New Years Eve, when PLAINTIFF supplied the legal representative proof of rights to succession). See ADC §26-512(a): “[n]o owner… shall charge or collect any rent in excess of the initial legal regulated rent or adjusted initial legal regulated rent until the end of any lease or other rental agreement[.]” [highlighting and emphasis added] ii. a 'Initial Security' date of '2/1/1990,' with a 'SECURITY DEPOSI[T]' of '[$]1,148.00,' for a previous renewal lease, allegedly manipulative, seeing DECEDENT’s previously signed renewal lease still remained under Rent Stabilization Laws; iii. a total monthly rent of '[$]1,058.49,' [highlighting and emphasis added] having a past due balance in rent being in a totaled amount of '[$]6,599.53;' iv. an initial date of 'Occupancy' being '12/31/1989' (an alleged amended lease from MetLife), as such indicates PLAINTIFFs’ formally signed tenancy as an occupant when becoming 'of age' to be placed upon the lease (most likely when the STATE FARM rental insurance policy was acquired); v. PLAINTIFF as an occupant with a 'Current Potential Rent' [highlighting and emphasis added] amount of '[$]1,152.07,' alluding such would be under a renewed lease, via rights of succession. A. Further, PLAINTIFFs’ identity, type written as 'WILLIAMS, STEVEN,' is axiomatic of the owners and BGANG having no reason to file court documents where PLAINTIFF is labeled 'John Doe;' vi. It begs to question why a the 2011 MRI Production report (signifying 1989 as the Occupancy date) was not additionally supplied from the time period of the original lease (prior to MR. WILLIAMS, JR.’s alleged tenancy in, or around, 1975 to 1978 and under ownership of MetLife, when DECEDENTs’ name would be present on the report) and/or why BGANG failed to accompany the filed MRI report with a copy of the entire original and renewal lease agreements, signifying DECEDENT and MR. WILLIAMS, JR. (including PLAINTIFF under the 'Status' of 'Occupied') as the two residents allowed upon the agreement. A. For continuity purposes, the 2012 MRI Production report (App. G, Id. at G.38) (allegedly acquired upon PLAINTIFFs’ visit to the Housing Court, April 15, 2012) is presented to compare and contrast specified information contained in the 2011 MRI Production report (App. G, Id. at G.22, such as existence of DECEDENT living in the dwelling for, at most, two years after her death)... f. an 'AFFIDAVIT OF INVESTIGATION' [emphasis added] (DISCLAIMER #1, dated February 28, 2012 and signed by MR. CLAUDE), as such contains:... B. Further highlighted and questioned is why PLAINTIFFs’ name was written in over whiteout, as such implies the signifying of alternately named defendant(s), most likely written on the document after such was filed, representing 'John Doe + Jane Doe,' as depicted within other filings of BGANG (such as their RENT DEMAND, App. G, Id. at G.28), or suggesting MR. GOLDSTEIN, MR. CLAUDE or another associate of the legal firm drew together the document without having appropriate knowledge of all of the parties named, or merely avoided examination of the MRI reports;...' Id. at Docs.: 2, Comp. at 66; 2.1, Comp. at 17, 18, 23-25, 35, 37-41. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.28), COMPLAINT, App. G.28, RENT DEMAND, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.28), COMPLAINT, App. G.28, RENT DEMAND, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (S.D.N.Y.) In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.28), COMPLAINT, App. G.28, RENT DEMAND, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. ... more In Re. Doc. 76, Ex. 3 (Part 8, App. G.28), COMPLAINT, App. G.28, RENT DEMAND, N.Y.A.G. (U.S.P.S. delivered), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): ST Owner, LP v. Eugene Williams, Index No. 52069/12(CHAN)(JHS)(N.Y.H.C.) "III.E.3.d.ii.B... "132. The following ten evidenced pages (see DISCLAIMER #1) of BGANG’s N.Y.H.C. filed documents for ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, 52069/12(Chan)(JHS) (NYHC)), were acquired on March 8, 2013... *The filings excluded from the trial’s docket are in underlined. The filings depicted upon the trial’s docket are bolded... [a.]viii. a 'Rent Demand' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.28);... f. Pages eight, nine & ten. PLAINTIFFs’ alleged circular patterned copies of evidence of all other filed documents (due to lack of funds), showing: i. Page eight. Allegedly depicting:... D. a 'RENT DEMAND' [emphasis added] (App. G, Id. at G.28) letter from BGANG;... "140. As claimed, immediately after PLAINTIFF allegedly provided MR. CLAUDE with proof of rights to succession (previously mentioned), MR. CLAUDE filed a 'PETITION NON PAYMENT OF RENT' [emphasis added] within N.Y.H.C. on January 6, 2012 (App. G, Id. at G.29, originally presented as evidence in WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Docket No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ) (BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) as 'APPENDIX N.1'), wherein the petition contains: a. 'AGENT PHIL WISCHERTH' being the affirming agent for the management office of PCV/ST ('MDR# 115011'). i. However, the authorizing signature shows MR. GOLDSTEIN ('LAWRENCE E. GOLDSTEIN') with his name crossed out and a different signature style (incomplete last name) than that of a RENT DEMAND (App. G, Id. at G.28)). b. evidence of the apartment unit being 'SUBJECT TO THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW OF 1969 AS AMENDED,' [emphasis added] registered by DHCR, whereby the petition states: 'THE RENT DEMANDED HEREIN DOES NOT EXCEED THE REGISTERED RENT AND DOES NOT EXCEED THE LAWFUL STABILIZED RENT[']... e. a reference to the RENT DEMAND (App. G, Id. at G.28), stipulating an amount due of $6703.21 and Index No. '12N05269' by the Civil Court L&T division, on January 18, 2012... "142. The PETITION NON PAYMENT OF RENT (App. G, Id. at G.29, dated '1/06/12' [emphasis added] by ST OWNER LP), signifies:... c. a written 'rental agreement,' [emphasis added] 'promis[ing] to pay the landlord… $ 1152.07' on the first 'of each month,' with a rent due of “$ 6703.21' (stipulating to 'SEE RENT DEMAND NOTICE ANNEXED HERETO.' [emphasis added]), where the RENT DEMAND (App. G, Id. at G.28, signed by MR. GOLDSTEIN, dated December 8, 2011, with a 'client # DW1515') originally presented as evidence in WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Docket No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ) (BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) as 'APPENDIX N.4'), as such document contains:... [iii.]A. As highlighted, the date in which this RENT DEMAND (App. G, Id. at G.28) was provided (December 8, 2011), when compared to the date in which legal action was sought for eviction (January 6, 2012) (within a Thirty day period), is claimed to be in violation of U.S. Const. Am. 4 and U.S. Const. Am. 14 §1, where local statute ADC §26-515(a), states: '[t]he owner… may not commence a summary proceeding to recover the dwelling unit until the expiration of one hundred twenty days from the giving of such notice[.]' [highlighting and emphasis added] (1) Furthermore, notice of intent to acquire past due rent through legal action should have, as claimed, been provided with the owners intent not to renew the lease agreement. See ADC §26-515(a), 'intention not to renew the tenant's lease shall be accompanied by a notice[.]'... "143. As exclaimed, the MARSHAL’S LEGAL POSSESSION (App. G, Id. at G.10, issued on May 8, 2012 and posted on PLAINTIFFs’ door of Apt. 7d; evidenced in 'APPENDIX N.12' of WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Dock. No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.)) was granted for the eviction through the judicial judgments of HON. CHAN... b. The above referenced 'legal notice' (dated '5/8/12') for ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, LINDA WILLIAMS, Index No. 072690/11(NYHC) additionally depicts:... A. Furthermore, it is noted, the nonexistence of a 'Jane Doe' upon the MARSHAL’S LEGAL POSSESSION alludes to a legal change in named defendants, as such change is claim to have been nonexistent within court records (falsifying of information and forgery, under: U.S. Const. Am. 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 14 §1; DR §§1-101, 9-102; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3, 241, 371, 402, 1001(c), 1002, 1018, 3285, Chs. 25, 233). (1) However, the existence of 'Jane Doe' within BGANG’s filed RENT DEMAND (App. G, Id. at G.28) and other filings for ST OWNER, LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, LINDA WILLIAMS, Index No. 072690/11(NYHC) (most likely alluding to MS./MRS. KALILIKANE, PLAINTIFFs’ live-in ex-girlfriend, for which her alleged brief registered occupancy within the management office of PCV/ST (alleged as being deregistered well prior to the eviction; nearly a year) is claimed as falsifying information within a court of law (U.S. Const. Am. 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 14 §1; DR §§1-101, 9-102; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3, 241, 371, 402, 1001(c), 1002, 1018, 3285)..." Id. at Doc. 2.1, Comp. at 17-19, 30-32, 35. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] Motion For Intervention (N.Y.A.G.) (Highlighted, Duplicated), Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), Estoppel (Docs. 44, 45, 48-52, 98-102 of 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.)) [*****] Motion For Intervention (N.Y.A.G.) (Highlighted, Duplicated), Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), Estoppel (Docs. 44, 45, 48-52, 98-102 of 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.)), 2020 "Motion For Intervention: New York State Attorney General Ms./Mrs. Letitia James" (highlighted, d... more "Motion For Intervention: New York State Attorney General Ms./Mrs. Letitia James" (highlighted, duplicated), dated January 27, 2020 (19-cv-11547-UA) and February 7, 2020 (20-451), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.) and Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): See Williams v. US, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.): Docs. 10-12 (18-cv-12064); Docs. 22, 24, 32, 34 (19-39): i. Doc. 12, "EXHIBIT NOS. 1, 2, & 3 In association with: 'Complaint' (Form) Etc. Document filed by Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams.(sc) (Entered: 01/10/2019)," 18-cv-12064 (S.D.N.Y.) ii. Doc. 32, "MOTION, for agency intervention, on behalf of Appellant Steven Talbert Williams, FILED. No service.[2474368] [19-39] [Entered: 01/14/2019 12:58 PM]," 19-39 (2nd Cir. Ct.) See also Williams v. US, et al.,19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): Docs. 20, 21, 29-31, (19-cv-11547-UA); Docs. 13, 14, 19-22, 35-38, 42, 44, 45, 48-52, 73-77, 97-102 (20-451): i. Doc. 29, "NOTICE OF MOTION, re: for the intervention of the New York State Attorney General, Ms. Letitia James, acting on behalf of t he United States Attorney General, William Barr, within this trial, as her appearance is insisted for participation within the sought after preliminary discovery conference( see Doc. 22) etc. Document filed by Steven Talbert Williams.(sc) (Entered: 01/29/2020)," 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.) ii. Doc. 13, "RECORD ON APPEAL STATUS UPDATE LETTER, on behalf of Party Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, informing court of record delays, RECEIVED.[ ] Service date 02/07/2020 by CM/ECF, email, US mail. [2778777] [20-451] [Entered: 02/14/2020 11:35 AM]," 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) iii. Doc. 19, "RECORD ON APPEAL STATUS UPDATE LETTER, on behalf of Party Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, informing court of record delays, RECEIVED.[ ] Service date 02/14/2020 by CM/ECF, email, US mail. [2778897] [20-451] [Entered: 02/14/2020 12:20 PM]," 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) iv. Doc. 35, "RECORD ON APPEAL STATUS UPDATE LETTER, on behalf of Party Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, informing court of record delays, RECEIVED.[ ] Service date 02/14/2020 by CM/ECF, email, US mail. [2779150] [20-451] [Entered: 02/14/2020 02:43 PM]," 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re.: Docs. 19, 35, 73 (Part 1), LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST (USAG, NYAG), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) In Re.: Docs. 19, 35, 73 (Part 1), LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST (USAG, NYAG), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL MR. WILLIAM BARR & NEW YORK STATE ... more LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL MR. WILLIAM BARR & NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL MS./MRS. LETITIA JAMES (dated February 8, 2020), In Re.: Docs. 19, 35, 73 (Part 1), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in association with the new appellate action[;]... 'Application By Letter-Motion For Preliminary Summary Conference (Derivatives W/in The Linda Williams Beneficial Trust, In Rem)' (Doc. 10, 19-cv-11547-UA);... 'AFFIRMATION of Steven Talbert Williams UNDER 28:1651' (Doc. 32, 19-cv-11547-UA) and “Motion For Intervention: New York State Attorney General Ms./Mrs. Letitia James' (filed with the NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ('N.Y.A.G.'), MS./MRS. LETITIA JAMES), in abidance with: Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (28 U.S.C. §2403), Fed. R. Crim. P. 60, and U.S. Const. Art. 1 §7 (use of appropriations); request intervention, on behalf of PLAINTIFF, by the N.Y.A.G.... within the action of the Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, 2013-3538(SCNY)(Petition for Probate and Compulsory Accounting pending) and appellate action of Williams v. USA, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd Cir.), as a victim of crime (Fed. R. Crim. P. 60), merely to: (i) oversee the probate of the estate within the local Surrogate Court of New York County; (ii) for participation within a sought after preliminary discovery conference (originally filed Doc. 22) and participation within PLAINTIFFs’ refiling of his 'Motion For Preliminary Summary Conference (Derivatives W/in The Linda Williams Beneficial Trust, In Rem)' (originally filed January 2, 2020), pertaining to the 'ORDER' (Doc. 25) of unscanned and undocumented filings, and refiled on January 16, 2020).; and (iii) initiate the appellate trial of Dock. No. 20-451(2nd Cir.) (due to be allegedly maliciously denied redress by the federal courts), so as to adjudicate upon: (i) the Post-Filing Delayed Review doctrine; (ii) hold the attorney of the Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, MR. AVROM R. VANN, accountable for laches[;]... (iii) hold accountable laches and sanctions for parallelism claims relating to the I.R.S. and S.S.A.[;]... (iv) hold accountable the custodial Individual Retirement Account’s financial institutions for laches involving fiduciary control over the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST and its alleged illegal reinvestments within the community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town[;]... and (v) other matters of parallelism and parallel plus claims." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re.: Docs. 19, 35, 73 (Part 2), NOTICE OF FILING: LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST (USAG, NYAG), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) In Re.: Docs. 19, 35, 73 (Part 2), NOTICE OF FILING: LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST (USAG, NYAG), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) NOTICE OF FILING: LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL MR. WILLIAM BARR... more NOTICE OF FILING: LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL MR. WILLIAM BARR & NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL MS./MRS. LETITIA JAMES (dated February 11, 2020), In Re.: Docs. 19, 35, 73 (Part 2), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re.: Docs. 19, 35, 73 (Part 3), AFFIDAVIT (Doc. 35) Defected as a LETTER OF INTERVENTION (Doc. 42), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) In Re.: Docs. 19, 35, 73 (Part 3), AFFIDAVIT (Doc. 35) Defected as a LETTER OF INTERVENTION (Doc. 42), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 "AFFIDAVIT OF ORDER (DOC. 25) LIMITING DOCUMENTS TO 10 PAGES" (dated February 14, 2020) was defec... more "AFFIDAVIT OF ORDER (DOC. 25) LIMITING DOCUMENTS TO 10 PAGES" (dated February 14, 2020) was defected as a LETTER OF INTERVENTION, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): Doc. 35 (Affidavit of Order (Doc. 25)), "RECORD ON APPEAL STATUS UPDATE LETTER, on behalf of Party Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, informing court of record delays, RECEIVED.Service date 02/14/2020 by CM/ECF, email, US mail. [2779150] [20-451] [Entered: 02/14/2020 02:43 PM]" Doc. 42, "DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT, Record of Appeal Status Update Letter, [35], on behalf of Appellant Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, FILED.[2780005] [20-451] [Entered: 02/18/2020 10:41 AM]" "NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING... "The document does not comply... for the following reason(s):... "[x] Incorrect Filing Event... "[x] Other: You filed a Letter of Intervention Request, upon further review it appears you are moving for allowance to serve notices of filings to defendants only. If you are filing a motion, you must file under the event Motion, filed. If you are just sending a letter, file under Letter, received. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 97, NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS (Certificate of Service), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Doc. 97, NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS (Certificate of Service), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS (Certificate of Service), Doc. 97, dated February 27, 2020, Cestui Que Steve... more NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS (Certificate of Service), Doc. 97, dated February 27, 2020, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS... "Letter of Intervention (NYAG/USAG) (sent 2/8/20) (w/ Appendices) (refiled February 25, 2020) "Notice Of Filing (Letter of Intervention & Exhibits 1 to 4) (refiled February 25, 2020)" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Docs. 98-102, Intervention Escheated (PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Docs. 98-102, Intervention Escheated (PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Docs. 98-102, Intervention Escheated (PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v.... more Docs. 98-102, Intervention Escheated (PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): NOTICES OF DEFECTIVE FILINGS Doc. 98 - Letter of Intervention ("This is a motion and should've been docket as such") Doc. 99 - EXHIBITS, volume(s) 1 of 4 ("file together under the motion entry") Doc. 100 - EXHIBITS, volume(s) 2 of 4 ("file together under the motion entry") Doc. 101 - EXHIBITS, volume(s) 3 of 4 ("file together under the motion entry") Doc. 102 - EXHIBITS, volume(s) 4 of 4 ("file together under the motion entry") Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 470 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re.: Docs. 99-102, Emailed filings of Intervention Exhibits, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) In Re.: Docs. 99-102, Emailed filings of Intervention Exhibits, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 In Re.: Docs. 99-102, Emailed filings of Intervention Exhibits, Cestui Que Steven Talbert William... more In Re.: Docs. 99-102, Emailed filings of Intervention Exhibits, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Docs. 19, 20, 22, 73-77, 97-102, "NOTICE OF FILING: LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST..." (Highlighted), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Docs. 19, 20, 22, 73-77, 97-102, "NOTICE OF FILING: LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST..." (Highlighted), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 "NOTICE OF FILING: LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL MR. WILLIAM BAR... more "NOTICE OF FILING: LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL MR. WILLIAM BARR & NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL MS./MRS. LETITIA JAMES," dated February 11, 2020, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in association with the NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL (filed February 3, 2020) and In Forma Pauperis,... inform the United States Court Appeals for the Second Circuit of the filing of an 'Letter Of Intervention Request: United States Attorney General Mr. William Barr & New York State Attorney General Ms./Mrs. Letitia James,' in direct relation to the validating of antitrust claims (under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Post-Filing Delayed Review doctrine) for the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST and the ESTATE OF LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS, requesting intervention (FRAP 15) by NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL MS./MRS. LETITIA JAMES and UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL MR. WILLIAM BARR, for PLAINTIFF validating himself as a victim of crime (under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60) and to participate as a defendant within the sought after discovery conference and initiating of a jury trial or pre-settlement conference." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 98, NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING (Letter of Intervention) (Highlighted), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Doc. 98, NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING (Letter of Intervention) (Highlighted), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Doc. 98, NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING (Letter of Intervention) (Highlighted), dated February 27, 20... more Doc. 98, NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING (Letter of Intervention) (Highlighted), dated February 27, 2020, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "On February 21, 2020 the LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST RECEIVED, on behalf of the Appellant Steven Talbert Williams, was submitted... The document does not comply with the FRAP or the Court's Local Rules for the following reason(s):... "Missing motion information statement (T-1080 - Local Rule 27.1)... "Other: This is a motion and should’ve been docket as such." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Docs. 20, 74, 99, App. A/ Ex. 1, "LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST...," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Docs. 20, 74, 99, App. A/ Ex. 1, "LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST...," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Docs. 20, 74, 99, App. A/ Ex. 1, "LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL ... more Docs. 20, 74, 99, App. A/ Ex. 1, "LETTER OF INTERVENTION REQUEST: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL MR. WILLIAM BARR & NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL MS./MRS. LETITIA JAMES," dated February 7, 2020, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in association with... 'Motion For Intervention: New York State Attorney General Ms./Mrs. Letitia James' (filed with the NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ('N.Y.A.G.'), MS./MRS. LETITIA JAMES), in abidance with: Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (28 U.S.C. §2403), Fed. R. Crim. P. 60, and U.S. Const. Art. 1 §7 (use of appropriations); request intervention, on behalf of PLAINTIFF, by the N.Y.A.G. (see 5 EXC §60, acting on behalf of UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL ('U.S.A.G.') MR. WILLIAM BARR and the New York State Corporation Counsel. ADC §7-110) within the action of the Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, 2013-3538(SCNY)(Petition for Probate and Compulsory Accounting pending) and appellate action of Williams v. USA, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd Cir.), as a victim of crime (Fed. R. Crim. P. 60), merely in order to oversee the probate of the estate within the local Surrogate Court of New York County and initiate the appellate trial of Dock. No. 20-451(2nd Cir.) (due to be allegedly maliciously denied redress by the federal courts), so as to adjudicate upon: (i) the Post-Filing Delayed Review doctrine; (ii) hold the attorney of the Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, MR. AVROM R. VANN, accountable for laches... (iii) hold accountable laches and sanctions for parallelism claims relating to the I.R.S. and S.S.A.[;]... and (iv) hold accountable the custodial Individual Retirement Account’s financial institutions for laches involving fiduciary control over the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST and its alleged illegal reinvestments within the community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town, which allegedly led to PLAINTIFFs’ eviction from the community (without the providing of a renewal lease for Decedent’s rent-stabilized dwelling)..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 99, NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING (Letter of Intervention, Ex. 1) (Highlighted), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Doc. 99, NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING (Letter of Intervention, Ex. 1) (Highlighted), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Doc. 99, NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING (Letter of Intervention, Ex. 1) (Highlighted), dated February... more Doc. 99, NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING (Letter of Intervention, Ex. 1) (Highlighted), dated February 27, 2020, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "On February 25, 2020 the EXHIBITS, volume(s) 1 of 4, on behalf of the Appellant Steven Talbert Williams, was submitted... The document does not comply with the FRAP or the Court's Local Rules for the following reason(s):... "Not Text-Searchable... "Other: If this is supplementary papers to your motion it should’ve been docketed as such, if this is exhibits for your motion it should be file together under the motion entry." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Docs. 20, 75, 100, App. B/ Ex. 2, "RECEIPT OF MAILING TO USAG," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Docs. 20, 75, 100, App. B/ Ex. 2, "RECEIPT OF MAILING TO USAG," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Docs. 20, 75, 100, App. B/ Ex. 2, "RECEIPT OF MAILING TO USAG," Cestui Que Steven Talbert William... more Docs. 20, 75, 100, App. B/ Ex. 2, "RECEIPT OF MAILING TO USAG," Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re.: Docs. 20, 75, 100, App. B/ Ex. 2, FedEx Tracking (USAG), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) In Re.: Docs. 20, 75, 100, App. B/ Ex. 2, FedEx Tracking (USAG), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 In Re.: Docs. 20, 75, 100, App. B/ Ex. 2, FedEx Tracking (USAG), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Willia... more In Re.: Docs. 20, 75, 100, App. B/ Ex. 2, FedEx Tracking (USAG), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "Delivered Thursday 1/09/2020 at 9:05 am" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 100, NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING (Letter of Intervention, Ex. 2) (Highlighted), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Doc. 100, NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING (Letter of Intervention, Ex. 2) (Highlighted), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Doc. 100, NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING (Letter of Intervention, Ex. 2) (Highlighted), dated Februar... more Doc. 100, NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING (Letter of Intervention, Ex. 2) (Highlighted), dated February 27, 2020, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "On February 25, 2020 the EXHIBITS, volume(s) 2 of 4, on behalf of the Appellant Steven Talbert Williams, was submitted... The document does not comply with the FRAP or the Court's Local Rules for the following reason(s):... "Not Text-Searchable... "Other: If this is supplementary papers to your motion it should’ve been docketed as such, if this is exhibits for your motion it should be file together under the motion entry." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C - C.5/ Ex. 3, "MOTION TO SDNY," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C - C.5/ Ex. 3, "MOTION TO SDNY," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.1 - C.5/ Ex. 3, "MOTION TO SDNY," Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v.... more Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.1 - C.5/ Ex. 3, "MOTION TO SDNY," Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): C - MOTION TO SDNY (Cover page) C.1 - NOTICE OF MOTION C.2, C.3 - DECLARATION C.4 - AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE C.5 - MOTION FOR INTERVENTION: NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL MS./MRS. LETITIA JAMES Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C/ Ex. 3, "MOTION TO SDNY" (Cover page), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C/ Ex. 3, "MOTION TO SDNY" (Cover page), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C/ Ex. 3, "MOTION TO SDNY" (Cover page), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Willia... more Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C/ Ex. 3, "MOTION TO SDNY" (Cover page), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.1/ Ex. 3, "NOTICE OF MOTION," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.1/ Ex. 3, "NOTICE OF MOTION," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.1/ Ex. 3, "NOTICE OF MOTION," Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. Uni... more Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.1/ Ex. 3, "NOTICE OF MOTION," Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): See Doc. 29, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.2, C.3/ Ex. 3, "DECLARATION," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.2, C.3/ Ex. 3, "DECLARATION," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.2, C.3/ Ex. 3, "DECLARATION," Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. Uni... more Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.2, C.3/ Ex. 3, "DECLARATION," Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): See Doc. 30, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.4/ Ex. 3, "AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.4/ Ex. 3, "AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.4/ Ex. 3, "AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE," Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ... more Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.4/ Ex. 3, "AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE," Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): See Doc. 31, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.5/ Ex. 3, "MOTION FOR INTERVENTION...," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.5/ Ex. 3, "MOTION FOR INTERVENTION...," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.5/ Ex. 3, "MOTION FOR INTERVENTION: NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL MS.... more Docs. 20, 76, 101, App. C.5/ Ex. 3, "MOTION FOR INTERVENTION: NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL MS./MRS. LETITIA JAMES," dated January 27, 2020 (stamped by NYAG Managing Attorney's Office on January 27, 2020, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): Cover page only (Proof of service to NYAG) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact U.S. SUPREME COURT’S ACT OF WAR Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL) Williams v. U.S., et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir. Ct.), "Procedural Motion To File Brief & Supporting Documents For Certiorari Review By The Supreme Court Of The United States," Doc. 82 "permission[ ]to[ ]file:[ ](i)[ ]'Brief[ ]Upon[ ]Its[ ]Merit:[ ]U.S.D.O.J.[ ]Hon.[ ]Louis[ ]L.[ ]... more "permission[ ]to[ ]file:[ ](i)[ ]'Brief[ ]Upon[ ]Its[ ]Merit:[ ]U.S.D.O.J.[ ]Hon.[ ]Louis[ ]L.[ ]Stanton[ ]&[ ]Pro[ ]Se[ ]Intake[ ]Unit,[ ]S.D.N.Y.;' (ii)[ ]'Brief Upon Its Merits:[ ]Antitrust,[ ]Subversion[ ]& Domestic[ ]Housing[ ]Terrorism'[ ](FRAP28(i) ('consolidated cases'));[ ]&[ ](iii)[ ]'Petition For Writ Of Certiorari,'[ ]In forma and supporting docs" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL) Williams v. U.S., et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir. Ct.), "MOTION TO STRIKE DEFECTIVENESS (DOC. 84)," Doc. 89 I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in association with 'Letter To Chief... more I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in association with 'Letter To Chief Clerk Ms./Mrs. Kathleen O’Hagan: Validation Of Filing An Affidavit (Doc. 82),' move to strike the Appellate Court’s filing of the 'DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT' (Doc. 84). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(2) FRAP 27(a)(2)(B), (b), 32(c)(1); LR 31.2(c). See Schlosser v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 12-1301, 2012 WL 3879529, at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 6, 2012): Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL) Williams v. U.S., et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir. Ct.), "LETTER TO CHIEF CLERK MS./MRS. KATHLEEN O’HAGAN: VALIDATION OF FILING AN AFFIDAVIT (DOC. 82)," Doc. 87 I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), present this letter to CHIEF CLERK M... more I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), present this letter to CHIEF CLERK MS./MRS. KATHLEEN O’HAGAN as a testimony of having filed supporting documents (a supporting affidavit), which was labeled 'DEFECTIVE' (Doc. 84) (see Exhibit 1), stating and docketing the filing of Doc. 82 (Exhibit 2) as solely a T-1080 motion, yet such filing is claimed axiomatic, where Doc. 82 was filed appropriately with a supporting affidavit, entitled 'Procedural Motion To File Briefs & Supporting Documents For Certiorari Review By The Supreme Court Of The United States.' PLAINTIFF reserves his rights to seek sanctions for contempt, unnecessary delay and intent to mislead the court, which allegedly induced physical and emotional distress. FRAP 27(a)(2)(B)(i), 32(c)(2); L.R. 27.1(c), (d). See 'Motion To Strike Defectiveness (Doc. 84).' See also Exhibit 3, emails to 'Hezekiah_Toft' attempting to seek a strike of Doc. 82’s defectiveness." See Doc. 88 of 1392(2nd Cir.), "LETTER TO CHIEF CLERK MS./MRS. KATHLEEN O’HAGAN: VALIDATION OF FILING AN AFFIDAVIT (DOC. 82) (EXHIBITS 1 TO 3)" See also Question 15 of the Certiorari for Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir.), 19-6227(U.S. S.Ct.): "15. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), (f)(1) a. Should the 'STRIKE ORDER' (Doc. '104' of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.) (Appendix P), striking the filing of the Injunction and other supporting documents (including (including 'Letter To Chief Clerk Ms./Mrs. Kathleen O’Hagan: Validation Of Filing An Affidavit (Doc. 82),' Doc. '88' of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.) (Appendix Q) and Motion To Strike Defectiveness (Doc 84)' Doc. '89-1' of Dock. No. 19-1392(2" d Cir. Ct.) (Appendix R) (both filed on June , 2019, prior to the Appellate Court requesting clarification of PLAINTIFF ’s strike motion, and again on June 10, 2019 (see PLAINTIFFS 'CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE' for June 10, 2019, Doc. '98-1' of Dock No19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.); Appendix S. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi))), have been provided ’ whether or not enforced under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(1)?;" Id. at iv. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact *****JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL***** UNDOCUMENTED APPLICATIONS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (HISTORICAL RECORDS); Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064(CM)(S.D.N.Y.), 19-1392(2nd Cir.), 19-5405(U.S. S.CT.), 19-6565(U.S. S.CT.) UNDOCUMENTED APPLICATIONS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (HISTORICAL RECORDS), 2022 See Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064(CM)(S.D.N.Y.), 19-1392(2nd Cir.), 19-5405(U.S. S.CT.)... more See Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064(CM)(S.D.N.Y.), 19-1392(2nd Cir.), 19-5405(U.S. S.CT.), 19-6565(U.S. S.CT.). See also Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064(CM)(S.D.N.Y.), 19-6227(U.S. S.CT.). This document contains evidence of claimed Judicial Estoppel, executed by the Supreme Court of the United States, where Petitioner (Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que) was denied his Constitutional rights to communication with Supreme Court justices through the use of an "Application" (see U.S. Sup.Ct. Rule 22). Such use of an application (gone ignored) was for requests of Supreme Court justices to acknowledge offenses of defendants and other federal courts (such as the District Court’s neglect to classify the Cause under the Sherman Antitrust Act, in opposition of the Plausibility Standard (Post-Filing Delayed Dismissal Doctrine)), as well as to file documents above page limitations. The denial by the Supreme Court of the United States prevented the filing of: i. Applications; ii. Petition for Writ of Certiorari (denied for filing three times) (in excess of page limits); iii. Petition for Writ of Mandamus (in excess of page limits); iv. refiling of a Certiorari to include the named defendants; v. “Brief Upon Its Merits: U.S.D.O.J., Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit, S.D.N.Y.” (in excess of page limits); vi. “Supplemental Brief: Homelessness: A Hazardous Threat To Life (Judicial Review Of Experimental Nano-Biotechnology & Nano-Robotics, In Situ Drug Delivery; A Public Concern)” (in excess of page limits); and vii. “Supplemental Brief: Sovereignty Of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams” (in excess of page limits); and additionally led to the district and appellate courts preventing the filing of evidence of the sent documents to the Supreme Court, including: i. motion for sanctions; ii. waiver of immunity petition; iii. order sine qua non; and iv. order nisi Such lache (neglect) by the Supreme Court of the United States additionally led to the duplication of filings (a claimed illegal recordkeeping act) by the clerks of the Court for Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064(CM)(S.D.N.Y.), 19-1392(2nd Cir.), 19-6565(U.S. S.CT.). See Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064(CM)(S.D.N.Y.), 19-1392(2nd Cir.), 19-5405(U.S. S.CT.), 19-6565(U.S. S.CT.). See also Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064(CM)(S.D.N.Y.), 19-6227(U.S. S.CT.). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact *****JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL***** DUE PROCESS VIOLATION (Plausibility Standard) JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL - DUE PROCESS VIOLATION (Plausibility Standard), 2022 Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.), 20-451(2nd Cir.)) This document ... more Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.), 20-451(2nd Cir.)) This document contains evidence of claimed Judicial Estoppel, executed by the District Court for their neglect to classify the Cause under the Sherman Antitrust Act, in opposition of the Plausibility Standard (Post-Filing Delayed Dismissal Doctrine) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact *****JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL***** UNSCANNED LETTER BY THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF NEW YORK; Williams v. United States, 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.) UNSCANNED LETTER BY THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF NEW YORK; Williams v. United States, 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.), 2022 HIDDEN FROM DOCKET ENTRY (“LETTER TO THE CLERK,” August 9, 2019; Williams v. United States, 19-cv... more HIDDEN FROM DOCKET ENTRY (“LETTER TO THE CLERK,” August 9, 2019; Williams v. United States, 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.)) In Re. - Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.), 19-1392(2nd Cir.), 19-5405(U.S. S.CT.) This document contains evidence of claimed Judicial Estoppel, executed by the District Court for their neglect to file the “LETTER TO THE CLERK” (of the Supreme Court of the United States) within the filings of Williams v. United States, 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.). See “ORDER” (Doc. 25) & “LETTER RE: ORDER (DOC. 25) – CM/ECF SOUGHT” (Doc. 26) of Williams v. United States, 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact *****JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL***** UNSCANNED DOCUMENTS BY THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF NEW YORK; Williams v. United States, 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.), Docs. 25, 26 UNSCANNED DOCUMENTS BY THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF NEW YORK; Williams v. United States, 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.), Docs. 25, 26, 2022 HIDDEN FROM DOCKET ENTRY (“ORDER” (Doc. 25) & “LETTER RE: ORDER (DOC. 25) – CM/ECF SOUGHT” (Doc. ... more HIDDEN FROM DOCKET ENTRY (“ORDER” (Doc. 25) & “LETTER RE: ORDER (DOC. 25) – CM/ECF SOUGHT” (Doc. 26); Williams v. United States, 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.)) In Re. - Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.), 19-1392(2nd Cir.), 19-5405(U.S. S.CT.) This document contains evidence of claimed Judicial Estoppel, executed by the District Court for their neglect to file numerous documents within the filings of Williams v. United States, 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.). See “ORDER” (Doc. 25) & “LETTER RE: ORDER (DOC. 25) – CM/ECF SOUGHT” (Doc. 26) of Williams v. United States, 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact PLAUSIBILITY STANDARD; Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.) PLAUSIBILITY STANDARD; Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.), 2022 PRIMA FACIE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL District Court’s offense to neglect upon an order to initiate a p... more PRIMA FACIE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL District Court’s offense to neglect upon an order to initiate a preliminary discovery conference (via Plaintiff’s claim of the Sherman Antitrust Act), under the “Post-Filing Delayed Review Doctrine” (55 Fordham L. Rev. 1165 (1987)) and “Plausibility Standard” (Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678 (2002); Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (2007)). See the Complaint of Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(S.D.N.Y.): “Cryer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services[,]… Dock. No. 8118-09 (U.S. T.C., 2013), for determining the existence of fraud (Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)) in an antitrust matter, during discovery, prior to the granting of an IFP for the complaint to ‘survive dismissal’ (9 Fed. Ct. L. Rev. 79 (Spring 2016))[.]” The Chief Justice’s ORDER (Doc. 25), referencing the filings of: i. “letter rogatory;” and ii. a complaint “dismissed… as would grant… a trial… after discovery” [highlighting added] and of the previous trial of Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.), where the Dist. Ct. neglected a preliminary discovery conference, is PRIMA FACIE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 18 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Slip Law proposal: INDIVIDUAL TAX IMMUNITY ACT, Doc. 2, Ex. 19, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) Slip Law proposal: INDIVIDUAL TAX IMMUNITY ACT, Doc. 2, Ex. 19, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 Slip Law proposal “An Act to Immunize an Individual from Tax liability within Sovereignty” (“Indi... more Slip Law proposal “An Act to Immunize an Individual from Tax liability within Sovereignty” (“Individual Tax Immunity Act”), COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Ex. 19, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): Individual Tax Immunity Act "III.G.3. PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROPOSAL: SLIP LAW PROPOSAL ('INDIVIDUAL TAX IMMUNITY ACT') '198. Due to claims against the I.R.S., S.S.A. and other federal agencies, requiring waiver of UNITED STATES Government immunity, for which PLAINTIFF is unaware of any congressional act enabling an individual to acquire a settlement within a proper timeframe (See Matter of Clarke, 'the application of sovereign immunity depends on which party will be bound by a judgment, not on who might ultimately bear the economic loss[.]' [emphasis added]), he proposes to the Senate Legal Counsel and Law Revision Counsel the following 'Act to Immunize an Individual from Tax liability within Sovereignty,' the shortened title being the 'Individual Tax Immunity Act' ('ITIA,' Exhibit 19), providing a citizen of the U.S. the available means to redress grievances in an efficient manner, promoting stability for the nation, a speedy trial and growth of knowledge within the legal profession. See also IRM §5.17.5.4: " 'Congress has not provided the aggrieved party with an alternative legal venue by which to contest the legality of a particular tax. Enochs v. Williams, 370 U.S. 1 (1962); South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367 (1984).' "199. Within Matter of Clarke, referencing 'Clarke’s invitation to create a new doctrine of… immunity,' [emphasis added] such references the allowance for 'tribal official immunity,' however, unlike such, the ITIA is presented as a new doctrine to allow a U.S citizen to obtain sovereign immunity through a settlement, structured or qualified, as such may additionally benefit the U.S. Government not only economically (as a party of interest to a contractual agreement, or treaty), but for society as a whole. "200. As asserted, much of the hindrance to pursue legal remedies against the UNITED STATES concerns whether the citizen is seeking solely his/her own personal interests or that of society as a whole (whether or not educationally). "201. It is PLAINTIFFs’ intent not only to provide the ITIA as a source of tax- shifted liability and a revenue accruing outlet for citizens with verifiable cases against the government (through waiver of immunity, mandamus and an injunctive settlement), but also to promote legal advancement (as did our founding fathers did with the framers of the U.S. Constitution, for which constitutional statutes were enacted after its framing), where such a victim of crime must legislatively pursue legal revision of at least two (2) legal provisions (legal evolution; as PLAINTIFF intends to with the introduction of the ITIA and accompanying slip laws, seeking a revising of the federal rules for the federal courts to provide a response to a complaint within a fourteen (14) day period) (Exhibit 21); as such shall satisfy grounds to assert sovereignty. See also a Journal of Legal Education (Vol. 65, No. 3, 2016) internet publication,79 entitled 'Postgraduate Legal Training: The Case for Tax-Exempt Programs' ('Postgrad Tax-Exempt Programs,' by Mr. Adam Chodorow and Mr. Philip Hackney), 'Education has traditionally been seen as a quasi-public good, benefiting not only those who acquire it, but also society generally.' [emphasis added] See also Matter of Clarke:... "202. When a verified victim asserts a claim for damages amounts against a U.S. Government employee, under 42 U.S.C. §1981 or 42 U.S.C. §1983, suggested to be provided as relief amounts for personal injury and/or comparable injury incurred from fraud by an agency officer or official, and to place damage amounts into a revolving credit account of the government to be used for the betterment of society, as such may allow the victim an opportunity to assert tax exemption for sovereign immunity (where the I.R.S.’s normal Alternative Minimum Tax exemption of 26 U.S.C. §55 may be satisfied well over a threshold of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000)). See I.R.S.’s Audit Guide Rev. 5/2011, when 'consider[ing]… making adjustments to income due to… lawsuit proceeds[,… t]he personal and dependent exemptions taken by the taxpayer may be limited or phased out due to the increase in income from the lawsuit[.]' " a. Relief amounts may additional be presented in the ITIA as a settlement option to enact legislative provisions for a real property revolving account or REIT. See HUDSON v. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 451, 'the plea in effect is conditioned upon the imposition of a lighter penalty[.]'), where highlighted contracts (U.S. Const. Art. 1 §10), amendments to congressional Acts and executive orders (U.S. Const. Art. 1 §8 Cl. 18; U.S. Const. Art. 2 §3) may be approved for a business structured investment account and criminal moral-reform platform (designed as an alternative to institutional reform (Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)) and education of children), as well as: (i) financial and experimental programs (such as revolving accounts with the United States Department of Treasury ('U.S. Treas.'), including opportunities mentioned in 31 C.F.R.); (ii) tax incentive credit opportunities; and (iii) other conceptualized programs (tailored to individual defendants and their professional industries), all of which promote relief from financial burden placed upon defendants, and tremendous financial gain for the U.S. Government, its citizen’s and even defendants (such as investment trust accounts for their family members). See also USAM §1-14.000(a):..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Slip law Proposal: "DEPRIVED ECONOMINC STATUS" (Black Lives Matter), Doc. 2, Ex. 20, Williams, 19-cv-1547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) Slip law Proposal: "DEPRIVED ECONOMINC STATUS" (Black Lives Matter), Doc. 2, Ex. 20, Williams, 19-cv-1547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 Slip law Proposal: "DEPRIVED ECONOMINC STATUS" (Black Lives Matter), Doc. 2 (Williams 19-cv-11547... more Slip law Proposal: "DEPRIVED ECONOMINC STATUS" (Black Lives Matter), Doc. 2 (Williams 19-cv-11547), Ex. 20, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451 (JAC) (RJS) (SJM) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "III.I.1. SUBSEQUENT JURISDICTION: CLASS ACTIONS... "224. For purposes of the overall matter, the use of local statutes... are essential for determining offenses and sought for shepardizing, wherein both federal and local statutes (under U.S. Const. Art. 1 §7) shall include within their provisions PLAINTIFFs’ conceptualized legal reference of 'Deprived Economic Status'[ 'a personally conceptualized sought after addition to federal statutes, by proposal, and is enforced under the Copyright Act of 1909, as amended, and other intellectual property statutes; as such may be considered a trade secret due to PLAINTIFFs’ intent to form an independent legal business upon the onset of trial proceedings, so as to acquire assistant employees to handle to extreme extent of trial matters.'] ('D.E.S.'); a revision to civil rights statutes, as such term has been previously depicted within judicial canons for Administrative Law Judges ('ALJ') as 'socioeconomic' status (mentioned within §100.3(b)(4), (b)(5) of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge). See Exhibit 20, 'Slip Law Proposal: Deprived Economic Status' ('D.E.S. Proposal'). See also 'Petition For Class Action Remedy: Deprived Economic Status (42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1983, 1985(3))' ('D.E.S. Class Action')..." Id. at Comp., Doc. 2-1, at 66; Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "PRELIMINARY DRAFTED FEDERAL RULES" (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 2), EX. 21, Slip Law proposal "FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 3.1[;] FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULE 3.1," COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) Slip Law Draft Of Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 3.1, By Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 2), EX. 21, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 "PRELIMINARY DRAFTED FEDERAL RULES" (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 2), dated April 4, 2022, COMPLA... more "PRELIMINARY DRAFTED FEDERAL RULES" (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 2), dated April 4, 2022, COMPLAINT, Doc. 2-10 (Id. at 3-8), EX. 21, Slip Law proposal "Slip Law Draft Of Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 3.1, By Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams" (dated November 23, 2019), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.): Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "PRELIMINARY DRAFTED FEDERAL RULES" (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 1), EX. 21, Slip Law proposal "FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 3.1[;] FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULE 3.1," COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) Slip Law Draft Of Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 3.1, By Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 1), EX. 21, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) , 2022 "PRELIMINARY DRAFTED FEDERAL RULES" (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 1), dated April 4, 2022, COMPLA... more "PRELIMINARY DRAFTED FEDERAL RULES" (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 1), dated April 4, 2022, COMPLAINT, Doc. 2-10 (Id. at 3-8), EX. 21, Slip Law proposal "Slip Law Draft Of Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 3.1, By Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams" (dated November 23, 2019), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.): EXHIBIT 21 “I. Introduction “ PLAINTIFF seeks approval of two initially drafted revisions to federal rules, presented as a Rule and pertaining to the specifying of time limitations for judicial officials or a chief justice to respond to a complaint. “1. An addition to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, entitled ‘Rule 3.1,’ for a judicial official of the court to respond to a filed complaint within a 14 day period. “2. An addition to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, entitled ‘Rule 3.1,’ for a judicial official of the court to respond to a filed complaint within a 14 day period. “II. Action Items “A. Filings Within U.S. Appellate Court for the Second Circuit “1. The initial offering of this proposal by PLAINTIFF, via slip law proposal (‘EXHIBIT 45’ of Docket No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)) within U.S. Appellate Court for the Second Circuit for forwarding to the Office of Federal Register ("OFR") and the offices of the Senate Legal Counsel and Legal Revision Counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(a)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 15(a) & (c); 1 U.S.C. Ch. 113; 2 U.S.C. Ch. 9A, §§288b(c), 288e(a), 288k; 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B); 28 U.S.C. §1365. “2. Such offering, PLAINTIFF states, is in light of public concern, especially for economically deprived citizens whose lives may be threatened if a delay of redress occurs… “ PRELIMINARY DRAFTED FEDERAL RULES “ FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 3.1 “ This Slip Law Proposal May Be Cited As ‘Slip Law Draft Of Federal Rules Of Civil “ Procedure, Rule 3.1, By Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams.’ “ To Amend Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 3.1, As Would Provide Time Limitations To “ Respond To Filed Complaints By Judicial Officials. “¶ 1 Rule 3.1 - Judicial Response To ‘The Complaint’ “¶ 2 “¶ 3 The filing of a complaint, in accordance with Rule 3, “¶ 4 provides for a timely response, no later than 14 days, by a judicial officer “¶ 5 of the court in which the complaint is filed within. “¶ 6 a. In the event of delay, for good cause shown, the judicial officer of the court, “¶ 7 shall provide complainant notice within the civil docket “¶ 8 and by certified mail of any extended time period. “¶ 9 i. In no event shall the extended time allowance of a “¶ 10 judicial response be greater than an additional 5 working days. “ FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULE 3.1 “ This Slip Law Proposal May Be Cited As ‘Slip Law Draft Of Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, Rule 3.1, By Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams.’ “ To Amend Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, Rule 3.1, As Would Provide Time Limitations To Respond To Filed Complaints By Judicial Officials. “¶ 1 Rule 3.1 - Judicial Response To ‘The Complaint’ “¶ 2 “¶ 3 The filing of a complaint, in accordance with Rule 3, “¶ 4 provides for a timely response, no later than 14 days, by a judicial officer “¶ 5 of the court in which the complaint is filed within. “¶ 6 a. In the event of delay, for good cause shown, the judicial officer of the court, “¶ 7 shall provide complainant notice within the civil docket “¶ 8 and by certified mail of any extended time period. “¶ 9 i. In no event shall the extended time allowance of a “¶ 10 judicial response be greater than an additional 5 working days." “EXHIBIT 21 Slip Law proposal ‘Slip Law Draft Of Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 3.1, By Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams’ Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "TRIGGER THEORY" (TRADE SECRET, PART 3), SUPPLEMENT BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE, Williams, 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.) "TRIGGER THEORY" (TRADE SECRET, PART 3), SUPPLEMENT BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE, Williams, 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.), 2019 "TRIGGER THEORY" (TRADE SECRET), "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (J... more "TRIGGER THEORY" (TRADE SECRET), "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN)," Doc. 24, dated August 2, 2019 (revised January 10, 2019), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.): TRIGGER THEORY "Trigger Theory, where interactive holographic microfluidic computerized products (namely nano robotic hydrogel, although disputed for its incorporation with the internet) and a 'trigger word.' naming a part of the human body, when spoken out loud (or even thought), especially when there is an ailment to a specific portion of the body, can easily provide opportunities for the individual (at whatever age) to further their education in the medical field, where the trigger word, when used in association with a previous recognized diagnosis, can heal a person from the inside out." “56. 'Trigger Theory,' where the use of a computerized microfluidic (internet controlled or otherwise) may be harnessed to enable the formation of mutated supernatural powers, either associated to the tissue of the body or layered upon inorganic objects (such as floors or tables, like a finish after staining). a. As an example of providing the appearance of having a supernatural power, the use of a microfluidic nanorobot (being asexual) may have the ability to replicate itself very quickly to absorb atmospheric vapor and detach from the body, and, thereafter, harness atmospheric propulsion to – 'shoot' – the tissue away from the body; although people may die when at work while delivering a plate of food to a dinner table. "[A]dvancement and/or combination of powers may be obtained upon induction of locating the 'trigger' element, or 'secret[ ]' (Id. at 277) of an embodied communication network[;]... such as emotional transference, sexual stimulants, or atmospheric control – perhaps, its evolution to atmospheric propulsion (such as NASA’s use of xenon within zero gravity[,... or] hardened tissue – skin bullets – perhaps defended by another by a hardening of the epidermis using an inclusion of a diorite synthetic, already utilized on Kevlar vests... "Other positive aspects can include such a communication network within the self as a learning tool, where, in order to cure a sickness, one merely has to research the symptoms and diagnose the ailment and speak it aloud, thereby vocally triggering – through sound recognition – the beginnings of the antidote, where the more you learn about the medical practices of the ailment, the healthier one becomes... "The objective of the theory is based upon the use of nanotechnology... as a learning tool of evolution, to locate to 'trigger' which can evolve the 'power' into either an advanced version or a combination of powers if utilized together... "[A] possible scenario to identify the trigger, may perhaps be a 'trigger alert' system, visual or physical, such as when DR.KASS cited Hans Jonas, stating the trigger may be 'to find its own way and be a surprise to itself' ([Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics, by Mr. Leon R. Kass] at 125)... "Another hypothetical scenario of the trigger theory pertains to emotional transference, where use of the internet within our biological wi-fi networking, or 'common humanity' (Id. at 153), may provide for a direct influence of ourselves and, in turn, the environment around us, as well as those who are 'friends' within our biological 'Facebook' networking application program... "[59(b).] Perhaps our pursued trigger will advance upon our online emotional transference, where orgasms will one day be utilized as a device to not just enhance a power but to send and receive emailed attachments of sperm, upon an male ejaculation (female ejaculation for lesbian couples), through an in vivo wi-fi network (or even replicated within an in situ wi-fi network, transfiguring the 'faxed' image of sperm and its individual properties to the ovaries), thereby making women asexual organisms (a biblical reference to Mary, Jesus’ mother), or even transgenderism; yet will such an advancement bring about babies born with such advanced powers (ie: the use of atmospheric propulsion while performing the 'orgasmic trigger,' where a child is born with the ability to levitate or even fly above buildings, an 'enhance[ment ]by their comingled work.' Id. at 157); as such may give rise to competitive reproduction and abortion discrepancies (if there exists a trigger to reverse the process of infertilization), where couples will vie for the birthing of the best child they could possibly ever make? i. However, what would happen if during the transfer of the emailed attachment of sperm were to be 'biohacked,' and the baby turned out to be a deformed creature or other form of genetic mutation (as depicted in the comics, cartoons and movies of X-Men)? Id. at 358, 377-381, 383, 390. "The 'human subject,'... is relatively obscure in its definition, as such a 'subject' is determined by experimental consent only (such as when MR. WILLIAMS, JR. and PLAINTIFF were asked to sign off on new chemotherapy treatments for DECEDENTs’ diagnosed ovarian cancer), and if such experimental treatment involves the use of the internet and a nanorobotic asexual self-reproductive microorganism[;]... then the possibilities of infecting the general population (especially upon the sick, elderly and homeless) via an uncontrollable computer program is more than likely probable... hence, how would citizens ever know if we’ve entered an era of genetic warfare[.]" Id. at 359. OTHER TRADE SECRETS "[M]ultiple dimensions with the human body, through the use of the internet and nanorobotics,... where not only can one advance upon intellect (ie: used with holographic imagery as an interactive teaching tool for children to study biology) and possibly multiple plains of existence, but also as a way to see and, perhaps, shift dimensional realms with the use of holographic imagery (utilizing either UV or LED lights within microfluidic nanorobotics to do so; as long as its utilized in an organic form, carbon nanotubes or otherwise), opening a gateway (not unlike logic gates of nanorobotics to connect wireless connections) to view an alternate destination[;]... if when utilizing dimensional gateways such are combined with the appearance of visual destinations (ie: incorporating the use of UV and/or laser light technology to control holographic imaging), then would we be able to calculate what will be seen if such online communication can relay a real time video imaging of such destination, and will we be able to sustain our true selves or fax an image of ourselves when walking into or through such a hologram?" Id. at 369, 370, 384, 385. "[C]omputerization of nanobiotechnology,... [ ]where PLAINTIFF intends to pursue his scientific career, amongst other experiments, with a beginning experiment of the hoodia plant and even its incorporation within nanorobotics and hydrogel[.]" Id. at 370. "[A] new internet business venture based upon the idea of a “world school,” where the use of IP would provide funding for an online business trading platform (various forms of IP traded separately from the stock market, under an ETF-like scheme; as such was after his studies into the Copyright Act of 1909, as amended, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as amended, and various other business models, such as the voucher system developed from the original artist of Mickey Mouse),... to advance arts and sciences, specifically due to researching new technologies[,]... hoping to one day see a world where the use of brick and stucco were exchanged for a stronger and more light weight material to build with[.]" Id. at 375. "[E]ngineering a plane with a living exterior hydrogel-like hull, where such may be atmospherically controlled on its wings to guide the plane in exchange for gear controlled flaps, as well be utilized as a building material (if perhaps mixed with diorite) to replace brick and stucco." Id. at 376. "[A] nanobot controlled microorganism which resides within a microfluidic-like substance to control the substance like veins of a leaf[.]" Id. "an endeavor to harness an organism which drastically effects the environment (specifically beginning research into the skunk,… and how such effects of its defensive spray can be replicated into nanobiotechnology to drastically expand the microfluidic substance, or even on how to harness the effects the “spray odor” within microfluidics to eliminate body odor)." Id. at 376, 377. "building material, which can be interactive with the environment[,]... specifically intended on being utilized within tenancy of the intended formation (upon validation of eminent domain, via executive order) of the sought for establishment U.C.I.M.S. territories, wherein a room within the cooperative mortgaged dwelling unit is intended on being a learning and career development study den[,]... completely made of an interactive environment through the use of microfluidic coatings (even upon walls, furniture and electronic equipment)." Id. at 377. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "TRIGGER THEORY" (TRADE SECRET, PART 2), SUPPLEMENT BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE, Williams, 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.) "TRIGGER THEORY" (TRADE SECRET, PART 2), SUPPLEMENT BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE, Williams, 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.), 2019 "TRIGGER THEORY" (TRADE SECRET), "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (J... more "TRIGGER THEORY" (TRADE SECRET), "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN)," Doc. 24, dated August 2, 2019 (revised January 10, 2019), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.): TRIGGER THEORY "Trigger Theory, where interactive holographic microfluidic computerized products (namely nano robotic hydrogel, although disputed for its incorporation with the internet) and a 'trigger word.' naming a part of the human body, when spoken out loud (or even thought), especially when there is an ailment to a specific portion of the body, can easily provide opportunities for the individual (at whatever age) to further their education in the medical field, where the trigger word, when used in association with a previous recognized diagnosis, can heal a person from the inside out." “56. 'Trigger Theory,' where the use of a computerized microfluidic (internet controlled or otherwise) may be harnessed to enable the formation of mutated supernatural powers, either associated to the tissue of the body or layered upon inorganic objects (such as floors or tables, like a finish after staining). a. As an example of providing the appearance of having a supernatural power, the use of a microfluidic nanorobot (being asexual) may have the ability to replicate itself very quickly to absorb atmospheric vapor and detach from the body, and, thereafter, harness atmospheric propulsion to – 'shoot' – the tissue away from the body; although people may die when at work while delivering a plate of food to a dinner table. "[A]dvancement and/or combination of powers may be obtained upon induction of locating the 'trigger' element, or 'secret[ ]' (Id. at 277) of an embodied communication network[;]... such as emotional transference, sexual stimulants, or atmospheric control – perhaps, its evolution to atmospheric propulsion... "Other positive aspects can include such a communication network within the self as a learning tool, where, in order to cure a sickness, one merely has to research the symptoms and diagnose the ailment and speak it aloud, thereby vocally triggering – through sound recognition – the beginnings of the antidote, where the more you learn about the medical practices of the ailment, the healthier one becomes... "The objective of the theory is based upon the use of nanotechnology... as a learning tool of evolution, to locate to 'trigger' which can evolve the 'power' into either an advanced version or a combination of powers if utilized together... "[A] possible scenario to identify the trigger, may perhaps be a 'trigger alert' system, visual or physical, such as when DR.KASS cited Hans Jonas, stating the trigger may be 'to find its own way and be a surprise to itself' ([Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics, by Mr. Leon R. Kass] at 125)... "Another hypothetical scenario of the trigger theory pertains to emotional transference, where use of the internet within our biological wi-fi networking, or 'common humanity' (Id. at 153), may provide for a direct influence of ourselves and, in turn, the environment around us, as well as those who are 'friends' within our biological 'Facebook' networking application program... "[59(b).] Perhaps our pursued trigger will advance upon our online emotional transference, where orgasms will one day be utilized as a device to not just enhance a power but to send and receive emailed attachments of sperm, upon an male ejaculation (female ejaculation for lesbian couples), through an in vivo wi-fi network (or even replicated within an in situ wi-fi network, transfiguring the 'faxed' image of sperm and its individual properties to the ovaries), thereby making women asexual organisms (a biblical reference to Mary, Jesus’ mother), or even transgenderism; yet will such an advancement bring about babies born with such advanced powers (ie: the use of atmospheric propulsion while performing the 'orgasmic trigger,' where a child is born with the ability to levitate or even fly above buildings, an 'enhance[ment ]by their comingled work.' Id. at 157); as such may give rise to competitive reproduction and abortion discrepancies (if there exists a trigger to reverse the process of infertilization), where couples will vie for the birthing of the best child they could possibly ever make? i. However, what would happen if during the transfer of the emailed attachment of sperm were to be 'biohacked,' and the baby turned out to be a deformed creature or other form of genetic mutation (as depicted in the comics, cartoons and movies of X-Men)? Id. at 358, 377-381, 383, 390. "The 'human subject,'... is relatively obscure in its definition, as such a 'subject' is determined by experimental consent only (such as when MR. WILLIAMS, JR. and PLAINTIFF were asked to sign off on new chemotherapy treatments for DECEDENTs’ diagnosed ovarian cancer), and if such experimental treatment involves the use of the internet and a nanorobotic asexual self-reproductive microorganism[;]... then the possibilities of infecting the general population (especially upon the sick, elderly and homeless) via an uncontrollable computer program is more than likely probable... hence, how would citizens ever know if we’ve entered an era of genetic warfare[.]" Id. at 359. OTHER TRADE SECRETS "[M]ultiple dimensions with the human body, through the use of the internet and nanorobotics,... where not only can one advance upon intellect (ie: used with holographic imagery as an interactive teaching tool for children to study biology) and possibly multiple plains of existence, but also as a way to see and, perhaps, shift dimensional realms with the use of holographic imagery (utilizing either UV or LED lights within microfluidic nanorobotics to do so; as long as its utilized in an organic form, carbon nanotubes or otherwise), opening a gateway (not unlike logic gates of nanorobotics to connect wireless connections) to view an alternate destination[;]... if when utilizing dimensional gateways such are combined with the appearance of visual destinations (ie: incorporating the use of UV and/or laser light technology to control holographic imaging), then would we be able to calculate what will be seen if such online communication can relay a real time video imaging of such destination, and will we be able to sustain our true selves or fax an image of ourselves when walking into or through such a hologram?" Id. at 369, 370, 384, 385. "[C]omputerization of nanobiotechnology,... [ ]where PLAINTIFF intends to pursue his scientific career, amongst other experiments, with a beginning experiment of the hoodia plant and even its incorporation within nanorobotics and hydrogel[.]" Id. at 370. "[A] new internet business venture based upon the idea of a “world school,” where the use of IP would provide funding for an online business trading platform (various forms of IP traded separately from the stock market, under an ETF-like scheme; as such was after his studies into the Copyright Act of 1909, as amended, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as amended, and various other business models, such as the voucher system developed from the original artist of Mickey Mouse),... to advance arts and sciences, specifically due to researching new technologies[,]... hoping to one day see a world where the use of brick and stucco were exchanged for a stronger and more light weight material to build with[.]" Id. at 375. "[E]ngineering a plane with a living exterior hydrogel-like hull, where such may be atmospherically controlled on its wings to guide the plane in exchange for gear controlled flaps, as well be utilized as a building material (if perhaps mixed with diorite) to replace brick and stucco." Id. at 376. "[A] nanobot controlled microorganism which resides within a microfluidic-like substance to control the substance like veins of a leaf[.]" Id. "an endeavor to harness an organism which drastically effects the environment (specifically beginning research into the skunk,… and how such effects of its defensive spray can be replicated into nanobiotechnology to drastically expand the microfluidic substance, or even on how to harness the effects the “spray odor” within microfluidics to eliminate body odor)." Id. at 376, 377. "building material, which can be interactive with the environment[,]... specifically intended on being utilized within tenancy of the intended formation (upon validation of eminent domain, via executive order) of the sought for establishment U.C.I.M.S. territories, wherein a room within the cooperative mortgaged dwelling unit is intended on being a learning and career development study den[,]... completely made of an interactive environment through the use of microfluidic coatings (even upon walls, furniture and electronic equipment)." Id. at 377. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "TRIGGER THEORY" (TRADE SECRET, PART 1), SUPPLEMENT BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE, Williams, 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.) "TRIGGER THEORY" (TRADE SECRET, PART 1), SUPPLEMENT BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE, Williams, 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.), 2019 "TRIGGER THEORY" (TRADE SECRET), "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (J... more "TRIGGER THEORY" (TRADE SECRET), "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN)," Doc. 24, dated August 2, 2019 (revised January 10, 2019), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.): “‘Trigger Theory,’ where the use of a computerized microfluidic (internet controlled or otherwise) may be harnessed to enable the formation of mutated supernatural powers, either associated to the tissue of the body or layered upon inorganic objects (such as floors or tables, like a finish after staining). “As an example of providing the appearance of having a supernatural power, the use of a microfluidic nanorobot (being asexual) may have the ability to replicate itself very quickly to absorb atmospheric vapor and detach from the body, and, thereafter, harness atmospheric propulsion to – ‘shoot’ – the tissue away from the body; although people may die when at work while delivering a plate of food to a dinner table. “In furtherance in explanation, when exploring these supernatural powers, an advancement and/or combination of powers may be obtained upon induction of locating the ‘trigger’ element, or ‘secret[ ]’ (Id. at 277) of an embodied communication network (even a computerized domain, or server within the self, via the mind; like cursors stated within the publication of Thought-Controlled Robots) with thermal or treatment control, via emailed attachments); such as emotional transference, sexual stimulants, or atmospheric control – perhaps, its evolution to atmospheric propulsion (such as NASA’s use of xenon within zero gravity[)]… of hardened tissue – skin bullets – perhaps defended by another by a hardening of the epidermis using an inclusion of a diorite synthetic, already utilized on Kevlar vests… “Other positive aspects can include such a communication network within the self as a learning tool, where, in order to cure a sickness, one merely has to research the symptoms and diagnose the ailment and speak it aloud, thereby vocally triggering – through sound recognition – the beginnings of the antidote, where the more you learn about the medical practices of the ailment, the healthier one becomes… “The objective of the theory is based upon the use of nanotechnology… as a learning tool of evolution, to locate to ‘trigger’ which can evolve the ‘power’ into either an advanced version or a combination of powers if utilized together (a cause and effect, not unlike the ‘triggers that cause dissolution of the hydrogel… to create many different packages that open up in response to unique combinations of environmental cues[,… which are] user-specified… using simple principles of Boolean logic’ mentioned in the internet publication of ‘Hydrogel Enables Biomaterials to Act Like Autonomous Computers’). “In continuation of hypothesis, a possible scenario to identify the trigger, may perhaps be a ‘trigger alert’ system, visual or physical,... “Another hypothetical scenario of the trigger theory pertains to emotional transference, where use of the internet within our biological wi-fi networking, or ‘common humanity’ ([DR. LEON KASS2] at 153), may provide for a direct influence of ourselves and, in turn, the environment around us, as well as those who are ‘friends’ within our biological ‘Facebook’ networking application program[.]” Id. at 377-381, 383 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 488 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET (NANOBIOTECHNOLOGY & INFORMED CONSENT), COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET (NANOBIOTECHNOLOGY & INFORMED CONSENT), COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 2022 FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET (NANOBIOTECHNOLOGY & INFORMED CONSENT), COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, dated December ... more FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET (NANOBIOTECHNOLOGY & INFORMED CONSENT), COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, dated December 13, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.): “ See Part III.E.3.f (¶193). See also ¶74 (Id. at 50) concerning a forthcoming affidavit concerning ‘threat to human life, through use of nano-robotics and its use [with] the internet’ [emphasis added] (specifically during PLAINTIFFs’ homeless)… “7[5]... DECEDENT acquiring Ovarian Cancer (for eleven years on experimental medication, authorized by MR. WILLIAMS, JR. and PLAINTIFF; allegedly being DOXIL and Cisplatin, both currently used by the internet for drug delivery. See a forthcoming affidavit on the threat to human life, through use of nano-robotics and the internet when homeless),..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 5 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact DEPRIVED ECONOMIC STATUS; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 2), EX. 20, Slip Law proposal "Deprived Economic Status," COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) DEPRIVED ECONOMIC STATUS; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 2), COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Ex. 20 (Slip Law Proposal), Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 2022 DEPRIVED ECONOMIC STATUS; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 2), dated March 21 2... more DEPRIVED ECONOMIC STATUS; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 2), dated March 21 2022, COMPLAINT, Doc. 2-9, 2-10, EX. 20, Slip Law proposal "Deprived Economic Status" (dated May 29, 2019), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.): Complaint, Doc. 2-9, 2-10, Exhibit 20, Slip Law proposal "Deprived Economic Status," "I. Introduction "Plaintiff seeks approval to enact an Act to Amend civil rights laws, specifically pertaining to Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (see P.L. 88-352, title VI, §601, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 252; 42 U.S.C §§ 2000d, et seq.), where such may include a reference to either "economic status," or "socioeconomic status" - as such exists within the Administrative Rules of the Unified Court System §100.3(B)(4), (B)(5) if the Uniform Rules of the Trial Courts, National Association of Administrative Law Judges and New York State Bar Association Canon 3(B)(4) of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct For State Administrative Law judges... "Such offering, Plaintiff states, is in light of public concern, for economically deprived, or restrained, citizens of the United States whose lives may be threatened by abusive civil rights offenses, whether by subversion within impoverishment, investment related, discriminated upon to obtain work (due to imprisonment or otherwise), or as an act of terror. "The filings of Plaintiffs'... 'Motion For Reconsideration' and 'Brief Upon Its Merits; Antitrust, Subversion & Domestic housing Terrorism' are sought for [ ] attention... "May 29, 2019" Deprived Economic Status (D.E.S.) as Modern Day Slavery Deprived Economic Status is how slavery is comparable to Pelagian mentalities of the Lutheran church. See "Pelagianism," as defined, is: "…also called Pelagian Heresy, a 5th-century Christian heresy taught by Pelagius and his followers that stressed the essential goodness of human nature and the freedom of the human will. Pelagius was concerned about the slack moral standards among Christians, and he hoped to improve their conduct by his teachings. Rejecting the arguments of those who claimed that they sinned because of human weakness, he insisted that God made human beings free to choose between good and evil and that sin is a voluntary act committed by a person against God’s law….” (Source: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Pelagianism). Such reference to modern day slavery is questioned alongside (i) the origin of law itself; (ii) the Canons of multiple religions; and (iii) the terminology for which we still continue to use, such as cestui que (so as to fully understand its significance in our modern world); as such also relates to the “Lemon Test,” and the role of religion within United States Courts. Modern forms of slavery, suffrage and societal belligerence include that of PLAINTIFF and his claims of Domestic housing Terrorism, where the financial institutions of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST and the landlords of PCV/ST are claimed to have committed acts of enslavement, subversion within impoverishment (not attrition), preventing him from acquiring the assets within his mothers trust (while accruing assets of tenants) and performing acts of enterprise corruption to keep him hidden upon the streets of New York City. Such claim is allegedly motivated by, and are equivalent to, a modern day discriminatory mentality against homeless or impoverished individuals, comparable to the mentality of Calvinists’, persecuting “sin[ners]” of “Socinianism and Pelagianism” (see “AN ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY; BOOK THE FOURTH,” by Johann Lorenz Mosheim, Charles Coote, George Gleig: “[i]f we are to judge of men’s sentiments by their words and declarations, the tenets of the Armenians,… bear a manifest resemblance to the Lutheran system. But the Calvinists did not judge in this manner,… they judged of their expres[sions] by their opinions[,… maintaining] that the Armenians… insinuate the poison of Socinianism and Pelagianism in unwary and unrestricted minds.” [emphasis added] Id. at 280, 281. See also See also “Essays in Medieval Culture,” by Durant Waite Robertson, referencing: “[Matthew] Arnold’s feeling that sin is ‘a positive, active entity hostile to man, a mysterious power[,’ and] further view that ‘the true greatness of Christiani[ty]’ lies in ‘righteousness,’ a view that seems to be taken… as Pelagian… ‘sin’ in most medieval contexts as ‘unwise conduct.’” See also “The Lutheran Church Review, Volume 20,” by Johann Lorenz Mosheim, Charles Coote, George Gleig: “Luther rose to proclaim [jus]tification by faith, and Calvin to set forth with his marlevous balance the whole doctrine of the work of the Spirit in apply[ing] salvation to the soul.” [emphasis added] Id. at 68. See also "Liber Albus: The White Book of the City of London," by John Carpenter: “[t]he Wardmote is so called as being a meeting together by summons of all the inhabitants of a Ward,… [and a]t such Wardmote also, those persons who are not free of the City, and who have not previously been sworn there to that effect, ought to be put upon frank-pledge[.]” Id. at 32, 34.) as though they were “put upon [ ]frank-pledge” (see “frankpledge” (www.blackwellreference.com) defined as: “‘free-pledge’… a system of neighbourhood surety and policing designed to rein in and if necessary discipline society's more unruly elements. The system can only be seen clearly in practical operation in the later Middle Ages, by which time it was a method of dragooning (usually unfree) peasants. The evidence, however, suggests that it was originally aimed at free subjects, those called ‘law-worthy’ in Old English texts... ensuring that all free males who had reached the age of 12 were to take an * oath of fealty to the king and his heirs[.]” [emphasis added]). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact DEPRIVED ECONOMIC STATUS; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 1), EX. 20, Slip Law proposal "Deprived Economic Status," COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) DEPRIVED ECONOMIC STATUS; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 1), COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Ex. 20 (Slip Law Proposal), Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 2022 DEPRIVED ECONOMIC STATUS; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 1), dated March 21 2... more DEPRIVED ECONOMIC STATUS; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS (FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET, PART 1), dated March 21 2022, COMPLAINT, Doc. 2-9, 2-10, EX. 20, Slip Law proposal "Deprived Economic Status" (dated May 29, 2019), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.): Deprived Economic Status (D.E.S.) as Modern Day Slavery Deprived Economic Status is how slavery is comparable to Pelagian mentalities of the Lutheran church. See "Pelagianism," as defined, is: "…also called Pelagian Heresy, a 5th-century Christian heresy taught by Pelagius and his followers that stressed the essential goodness of human nature and the freedom of the human will. Pelagius was concerned about the slack moral standards among Christians, and he hoped to improve their conduct by his teachings. Rejecting the arguments of those who claimed that they sinned because of human weakness, he insisted that God made human beings free to choose between good and evil and that sin is a voluntary act committed by a person against God’s law….” (Source: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Pelagianism). Such reference to modern day slavery is questioned alongside (i) the origin of law itself; (ii) the Canons of multiple religions; and (iii) the terminology for which we still continue to use, such as cestui que (so as to fully understand its significance in our modern world); as such also relates to the “Lemon Test,” and the role of religion within United States Courts. Modern forms of slavery, suffrage and societal belligerence include that of PLAINTIFF and his claims of Domestic housing Terrorism, where the financial institutions of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST and the landlords of PCV/ST are claimed to have committed acts of enslavement, subversion within impoverishment (not attrition), preventing him from acquiring the assets within his mothers trust (while accruing assets of tenants) and performing acts of enterprise corruption to keep him hidden upon the streets of New York City. Such claim is allegedly motivated by, and are equivalent to, a modern day discriminatory mentality against homeless or impoverished individuals, comparable to the mentality of Calvinists’, persecuting “sin[ners]” of “Socinianism and Pelagianism” (see “AN ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY; BOOK THE FOURTH,” by Johann Lorenz Mosheim, Charles Coote, George Gleig: “[i]f we are to judge of men’s sentiments by their words and declarations, the tenets of the Armenians,… bear a manifest resemblance to the Lutheran system. But the Calvinists did not judge in this manner,… they judged of their expres[sions] by their opinions[,… maintaining] that the Armenians… insinuate the poison of Socinianism and Pelagianism in unwary and unrestricted minds.” [emphasis added] Id. at 280, 281. See also See also “Essays in Medieval Culture,” by Durant Waite Robertson, referencing: “[Matthew] Arnold’s feeling that sin is ‘a positive, active entity hostile to man, a mysterious power[,’ and] further view that ‘the true greatness of Christiani[ty]’ lies in ‘righteousness,’ a view that seems to be taken… as Pelagian… ‘sin’ in most medieval contexts as ‘unwise conduct.’” See also “The Lutheran Church Review, Volume 20,” by Johann Lorenz Mosheim, Charles Coote, George Gleig: “Luther rose to proclaim [jus]tification by faith, and Calvin to set forth with his marlevous balance the whole doctrine of the work of the Spirit in apply[ing] salvation to the soul.” [emphasis added] Id. at 68. See also "Liber Albus: The White Book of the City of London," by John Carpenter: “[t]he Wardmote is so called as being a meeting together by summons of all the inhabitants of a Ward,… [and a]t such Wardmote also, those persons who are not free of the City, and who have not previously been sworn there to that effect, ought to be put upon frank-pledge[.]” Id. at 32, 34.) as though they were “put upon [ ]frank-pledge” (see “frankpledge” (www.blackwellreference.com) defined as: “‘free-pledge’… a system of neighbourhood surety and policing designed to rein in and if necessary discipline society's more unruly elements. The system can only be seen clearly in practical operation in the later Middle Ages, by which time it was a method of dragooning (usually unfree) peasants. The evidence, however, suggests that it was originally aimed at free subjects, those called ‘law-worthy’ in Old English texts... ensuring that all free males who had reached the age of 12 were to take an * oath of fealty to the king and his heirs[.]” [emphasis added]). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "FITTED R.E.: ENERGY SAVING TECHNIQUES (PART 3) (TRADE SECRET: MAGNETIC OSCILLATING CHAMBER)," Williams, 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.) "FITTED R.E.: ENERGY SAVING TECHNIQUES (PART 3) (TRADE SECRET: MAGNETIC OSCILLATING CHAMBER)," Williams, 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.), 2022 * "FITTED R.E.: ENERGY SAVING TECHNIQUES (PART 3) (TRADE SECRET: MAGNETIC OSCILLATING CHAMBER)... more * "FITTED R.E.: ENERGY SAVING TECHNIQUES (PART 3) (TRADE SECRET: MAGNETIC OSCILLATING CHAMBER)," dated April 4, 2022, Doc. 21 (dated April 18, 2019), Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.): "As stated within the 'Motion For Injunctive Relief: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Sé Intake Unit' ('Inj.,' Doc. 21 of Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.)), Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), sought damages against: (i) officers and officials of the United States Department of Justice ('U.S.D.O.J.') for claims of 'contempt and conspired retaliatory and discriminatory judicial estoppel (promissory and collateral)[,]… as an accessory after the fact to antitrust claims' (Id. at Inj. 38); (ii) financial institutions of the 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST' ('Trust LPSW.' Id. at 'Exhibit 4,' 3, 44, 69, 70); (iii) financial institutions in ownership of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST'); and (iv) other defendants for claims of civil rights offenses related to the illegal reinvesting of Trust LPSW assets into the community of PCV/ST, which induced a claimed illegal eviction and subversion within impoverishment. "As proposed within the Inj., PLAINTIFF sought damages to acquire 'appropriated gifts… as an additional interest (under FRAP 37(a); U.S. S.Ct. Rule 42.1), appropriated from funding for the validation of civil rights offenses (under Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 18 U.S.C. Ch. 13; 42 U.S.C. §2000d, et. seq., including 28 C.F.R. Part 0, 1, 9, Subpart I and J)…[as a reporting] crime victim[ ]' (Id. at 61), as well as other assets (including 'civil and criminal forfeiture (28 U.S.C. §2461).' Id. at 49), 'in conjunction with an offered settlement' (Id. at 45), where '[t]he establishment of a contract with the U.S. TREAS.,… may provide for numerous revolving accounts' (Id. at 86) and 'acquisition of federally owned lands as provided gifts (¶¶22, 30), or feoffment' (Id. at 125). “'12th Street & New York Avenue, Washington, D.C.' (Id.) was requested for the 'erecting of an office building, acting as the corporate offices to PLAINTIFFs’ to be established… real estate company [entitled ]‘Fitted R.E., LLC’[ ]' [highlighting and emphasis omitted] (Id. at 125, 126). 'Real property investments are intended for use[,]… either distressed or where major capital improvements to the property are sought for mandatory installations; as such is, hereafter, [ ] considered a ‘staple’ of Fitted R.E., primarily to accommodate energy saving techniques.' (Id. at 91)." * FOOTNOTE 1: This document is enforced under Federal laws pertaining to copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. §502), as well as financial and business trade secrets (5 U.S.C. §§552, 552a). See "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT (EXHIBITS 1 TO 48)," Docs. 112, 113, 133, dated April 18, 2019, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 21), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "FITTED R.E.: ENERGY SAVING TECHNIQUES (PART 2) (TRADE SECRET: REVERSE GRAVITY RETURN SYSTEM W/ GREYWATER RECYCLING)," Williams, 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.) "FITTED R.E.: ENERGY SAVING TECHNIQUES (PART 2) (TRADE SECRET: REVERSE GRAVITY RETURN SYSTEM W/ GREYWATER RECYCLING)," Williams, 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.), 2022 * "FITTED R.E.: ENERGY SAVING TECHNIQUES (PART 2) (TRADE SECRET: REVERSE GRAVITY RETURN SYSTEM... more * "FITTED R.E.: ENERGY SAVING TECHNIQUES (PART 2) (TRADE SECRET: REVERSE GRAVITY RETURN SYSTEM W/ GREYWATER RECYCLING)," dated April 4, 2022, Doc. 21 (dated April 18, 2019), Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.): "As stated within the 'Motion For Injunctive Relief: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Sé Intake Unit' ('Inj.,' Doc. 21 of Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.)), Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), sought damages against: (i) officers and officials of the United States Department of Justice ('U.S.D.O.J.') for claims of 'contempt and conspired retaliatory and discriminatory judicial estoppel (promissory and collateral)[,]… as an accessory after the fact to antitrust claims' (Id. at Inj. 38); (ii) financial institutions of the 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST' ('Trust LPSW.' Id. at 'Exhibit 4,' 3, 44, 69, 70); (iii) financial institutions in ownership of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST'); and (iv) other defendants for claims of civil rights offenses related to the illegal reinvesting of Trust LPSW assets into the community of PCV/ST, which induced a claimed illegal eviction and subversion within impoverishment. "As proposed within the Inj., PLAINTIFF sought damages to acquire 'appropriated gifts… as an additional interest (under FRAP 37(a); U.S. S.Ct. Rule 42.1), appropriated from funding for the validation of civil rights offenses (under Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 18 U.S.C. Ch. 13; 42 U.S.C. §2000d, et. seq., including 28 C.F.R. Part 0, 1, 9, Subpart I and J)…[as a reporting] crime victim[ ]' (Id. at 61), as well as other assets (including 'civil and criminal forfeiture (28 U.S.C. §2461).' Id. at 49), 'in conjunction with an offered settlement' (Id. at 45), where '[t]he establishment of a contract with the U.S. TREAS.,… may provide for numerous revolving accounts' (Id. at 86) and 'acquisition of federally owned lands as provided gifts (¶¶22, 30), or feoffment' (Id. at 125). “'12th Street & New York Avenue, Washington, D.C.' (Id.) was requested for the 'erecting of an office building, acting as the corporate offices to PLAINTIFFs’ to be established… real estate company [entitled ]‘Fitted R.E., LLC’[ ]' [highlighting and emphasis omitted] (Id. at 125, 126). 'Real property investments are intended for use[,]… either distressed or where major capital improvements to the property are sought for mandatory installations; as such is, hereafter, [ ] considered a ‘staple’ of Fitted R.E., primarily to accommodate energy saving techniques.' (Id. at 91)." * FOOTNOTE 1: This document is enforced under Federal laws pertaining to copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. §502), as well as financial and business trade secrets (5 U.S.C. §§552, 552a). See "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT (EXHIBITS 1 TO 48)," Docs. 112, 113, 133, dated April 18, 2019, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 21), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "FITTED R.E.: ENERGY SAVING TECHNIQUES (PART 1) (TRADE SECRET: SOLAR CRYSTALLIZED MICROFLUIDIC CELLS)," Williams, 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.) "FITTED R.E.: ENERGY SAVING TECHNIQUES (PART 1) (TRADE SECRET: SOLAR CRYSTALLIZED MICROFLUIDIC CELLS)," Williams, 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.), 2022 * "FITTED R.E.: ENERGY SAVING TECHNIQUES (PART 1) (TRADE SECRET: SOLAR CRYSTALLIZED MICROFLUI... more * "FITTED R.E.: ENERGY SAVING TECHNIQUES (PART 1) (TRADE SECRET: SOLAR CRYSTALLIZED MICROFLUIDIC CELLS)," dated April 4, 2022, Doc. 21 (dated April 18, 2019), Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.): "As stated within the 'Motion For Injunctive Relief: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Sé Intake Unit' ('Inj.,' Doc. 21 of Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.)), Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), sought damages against: (i) officers and officials of the United States Department of Justice ('U.S.D.O.J.') for claims of 'contempt and conspired retaliatory and discriminatory judicial estoppel (promissory and collateral)[,]… as an accessory after the fact to antitrust claims' (Id. at Inj. 38); (ii) financial institutions of the 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST' ('Trust LPSW.' Id. at 'Exhibit 4,' 3, 44, 69, 70); (iii) financial institutions in ownership of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST'); and (iv) other defendants for claims of civil rights offenses related to the illegal reinvesting of Trust LPSW assets into the community of PCV/ST, which induced a claimed illegal eviction and subversion within impoverishment. "As proposed within the Inj., PLAINTIFF sought damages to acquire 'appropriated gifts… as an additional interest (under FRAP 37(a); U.S. S.Ct. Rule 42.1), appropriated from funding for the validation of civil rights offenses (under Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 18 U.S.C. Ch. 13; 42 U.S.C. §2000d, et. seq., including 28 C.F.R. Part 0, 1, 9, Subpart I and J)…[as a reporting] crime victim[ ]' (Id. at 61), as well as other assets (including 'civil and criminal forfeiture (28 U.S.C. §2461).' Id. at 49), 'in conjunction with an offered settlement' (Id. at 45), where '[t]he establishment of a contract with the U.S. TREAS.,… may provide for numerous revolving accounts' (Id. at 86) and 'acquisition of federally owned lands as provided gifts (¶¶22, 30), or feoffment' (Id. at 125). “'12th Street & New York Avenue, Washington, D.C.' (Id.) was requested for the 'erecting of an office building, acting as the corporate offices to PLAINTIFFs’ to be established… real estate company [entitled ]‘Fitted R.E., LLC’[ ]' [highlighting and emphasis omitted] (Id. at 125, 126). 'Real property investments are intended for use[,]… either distressed or where major capital improvements to the property are sought for mandatory installations; as such is, hereafter, [ ] considered a ‘staple’ of Fitted R.E., primarily to accommodate energy saving techniques.' (Id. at 91)." * FOOTNOTE 1: This document is enforced under Federal laws pertaining to copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. §502), as well as financial and business trade secrets (5 U.S.C. §§552, 552a). See "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT (EXHIBITS 1 TO 48)," Docs. 112, 113, 133, dated April 18, 2019, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 21), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 441 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact “'FITTED R.E.' (FINANCIAL & BUSINESS TRADE SECRET OF A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER ‘FSB’ (FITTED SOLE BANK; A PRIVATE INVESTMENT BANK))," Williams, 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.) “'FITTED R.E.' (FINANCIAL & BUSINESS TRADE SECRET OF A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER ‘FSB’ (FITTED SOLE BANK; A PRIVATE INVESTMENT BANK))," Williams, 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.), 2022 * “'FITTED R.E.' (FINANCIAL & BUSINESS TRADE SECRET OF A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER ‘... more * “'FITTED R.E.' (FINANCIAL & BUSINESS TRADE SECRET OF A REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT FUND UNDER ‘FSB’ (FITTED SOLE BANK; A PRIVATE INVESTMENT BANK))," Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.): "As stated within the 'Motion For Injunctive Relief: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Sé Intake Unit' ('Inj.,' Doc. 21 of Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.)), Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), sought damages against: (i) officers and officials of the United States Department of Justice ('U.S.D.O.J.') for claims of 'contempt and conspired retaliatory and discriminatory judicial estoppel (promissory and collateral)[,]… as an accessory after the fact to antitrust claims' (Id. at Inj. 38); (ii) financial institutions of the 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST' ('Trust LPSW.' Id. at 'Exhibit 4,' 3, 44, 69, 70); (iii) financial institutions in ownership of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST'); and (iv) other defendants for claims of civil rights offenses related to the illegal reinvesting of Trust LPSW assets into the community of PCV/ST, which induced a claimed illegal eviction and subversion within impoverishment. "As proposed within the Inj., PLAINTIFF sought damages to acquire 'appropriated gifts… as an additional interest (under FRAP 37(a); U.S. S.Ct. Rule 42.1), appropriated from funding for the validation of civil rights offenses (under Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 18 U.S.C. Ch. 13; 42 U.S.C. §2000d, et. seq., including 28 C.F.R. Part 0, 1, 9, Subpart I and J)…[as a reporting] crime victim[ ]' (Id. at 61), as well as other assets (including 'civil and criminal forfeiture (28 U.S.C. §2461).' Id. at 49), 'in conjunction with an offered settlement' (Id. at 45), where '[t]he establishment of a contract with the U.S. TREAS.,… may provide for numerous revolving accounts' (Id. at 86) and 'acquisition of federally owned lands as provided gifts (¶¶22, 30), or feoffment' (Id. at 125). “'12th Street & New York Avenue, Washington, D.C.' (Id.) was requested for the 'erecting of an office building, acting as the corporate offices to PLAINTIFFs’ to be established… real estate company [entitled ]‘Fitted R.E., LLC’[ ]' [highlighting and emphasis omitted] (Id. at 125, 126). 'Real property investments are intended for use[,]… either distressed or where major capital improvements to the property are sought for mandatory installations; as such is, hereafter, [ ] considered a ‘staple’ of Fitted R.E., primarily to accommodate energy saving techniques.' (Id. at 91)." * FOOTNOTE 1: This document is enforced under Federal laws pertaining to copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. §502), as well as financial and business trade secrets (5 U.S.C. §§552, 552a). See "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT (EXHIBITS 1 TO 48)," Docs. 112, 113, 133, dated April 18, 2019, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 21), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, A FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET (A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE IMMUNITY W/IN SOVEREIGNTY), Williams, 18cv12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, A FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET (A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE IMMUNITY W/IN SOVEREIGNTY), Williams, 18cv12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), 2022 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, A FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET (A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE IMMUNITY W/IN SOVE... more INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, A FINANCIAL TRADE SECRET (A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE IMMUNITY W/IN SOVEREIGNTY), Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 21), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.): “ I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS (‘PLAINTIFF,’ Pro Sé),… move for injunctive relief (including forfeiture, discovery and restraining orders) for sanctioned orders on claims (FRAP 62.1(a)(3), (b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)) of contempt and conspired retaliatory and discriminatory judicial estoppel (promissory and collateral) (including criminal. 18 U.S.C. Ch. 233… which aided in subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact to antitrust claims sought within CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, App. Dock. Nos.19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.); where any injunctive order for damages may be stayed upon acceptance of an alternative dispute resolution agreement…" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact “'FITTED R.E.' & 'FSB' (TRADE SECRET: CONCEPTUALIZED INTERNET-BASED BUSINESS PLATFORM)," Williams, 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.) “'FITTED R.E.' & 'FSB' (TRADE SECRET: CONCEPTUALIZED INTERNET-BASED BUSINESS PLATFORM)," Williams, 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.), 2022 * “'FITTED R.E.' & 'FSB' (TRADE SECRET: CONCEPTUALIZED INTERNET-BASED BUSINESS PLATFORM)," dat... more * “'FITTED R.E.' & 'FSB' (TRADE SECRET: CONCEPTUALIZED INTERNET-BASED BUSINESS PLATFORM)," dated April 4, 2022, Doc. 21 (dated April 18, 2019), Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.): "As stated within the 'Motion For Injunctive Relief: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Sé Intake Unit' ('Inj.,' Doc. 21 of Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.)), Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), sought damages against: (i) officers and officials of the United States Department of Justice ('U.S.D.O.J.') for claims of 'contempt and conspired retaliatory and discriminatory judicial estoppel (promissory and collateral)[,]… as an accessory after the fact to antitrust claims' (Id. at Inj. 38); (ii) financial institutions of the 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST' ('Trust LPSW.' Id. at 'Exhibit 4,' 3, 44, 69, 70); (iii) financial institutions in ownership of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST'); and (iv) other defendants for claims of civil rights offenses related to the illegal reinvesting of Trust LPSW assets into the community of PCV/ST, which induced a claimed illegal eviction and subversion within impoverishment. "As proposed within the Inj., PLAINTIFF sought damages to acquire 'appropriated gifts… as an additional interest (under FRAP 37(a); U.S. S.Ct. Rule 42.1), appropriated from funding for the validation of civil rights offenses (under Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 18 U.S.C. Ch. 13; 42 U.S.C. §2000d, et. seq., including 28 C.F.R. Part 0, 1, 9, Subpart I and J)…[as a reporting] crime victim[ ]' (Id. at 61), as well as other assets (including 'civil and criminal forfeiture (28 U.S.C. §2461).' Id. at 49), 'in conjunction with an offered settlement' (Id. at 45), where '[t]he establishment of a contract with the U.S. TREAS.,… may provide for numerous revolving accounts' (Id. at 86) and 'acquisition of federally owned lands as provided gifts (¶¶22, 30), or feoffment' (Id. at 125). “'12th Street & New York Avenue, Washington, D.C.' (Id.) was requested for the 'erecting of an office building, acting as the corporate offices to PLAINTIFFs’ to be established… real estate company [entitled ]‘Fitted R.E., LLC’[ ]' [highlighting and emphasis omitted] (Id. at 125, 126). 'Real property investments are intended for use[,]… either distressed or where major capital improvements to the property are sought for mandatory installations; as such is, hereafter, [ ] considered a ‘staple’ of Fitted R.E., primarily to accommodate energy saving techniques.' (Id. at 91)." * FOOTNOTE 1: This document is enforced under Federal laws pertaining to copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. §502), as well as financial and business trade secrets (5 U.S.C. §§552, 552a). See "MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT (EXHIBITS 1 TO 48)," Docs. 112, 113, 133, dated April 18, 2019, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-11547 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) (Doc. 21), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 452 ViewsTop 3% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM (TRADE SECRET, PART 2), COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM (TRADE SECRET, PART 2), Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 2022 “III – STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM… “ DISCLAIMER #2 “ PRO SÉ DISCLOSURE STATEMENT “ This antitrust... more “III – STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM… “ DISCLAIMER #2 “ PRO SÉ DISCLOSURE STATEMENT “ This antitrust matter entails the financial institutions of the ‘LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST’ (Exhibit 1) (PERSHING, now B.N.Y.; UBS AG and CORRESPONDENT SERVICES CORPORATION, now F.M.R.; as well as the trust’s check clearing firms: JP MORGAN (JPSEC) and B.N.Y.) and affiliated financial institutions (including tranche trusts) to the community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town (‘PCV/ST’) (namely WACHOVIA, TRUST2007-C30 (BONDHOLDERS) and B.O.A.), as well as owners, managers and legal representatives of PCV/ST (namely TISHMAN, BLACKROCK, CWCAM, BORAH, GOLDSTEIN, ALTSCHULER, NAHINS & GOIDEL, COMPASSROCK, P.S.H. (and P.S.H.’s subsidiaries and affiliations, PSW, PCV/ST OWNER and G.G.P.A.M. (TRUST2006-C1), CWCAM (subsidiary of W.D.C.) and BLACKSTONE GRP.) and others. FRAP 26.1. “ The likelihood of antitrust offenses, as claimed, not only affect the general world economy, but also to citizens within dwellings run by financial institutions (whom have a ‘strong-arm’ of monopolized power and federally established rights to inspect financial documents of tenants), where the threat of domestic invasion is at the doorstep of an Anti-Jacksonian enslavement; a modern day Calvinist movement upon those without the financial means to enjoy the liberties for which this great and powerful Country was founded… Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM (TRADE SECRET, PART 1), COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM (TRADE SECRET, PART 1), Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 2022 DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM (TRADE SECRET, PART 1), COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, dated December 13, 2019, Ce... more DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM (TRADE SECRET, PART 1), COMPLAINT, Doc. 2, dated December 13, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.): “III – STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM… “ DISCLAIMER #2 “ PRO SÉ DISCLOSURE STATEMENT “ This antitrust matter entails the financial institutions of the ‘LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST’ (Exhibit 1) (PERSHING, now B.N.Y.; UBS AG and CORRESPONDENT SERVICES CORPORATION, now F.M.R.; as well as the trust’s check clearing firms: JP MORGAN (JPSEC) and B.N.Y.) and affiliated financial institutions (including tranche trusts) to the community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town (‘PCV/ST’) (namely WACHOVIA, TRUST2007-C30 (BONDHOLDERS) and B.O.A.), as well as owners, managers and legal representatives of PCV/ST (namely TISHMAN, BLACKROCK, CWCAM, BORAH, GOLDSTEIN, ALTSCHULER, NAHINS & GOIDEL, COMPASSROCK, P.S.H. (and P.S.H.’s subsidiaries and affiliations, PSW, PCV/ST OWNER and G.G.P.A.M. (TRUST2006-C1), CWCAM (subsidiary of W.D.C.) and BLACKSTONE GRP.) and others. FRAP 26.1. “ The likelihood of antitrust offenses, as claimed, not only affect the general world economy, but also to citizens within dwellings run by financial institutions (whom have a ‘strong-arm’ of monopolized power and federally established rights to inspect financial documents of tenants), where the threat of domestic invasion is at the doorstep of an Anti-Jacksonian enslavement; a modern day Calvinist movement upon those without the financial means to enjoy the liberties for which this great and powerful Country was founded… Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****/*] FEDERAL QUESTIONS, (15 pg.) "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HIGHLIGHTED INJUNCTIVE MOTION IN ANTICIPATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT" (Highlighted), Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.) [*****/*] FEDERAL QUESTIONS, (15 pg.) "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HIGHLIGHTED INJUNCTIVE MOTION IN ANTICIPATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT" (Highlighted), Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 [*****/*] FEDERAL QUESTIONS, "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HIGHLIGHTED INJUNCTIVE MOTION IN AN... more [*****/*] FEDERAL QUESTIONS, "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): HIGHLIGHTED INJUNCTIVE MOTION IN ANTICIPATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT" (highlighted), dated October 5, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.): " CERTIORARI QUESTIONS "1. 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 18 U.S.C. § 402 (dismissal for 'frivolous [ness];' U.S. Const. Am. 6, 10 ): " a. Whether the 'ORDER' (Appendix A, dated March 22, 2019) of HON. LOUIS L. STANTON was unconstitutionally provided to delay trial and lache upon naming all defendants and exhibits? U.S.Const. Am. 6, 10 ; 18 U.S.C. §402 . “ b.Whether the 'ORDER OF DISMISSAL' ('Dismissal,' Appendix B, Doc. '4' of Dock. No.18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); see Appendix X) of HON. STANTON, for 'frivolous [ness]' (28 USC1915(e)(2)(B)(i)), was unconstitutionally provided, and to issue sanctions for discriminatory and retaliatory contempt of court processes (18 U.S.C. §402), claimed to have induced a delay of trial and laches by the court to provide summonses to defendants after CHIEF J. HON. COLLEEN MCMAHON granted the In Forma (Doc. '6' of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix C) under 28 USC1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (a claim of postfiling delayed review, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a). See Question 3)? "2. J. Code 1.3 (C. 1) (‘[a] position to gain... differential treatment of any kind.’) (judicial estoppel, collateral and promissory, treasonous rebellion, under U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3, U.S. Const. Am. 5, 13 §3, 14 §§1, 4): “ a. Was HON. STANTON’s Dismissal executed in aid of (18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) UBS AG , Pershing, LLC and FMR (‘Fidelity,’ formerly Correspondent Services Corporation) (as alleged financial institutions of PLAINTIFFs ’ alleged custodial and irrevocable beneficial trust), as well as other securitized investments, including highlighted facts related to: (i) District Attorney’s Office of New York County (collaterally through the trial of PEOPLE v. STEVEN WILLIAMS, Dock. No. 2012NY089333(NYCC). U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 § 1); (ii) the New York Police Department officers of the Metropolitan Transit Authority (collaterally through trials of the Transit Adjudication Bureau. U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1), who previously utilized the financial assets of the New York State Department of Transportation, the dwelling of 2 Rector Street, within the community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town (‘PCV/ST’); (iii) the investments of UBS AG in Pershing Square Holdings Group, LLC’s Initial Public Offering; and (iv) the Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security investments of PCV/ST, WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-C30) (claimed a conspired act to evict PLAINTIFF to rid the community of rent stabilized tenants in order to raise dwelling unit prices to market-rate values; a claimed act of Domestic Housing Terrorism. U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3; U.S. Const. Am. 14 § 4), to further aid in subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment (U.S. Const. Am. 13 §3); all executed to gain the non-pursuance of PLAINTIFFs’ redress within the federal court system, under J. Code 1.3 (C. 1)? “ i.If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against HON. STANTON for such an act? “3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and 28 U.S.C. §1915 (‘postfiling delayed review’) : should a granted In Forma (Doc. ‘6’ of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix C) provide for authorization to proceed upon a complaint, and the issuance of summonses to defendants, which cannot be disregarded without examination of evidence (especially for antitrust claims)? 4.Validating antitrust claims (enforced under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act ): “ a. Should PLAINTIFFs’ ‘COMPLAINT’ (‘Comp.,’ Appendix D, Doc. ‘2’ of Dock. No.18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), filed December 20, 2018) presenting claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act be justifiable for the Court to enforce the standards of Plausibility , Parallelism and the alleged mandatory procedure to prove the existence of a contract (as delineated within the trials of ASHCROFT v. IQBAL (‘Matter of Iqbal’), 556 U.S. 678 (2002), BELL ATLANTIC CORP. v. TWOMBLY (‘Matter of Twombly’), 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) ( ‘[‘] a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of an illegal agreement[’ (‘Id. at 1965’),]’ Matter of Iqbal citing Matter of Twombly) and ERICKSON v. PARDUS , 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007)) and should such claims be a common procedure of the judicial government for proving antitrust offenses? “ i. If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against HON. STANTON for laching upon a pursuit to seek evidence of a contract under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 26? “5. 28 U.S.C. § 1927 : “ a. If sanctions are enforced against HON. STANTON for an unconstitutional dismissal, and antitrust claims are proven to have been escheated, should such provide for the enforcement of additional sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927? “6. U.S. Const. Am. 1, 5, 14 § 1 and 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1001(a): “ a. Should S.D.N.Y.’s PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT’s personal classification of PLAINTIFFs’ Comp.’s case type as ‘440 Civil Rights’[,]... when PLAINTIFF factually stated the matter concerned the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act within the Comp. and ‘NATURE OF SUIT & DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP’ (Doc ‘3’ of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); Appendix F)? “ i. If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? “7. U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1513; 44 U.S.C. §§3507(e)(3)(B), 3512: “ a. Are the actions by HON. STANTON to provide an dismissal be seen as retaliatory promissory and collateral discriminatory judicial estoppel (under U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371, 1513; 44 U.S.C. §§3507(e)(3)(B), 3512); collaterally associated to the trials of: CESTUI QUESTEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct), 137 U.S. 1611(No. 16M111, 2017); Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams , File No. 2013-3538(SCNY); PEOPLE v. STEVEN WILLIAMS, Dock. No.2012NY089333(NYCC); MARYLAND v. WILLIAMS, STEVEN T., No. ID00283543 (M.C. Dist.Ct.,2012); and ST OWNER LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC)? “ i.If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? “8. U.S. Const. Art. 3 and the ‘pendent jurisdiction’ rule): “ a. Should PLAINTIFFs’ claims involving collateral estoppel from circuit courts of New York State (namely: Estate of Linda Paula Streger Williams, File No. 2013-3538(SCNY); PEOPLE v. STEVENWILLIAMS, Dock. No. 2012NY089333(NYCC); and ST OWNER LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC)) be jurisdictionally enforced within the Federal Courts under U.S. Const. Art. 3 and the ‘pendent jurisdiction’ rule? “ i. If so, will sanctions for contempt (18 U.S.C §402) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? “ ii. Alternatively, U.S. Const. Art. 3 §3; U.S. Const. Am. 14 §4, are questioned for whether named defendants of this certiorari aided in antitrust offenses (under 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) upon validation of claims of PLAINTIFF’ drive r’s license and Mrs. Linda Paula Streger Williams (PLAINTIFFs’ mother’s) Social Security Numbers being allegedly exposed to the public by the local and federal court system (a matter of national security if his alleged trust ’ s funds were utilized to fund of terrorist organizations)? “ iii. Further, upon validation of aiding antirust claims as accessories after the fact (see subdivision (ii) above), will the Court provide for further questioning upon Fed. R. App. P. 27, L.R. 27(d), (g), (i) and L.R. 40.2 of the Local Rules and Internal Operating Procedures of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, local statute 22 NYCRR 500.20(d) (for collateral claims of pendent jurisdiction), the recently provided dismissals of CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES , ET AL ., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir. Ct.) and CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-240(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir. Ct.) (see Appendices G, H and I. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi)) and what delineates ‘an adequate, alternative mean[ ] of obtaining relief’ when judicial officials cite ‘Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)’ for a reason to dismiss reconsideration motions? “ A. Upon affirmation of a justified reconsideration by PLAINTIFF (see Appendix I. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi)), will the Court see just to provide a sua sponté order to reopen the above trials (Dock. Nos. 19-39 and 19-240), by writ of error, in question of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60? Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(JAC)(RJS)(SJM)(2nd Cir.), "PETITION FOR WAIVER OF OFFICIAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY," Doc. 146-1 "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS , CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF ,' Pro Sé),... petition for waiver of Offici... more "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS , CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF ,' Pro Sé),... petition for waiver of Official sovereign immunity for parallel and parallel plus antitrust claims (primarily under the Sherman Antitrust Act ) against UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE ('I.R.S.') and UNITED STATES SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ('S.S.A.') employees of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544 to 556, 570, 679, n. 14 P. 20 (2007), 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-67, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 5901, 'parallel conduct is … much like a naked assertion of conspiracy in a [15 U.S.C. ] §1 complaint [... (‘ Id. at 1965 ’).]' [emphasis added]) and State sovereign immunity against MR. AVROM R. VANN ( AVROM R. VANN, PC ) and BORAH, GOLDSTEIN, ALTSCHULER, NAHINS & GOIDEL , based upon using sought after damage awards as a proposed alternative resolution to induce a contractual structured settlement agreement (under U.S. Const. Art. 1 §10) for the UNITED STATES to obtain interest in substitute sale proceeds from a real property revolving credit fund; an example of the 'economic benefit doctrine … [(] Ennis v. Commissioner, 17 T.C. 465 (1951); Johnson v. Commissioner, 14 T.C. 560 (1950) [),]' [ ] or 'a quasi-public good , benefiting not only those who acquire it, but also society generally'[ ]) to achieve financial gain on an exponential level, acting as a supplement for any loss the UNITED STATES may have. U.S. Const. Art. 1 §§5 (business), 8 Cl. 3, Art. 3 §2, Cl. 1; U.S. Const. Am. 1, 11, 14 §5. See 'NOTICE OF MOTION ,' Doc. 27 of 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY) (COMP., App. H). See also a Cornell Law School publication,[ ] entitled 'STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY Purpose and Early Interpretation... "HON. CHIEF J. McMAHON’s dismissal... like HON. LORETTA PRESKA’s , is claimed not solely to have denied PLAINTIFF an opportunity to present supporting documents and evidence for a fair trial, but is claimed as being maliciously retaliatory, to deprive him constitutional rights of redress, 'us[ing his]... position to gain... differential treatment[,]' (J. Code 1.3, C. 1)) and to not take into account claims in the new COMP. See J. Code 2.11 (C. 3), '[t]he rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification.' See also 'Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases, Volume 2,' [ ] '‘[a]ccording to my Lord Coke, an estoppel is that which ‘shuts a man’s mouth from speaking the truth.’’' Id. at 335." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 4 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(JAC)(RJS)(SJM)(2nd Cir.), "MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (FED. R. CIV. P. 11(B))," Doc. 145-1 "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS , CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF ,' Pro Sé),... move for sanctions against: (... more "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS , CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF ,' Pro Sé),... move for sanctions against: (i) STEVEN TERNER MNUCHIN , Secretary of the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY (“ U.S. TREAS. ,” in his official capacity over the I.R.S. and S.S.A. ); (ii) CHARLES P. RETTIG , Commissioner of the UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (“ I.R.S. ,” in his official capacity over I.R.S. agents JOHN DOE (1) and JOHN DOE (2) ); (iii) ANDREW M. SAUL , Commissioner of the UNITED STATES SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (“ S.S.A. ,” in his official capacity over: (a) ROYCE B. MIN , acting general counsel; and (b) RAYMOND S. EGAN , N.Y.S. Commissioner; in his official capacity over N.Y. County S.S.A. & JANE DOE (1) ); (iv) MR. AVROM R. VANN (of AVROM R. VANN, PC ); and (v) senior partners of BORAH, GOLDSTEIN, ALTSCHULER, NAHINS & GOIDEL, PC , where the main appellate trial is in Dock. No. 20-451 (2nd Cir.) was denied opportunity to file a sanctions motion in the District Court docket of 19-cv-11547-UA(CM)(SDNY). Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). See 67 Fordham L. Rev. 589 (1998), 1 entitled “ Rule 11 and the Profession ” (by Georgene Vairo)[.]" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 28 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF ERROR, Doc. 235, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF ERROR, Doc. 235, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, SUBSEQUENT JURSDICTION, Doc. 234, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, SUBSEQUENT JURSDICTION, Doc. 234, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] Doc. 262, “PEER-TO- PEER” NETWORKING - INTERNET INTRUSION ("educational purposes" Id. at 6, Aff. at 182), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) [*****] Doc. 262, “PEER-TO- PEER” NETWORKING - INTERNET INTRUSION ("educational purposes" Id. at 6, Aff. at 182), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 [*****] Doc. 262, "SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226], on behalf of Appellant Mr. Steven Talber... more [*****] Doc. 262, "SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226], on behalf of Appellant Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, FILED. Service date 04/25/2020 by CM/ECF, email, US mail.[2826269][262] [20-451] [Entered: 04/25/2020 04:24 PM]" ("MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE (ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF WILLIAMS V. USA, ET AL., 15CV5114(LAP)(SDNY))"), "PART F.1.c.iii – USE OF OPEN INTERNET ACCESS & INTRUSION: USE OF “PEER-TO- PEER” NETWORKING DURING FINANCIAL HARDSHIP," dated April 24, 2020, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.): MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE (ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF WILLIAMS V. USA, ET AL., 15CV5114(LAP)(SDNY)): "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in association with the NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL (Doc. 1, filed February 3, 2020) and In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 71), in abidance with Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(2)(B)(ii), Fed. R. Civ. P. 32, Fed. R. Crim. P. 60 and FRAP 27, move for the introduction of evidence of the original complaint for Williams v. USA, et al., 15cv5114(LA)(SDNY). See Nycourts.gov[ ('https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/4-RELEVANCE/4.11_CHARACTER%20EVIDENCE.pdf.%E2%80%9D'),] 'People v Mullin, 41 NY2d 475, 479 [1977].) This exclusionary rule is ‘one, not of logic, but of policy.’ ([‘People v Zackowitz, 254 NY 192, 197[, 198,] [1930]].’).'" "PART F – INTERNET INTRUSION & ELECTRONIC TAMPERING... "“The [N.Y.S.D.F.S.] has been closely monitoring the ever-growing threat posed to information and financial systems by nation-states, terrorist organizations and independent criminal actors. Recently, cybercriminals have sought to exploit technological vulnerabilities to gain access to sensitive electronic data. Cybercriminals can cause significant financial losses for [N.Y.S.D.F.S.] regulated entities as well as for New York consumers whose private information may be revealed and/or stolen for illicit purposes. The financial services industry is a significant target of cybersecurity threats.” - 23 NYCRR §500, depicted within a N.Y.S.D.F.S. publication,[ ] entitled “CYBERSECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANIES” (by SUP. MARIA T. VULLO). “[T]elecommunications and computer networks are targeted for the information that they carry. Industry depends on telecommunication networks, including the Internet and other data networks, to quickly disseminate information that must ne shared nu geographically dispersed domestic and international activities. The telecommunications system has become a vital part of the economic infrastructure of the United States and the information that it carries has become an important factor im the production of national wealth. Unless it is protected, this information is susceptible to interception while being transmitted while being transmitted or while it is resident in a networked computer. “In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Kenneth G. Ingram, Director of Product Development at AT&T, stated that his corporation spends in excess of three billion dollars per year on research and development, and has been subject to numerous attempts to steal property data. These included attempts by electronic intruders to access and obtain information from proprietary databases. He also noted that any information transmitted through international carriers… is subject to electronic commercial interception, and that such information is likely to be compromised. He stated that there was a significant need for exportable commercial encryption systems for protection of intellectual property. (INGRAM92)… “There is growing evidence of the use of electronic intrusion techniques by industrial spies. Electronic intruders have reported being offered substantial sums of money to gather information on corporations. There is also evidence that technical intelligence officers from disbanded Eastern European foreign intelligence services,… are stealing their talents to the highest bidder.” Id. at 2-17. - The Electronic Intrusion Threat to National Security and Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications[ ] (by DIANE Publishing Company, 1998) “[T]he term ‘exceeds authorized access’ means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter[.]” - 18 U.S.C. §1030(e)(6) “The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (‘CISA’)… has two main components. First, it authorizes companies to monitor and implement defensive measures on their own information systems to counter cyber threats. Second, CISA provides certain protections to encourage companies voluntarily to share information—specifically, information about ‘cyber threat indicators’ and ‘defensive measures’— with the federal government, state and local governments, and other companies and private entities.” “In authorizing companies to implement monitoring and defensive mechanisms on their information systems, the legislation responded to fears that certain such activities could result in liability, including under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The protections to encourage companies [3] to share information were meant to address concerns that sharing information with the government or other parties could risk litigation for violating privacy and antitrust laws, among others, as well as risk disclosure under FOIA and the waiver of privilege.” - Federal Guidance on the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015,[ ] a Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (by Mr. Brad S. Karp of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, dated March 3, 2016) “[A]ny person who… intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication[ ]… shall be punished… or shall be subject to suit[.]” - 18 U.S.C. §2511(1)(a) "PART F.1.c.iii – USE OF OPEN INTERNET ACCESS & INTRUSION: USE OF “PEER-TO- PEER” NETWORKING DURING FINANCIAL HARDSHIP:" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] Doc. 262, “PEER-TO- PEER” NETWORKING - INTERNET INTRUSION (FSP - Book 1, Music), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) [*****] Doc. 262, “PEER-TO- PEER” NETWORKING - INTERNET INTRUSION (FSP - Book 1, Music), Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 [*****] Doc. 262, "SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226], on behalf of Appellant Mr. Steven Talber... more [*****] Doc. 262, "SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226], on behalf of Appellant Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, FILED. Service date 04/25/2020 by CM/ECF, email, US mail.[2826269][262] [20-451] [Entered: 04/25/2020 04:24 PM]" ("MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE (ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF WILLIAMS V. USA, ET AL., 15CV5114(LAP)(SDNY))"), “PEER-TO- PEER” NETWORKING - INTERNET INTRUSION, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), dated April 24, 2020, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.): "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in association with the NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL (Doc. 1, filed February 3, 2020) and In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 71), in abidance with Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(2)(B)(ii), Fed. R. Civ. P. 32, Fed. R. Crim. P. 60 and FRAP 27, move for the introduction of evidence of the original complaint for Williams v. USA, et al., 15cv5114(LA)(SDNY). See Nycourts.gov[ ('https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/4-RELEVANCE/4.11_CHARACTER%20EVIDENCE.pdf.%E2%80%9D'),] 'People v Mullin, 41 NY2d 475, 479 [1977].) This exclusionary rule is ‘one, not of logic, but of policy.’ ([‘People v Zackowitz, 254 NY 192, 197[, 198,] [1930]].’).'" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 17, "AMENDED COMPLAINT" (p.29, ¶21), Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) Doc. 17, "AMENDED COMPLAINT" (p.29, ¶21), Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 2015 Doc. 17, "AMENDED COMPLAINT" (p.29, ¶21), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et... more Doc. 17, "AMENDED COMPLAINT" (p.29, ¶21), Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.) APPENDIX I (Id. at App. I.c, p.59, ¶21), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (ALK)(DJ)(BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611(2017) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact APPENDIX I (Id. at App. I.c, p.59, ¶21), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.) APPENDIX I (Id. at App. I.c, p.59, ¶21), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2016 "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), AP... more "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), APPENDIX I (Id. at App. I.c, p.59), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) “AMENDED COMPLAINT” – “Document 17,” dated December 3, 2015 within Docket No. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), emphasizing Title II, Part A, ¶21 (57, App. I.3). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.) "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (DRAFT) (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2016 PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (DRAFT) (HIDDEN FROM DOCKE... more PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (DRAFT) (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), dated December 20, 2016, In Re. Docs. 64-67, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (ALK)(DJ)(BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Sé), present this petition for leave to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ('2nd Cir. Ct.') requesting permission to proceed with adjudication, in the interest of justice and national security, within the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.'), located within the province of District of Columbia (28 U.S.C. §1257(a)). Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 5(a)(1), (a)(3), (c), 12.1, 32(c)(2); L.R. 27.1(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 47(a), 60(b)(2); 18 U.S.C. §§3173, 3174, 3771(a), (b), (d)(1); 28 U.S.C.§§1257(a), 1657, 2101(f)... See COHENS v. VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264, 419, 420 (1821)... See also a Federal Judicial Center publication, entitled 'History of the Federal Judiciary,'" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 17 - Doc. 17.7, "AMENDED COMPLAINT" (ALL DOCS.), Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) "30-60 DAY AMENDED COMPLAINT" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Petition For Redress (HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS) (Abstract), Doc. 2, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.) Petition For Redress (HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS) (Abstract), Doc. 2, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 2015 Petition For Redress (HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS) (Abstract), Doc. 2, Cestui Que Steven Talbert William... more Petition For Redress (HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS) (Abstract), Doc. 2, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017): Abstract “PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES” (HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS) Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 U.S. 1611 (2017, Motion To Direct) See COMPLAINT (Redress), Doc. 2, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.): REASONS FOR THE PETITION: - To address antitrust claims of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST which caused Civil Rights claims - Antitrust claims are INTENDED to be presented within PRELIMINARY DISCOVERY CONFERENCES - To address PRETRIAL HEARINGS for claimed prima facie evidence against: (i) NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE for laches to remand to a superior court the trial of People v. Steven Talbert Williams, Index 2012NY089333; and (ii) Public Officers of the METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY.(a claimed DELAY to adjudicate upon an UNCONSTITUTIONAL Kings County (Brooklyn, NY) S.Ct. JUDGMENT (which excluded an index number). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Petition For Redress (HIDDEN), Doc. 2, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.) Petition For Redress (HIDDEN), Doc. 2, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 2015 Petition For Redress (HIDDEN) (COMPLAINT), Doc. 2, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United S... more Petition For Redress (HIDDEN) (COMPLAINT), Doc. 2, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017); People v. Williams, Steven, Violation No. 109705119(TAB); ST Owner LP v. Steven Williams; Eugene Williams, Index No. 529069/12; People v. Steven Talbert Williams, Index No. 2012NY089333: THE REASONING OF THE PETITION: - To address antitrust claims of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST which caused Civil Rights claims - Antitrust claims are presented within PRELIMINARY CONFERENCES (DISCOVERY CONFERENCES) - To address PRETRIAL HEARINGS for claimed prima facie evidence against: (i) NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE for laches to remand to a superior court the trial of People v. Steven Talbert Williams, Index 2012NY089333; and (ii) Public Officers of the METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY. (a claimed DELAY to adjudicate upon an UNCONSTITUTIONAL Kings County (Brooklyn, NY) S.Ct. JUDGMENT (which excluded an index number). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES Nature of Suit: Civil Rights / Other (Antitrust) "This petition is... to be presented to Congress, as such is in enforcement of the Petitioner's First Amendment rights. This document is in accordance with its use as a complaint, as regulated by Civ. R. 27(a)(4)[ ] and... Civ. R. 27 (b)(3)... "[A] requested pretrial conference has been established, by way of Civ. R. 16,... [i]s requested within the attached 'Letter to the Clerk[']... "1. The Petitioner, under 42 USC 1983, by way of Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Laws & Regulations ('CPLR'), states this redress is caused, primarily, by the events which proceeded after the disputed eviction[,]... evidenced through ST Owner LP v. Steven Williams; Eugene Williams [Index No. 529069/12]... " (e) He claims such eviction was due to the insolvency of the Estate of Linda P. S. Williams, which pertains to the [PCV/ST ]owner's having knowledge of the decedent's... trust fund and firms and with a renter's insurance fraud, whose policy was placed on the dwelling unit of 449 East 14th street, apartment 7d New York, NY 10009. " (f) He claims this eviction is the cause to all alleged offences of this petition and should be investigated thoroughly to prove such. "2. This petition, the Petitioner states, is in relevance to a false imprisonment within the Montgomery County Correctional Facility ('MCCF')... " (b) He states, such matter shall have to be addressed after the requested enjoining of the estate going to probate... "3. As a matter of jurisdiction, the Petitioner states this petition shall deal first and foremost,... with a class action suit with... police officers who provided an allegedly illegal accusatory instrument, for which is mentioned in the attached, incomplete, deposition supporting this petition. "4. As a matter of jurisdiction,... this petition shall deal secondly with the neglect of the District Attorney ('D.A.') of the county of New York surrounding the case of People v. Steven Talbert Williams Index No. 2012NY089333... "PART II - REASON FOR IMMEDIATE ADJUDICATION FOR GRIEVANCES... "[5]. The Petitioner, as a process of immediacy, insists allowance by the SDNY to expedite the proceeding of the Transit Adjudication Bureau[,]... as opposed to addressing the abandoned [dismissal ]motion and adjournment of... People v. Steven Talbert Williams[, ]Index No. 2012NY089333[ ]... " (a) He insists the court enjoin the two proceedings... "[6]. The Petitioner states the TAB trial concerning an accusatory instrument,... has been extended from its original date[,]... to be held on July 1st, 2015... "[8]. The Petitioner insists the court see fit to relate all matters of redress contained within the petition to the insolvency of the Estate of Linda P. S. Williams and the disputed eviction... " (a) He alleges the eviction was perpetrated through the illegal withholding of information... " (1) He states he requested the lease of renewal be signed in his name. He claims he provided two years of bill payments, paid on the property in his name, and presented such verification to the legal representative of [PCV/ST]... " (B) Additionally, he attests to facts that the case title was intentionally altered to ST Owner LP v. Eugene Williams, suggesting his father, 'Eugene Williams,' initiated trial proceedings when in fact his father never took part in any of the events. The Petitioner claims it was solely himself who provided the initial Order to Show Cause, as he represented himself as a pro se litigant... " (2) He states, not only had he provided such proof of succession, but the lawyer insisted other proof[,]... 'something official from the government,' to which the Petitioner then returned home, acquired a letter from the Internal Revenue Service ('IRS')[,]... an offense under civil rights governing... national origin... " (c) He states such forceful eviction, which deactivated his key card to allow entry into his apartment building, the destruction of his upper lock and the removal of all property were all illegal activities... " (1) He claims the displacement has brought upon unwarranted hardships and discrepancies between the relationships[,]... as well as attempts to complete tax filings... "[10]. Petitioner provided service of an 'Order to Show Cause' upon Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., located at 377 Broadway New York, N.Y. 10013-3993... "[11]. The Petitioner, as mentioned in Title VII[,] highlights the following essential facts as being worthy of noting: a renters' insurance policy attached to the real property; withheld from obtaining a new lease by CWCap.;... Petitioners' tax returns which would have prevented eviction[;]... and other financial assets of the estate, which, if probated, would have provided the Petitioner a surety of protection,... such as a Testamentary Trust, naming the Petitioner as sole beneficiary, and life insurance policies, which include amounts for accidental death benefits. The accidental death benefits are in light of the decedents' eleven year battle with cancer;... "[12]. The Petitioner, claims the eviction was an act perpetrated by CWCap. to intentionally rid rent stabilized tenants from the community in order to receive a greater return through market valued apartments,... CWCap. executed such, as the Petitioner claims, with and overwhelming prejudice against stabilized tenants[,]... with partial prejudice towards tenants of color and economic status. "[13]. The Petitioner insists the court place a focus on past ownership and their inquiries into financial background checks of tenants,... [which] would have provided CWCap. knowledge of the decedent’s Trust, life insurance policies and other personal information[,]... aid[ing] in establishing motive for the alleged improper eviction. "[15]. The eviction, the Petitioner alleges, was in order to prevent him from obtaining the beneficial assets of the Decedent,... so long as he was suppressed under events of duress." Id. at Redress, Doc. 2, 10-15. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), DOCKET Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), DOCKET, 2015 DOCKET, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.),... more DOCKET, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189cv (ALK) (DJ) (BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611 (2017): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2015cv05114/444216 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Journal October Term 2016, Williams, 137 U.S. 1611 (2017) Journal October Term 2016, Williams, 137 U.S. 1611 (2017), 2016 Journal October Term 2016, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 137 U.S. ... more Journal October Term 2016, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 137 U.S. 1611 (2017) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact EXHIBIT 3 (FDIC Correspondence No. 1), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.) EXHIBIT 3 (FDIC Correspondence No. 1), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.) EXHIBIT 3 (FDIC Correspondence No. 1), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The ... more EXHIBIT 3 (FDIC Correspondence No. 1), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (DRAFT) (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), dated December 20, 2016, In Re. Docs. 64-67, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (ALK)(DJ)(BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.): EXHIBIT 3 FDIC correspondence No. 1: “FDIC Reply [[(blackened out 'Ref. No.')]],” (from “<FDICInforeq@fdic.gov>”) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact EXHIBIT 4 (FDIC Correspondence No. 2), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.) EXHIBIT 4 (FDIC Correspondence No. 2), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2016 EXHIBIT 4 (FDIC Correspondence No. 2), "PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ... more EXHIBIT 4 (FDIC Correspondence No. 2), "PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" (DRAFT) (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), dated December 20, 2016, In Re. Docs. 64-67, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (ALK)(DJ)(BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.): EXHIBIT 4 FDIC correspondence No. 2: “Fwd: Incident - [(blackened out ‘Incident’ number)],” (from “<FDICInforeq@fdic.gov>”) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact EXHIBIT 19 (NEW EVIDENCE, Wachovia Trust 2007-C30's Intercreditor Agreement), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.) EXHIBIT 19 (NEW EVIDENCE, Wachovia Trust 2007-C30's Intercreditor Agreement), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2016 EXHIBIT 19 (NEW EVIDENCE, Wachovia Trust 2007-C30's Intercreditor Agreement), "Petition For Leave... more EXHIBIT 19 (NEW EVIDENCE, Wachovia Trust 2007-C30's Intercreditor Agreement), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (DRAFT) (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), dated December 20, 2016, In Re. Docs. 64-67, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (ALK)(DJ)(BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.): Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C30's Intercreditor Agreement as exhibited within PSW NYC LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., Index No. 650390/2016 (highlighting pages) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact EXHIBIT 13 (NEW EVIDENCE, Pershing Square Holding's IPO Prospectus), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.) EXHIBIT 13 (NEW EVIDENCE, Pershing Square Holding's IPO Prospectus), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2016 EXHIBIT 13 (NEW EVIDENCE, Pershing Square Holding's IPO), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Su... more EXHIBIT 13 (NEW EVIDENCE, Pershing Square Holding's IPO), "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States," (DRAFT) (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), dated December 20, 2016, In Re. Docs. 64-67, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (ALK)(DJ)(BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.): EXHIBIT 13 (NEW EVIDENCE, Pershing Square Holding's IPO PROSPECTUS) PSH’s IPO PROSPECTUS Exhibiting the Company’s pages include: Title, 2, 16, 22, 24, 62, 71-72, 101-103, 106, 117, 124-125, 133, 199, 232, 235, 238, 240 & 243 See "https://www.pershingsquareholdings.com/media/2014/09/Prospectus-Dated-2-October-2014.pdf” for the PROSPECTUS presented in its entirety. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (NEW EVIDENCE, Pershing Square Holding's IPO) "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.) (NEW EVIDENCE, Pershing Square Holding's IPO) "Petition For Leave To Appeal To The Supreme Court Of The United States" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), In Re. Docs. 64-67, Williams, 15-cv-5114 (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2016 PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (DRAFT) (HIDDEN FROM DOCKE... more PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (DRAFT) (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), dated December 20, 2016, In Re. Docs. 64-67, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), 16-189 (ALK)(DJ)(BDP) (2nd Cir. Ct.): "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Sé), present this petition for leave to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ('2nd Cir. Ct.') requesting permission to proceed with adjudication, in the interest of justice and national security, within the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.'), located within the province of District of Columbia (28 U.S.C. §1257(a)). Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 5(a)(1), (a)(3), (c), 12.1, 32(c)(2); L.R. 27.1(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 47(a), 60(b)(2); 18 U.S.C. §§3173, 3174, 3771(a), (b), (d)(1); 28 U.S.C.§§1257(a), 1657, 2101(f)... See COHENS v. VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264, 419, 420 (1821)... See also a Federal Judicial Center publication, entitled 'History of the Federal Judiciary,'" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 17 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "CIVIL DOCKET," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "CIVIL DOCKET" (supplement), Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 1, "REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) (highlighted), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que Doc. 1, "REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) (highlighted), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que, Jun 30, 2015 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 2, "COMPLAINT," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) (ESTOPPEL), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que THE CLAIMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL FILING BY THE UNITED STATES SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF NEW YORK OF A... more THE CLAIMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL FILING BY THE UNITED STATES SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF NEW YORK OF A COMPLAINT, CONSISTING OF A PETITION FOR REDRESS AND DEPOSITION. A DEPOSITION, UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 5(d)(1)(a), CANNOT BE FILED AS A COMPLAINT. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 16 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 2 (In Ref. - ESTOPPEL) (PART 1), COMPLAINT, "LETTER TO THE CLERK (PRETRIAL CONFERENCES / ASSIGNING OF MAGISTRATE)," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que "in accordance with Rule 7(a)(1) of the Federal Ruled of Civil Procedure[,... and] immediate assi... more "in accordance with Rule 7(a)(1) of the Federal Ruled of Civil Procedure[,... and] immediate assigning of a magistrate judge, as stated within Civ. R. 16(c)(2)(H)[.]" Id. at 6. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 2 (In Ref. - ESTOPPEL) (PART 2), COMPLAINT, "PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que "This petition is... to be presented to Congress, as such is in enforcement of the Petitioner's F... more "This petition is... to be presented to Congress, as such is in enforcement of the Petitioner's First Amendment rights. This document is in accordance with its use as a complaint, as regulated by Civ. R. 27(a)(4)[ ] and... Civ. R. 27 (b)(3)." Id. at 10-11. THE REASONING OF THE PETITION WAS TO ADDRESS THE TRUST AND REINVESTING OF WHICH CAUSED CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS WITHIN PRELIMINARY CONFERENCES (DISCOVERY CONFERENCES) AND A PRETRIAL HEARINGS FOR CLAIMED PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE AGAINST: (i) NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE LACHES FOR People v. Steven Talbert Williams, Index 2012NY089333; AND (ii) PUBLIC OFFICERS OF THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY. - THE DELAY TO ADJUDICATE UPON PUBLIC OFFICERS ALLEGEDLY INDUCED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUPREME COURT OF KINGS COUNTY JUDGMENT (which excluded an index number). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 2 (In Ref. - ESTOPPEL) (PART 3), COMPLAINT, "DEPOSITION IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que "[T]his deposition is presented in a order of immediacy, as opposed to the attached petition for ... more "[T]his deposition is presented in a order of immediacy, as opposed to the attached petition for redress,... in accordance with Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure... This dicument is in accordance with its use as a complaint, as regulated by Civ. R. 27(a)(4),... as not to delay justice,... as stipulated within Civ. R. 27 (b)(3). "This deposition... seeks to rectify its completion once a pretrial conference has been established, by way of Civ. R. 16,... [and 18 USC] §3152(a)[,... which] shall not only discuss the approving of his In Forma Pauperis, but also present topics[,] such as: [(i) ]the order in which proceedings are to be held; [(ii) ] the importance of a gift allowance (conceptually modified[); (iii)]... the adoption of... a planning group[; (iv)]... the establishment and coordination of a grand jury [18 USC 3334]; and other topics of immediacy, such as the filing of papers Nunc-Pro-Tunc." Id. at 19. THE REASONING OF THE DEPOSITION WAS TO HOLD PRELIMINARY CONFERENCES (DISCOVERY CONFERENCES) AND A PRETRIAL HEARINGS FOR CLAIMED PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE AGAINST: (i) NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE LACHES FOR People v. Steven Talbert Williams, Index 2012NY089333; AND (ii) PUBLIC OFFICERS OF THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY. - THE DELAY TO ADJUDICATE UPON PUBLIC OFFICERS ALLEGEDLY INDUCED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUPREME COURT OF KINGSCOUNTY JUDGMENT (which excluded an index number). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 3, "MOTION IN OMNIBUS," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que "These series of motions are in reference to cases: " - Transit Adjudication Bureau [ ] c... more "These series of motions are in reference to cases: " - Transit Adjudication Bureau [ ] court (accusatory instrument) and the scheduled 'closed door' hearing on July 1, 2015[;]... " - People v. Steven Talbert Williams [Index No. 2012NY089333]; " - ST Owner LP v. Eugene Williams (previously titled, ST Owner LP v. Steven Williams; Eugene Williams) [Index No. 52069/12]; and " - the requested enjoining of matter surrounding the Estate of Linda P. S. Williams... "THIS MOTION IN OMNIBUS US NOT IN ITS ENTIRNTY DUE TO CONSTRAINTS OF TIME..." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 3 (In Ref.) (PART 1), MOTION IN OMNIBUS, "MOTION IN OMNIBUS," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que "Petitioner insists the court grant the availability to introduce evidence... [CPL[ ]] §710.30 an... more "Petitioner insists the court grant the availability to introduce evidence... [CPL[ ]] §710.30 and Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He states this motion is viable to conclude upon a fair trial and may even save burden upon the court by providing opportunity for a substantial interlocutory judgment, as stated within... his Deposition in Support of Redress for Grievances, in support of the United States Constitution." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 3 (In Ref.) (PART 2), MOTION IN OMNIBUS, "MOTION FOR STAY OF ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT (DEMURRER/QUASH)," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que "Petitioner motions for the stay of the accusatory instrument, as stated in 28 USC §§ 1441 & 1446... more "Petitioner motions for the stay of the accusatory instrument, as stated in 28 USC §§ 1441 & 1446(b)(2). and mentioned in TITLE I, PART I, paragraph 7 of his Deposition in Support of Redress for Grievances[ (evidenced in Doc. 2 at 46, "EXHIBIT # 1")]. As cited from paragraph 8 of the same part and title, the Petitioner '...seeks the affirmation of the district court for an appellate decision...,' as stated within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure... 12(c), the Criminal Procedure Law... §470.15(6)(b) and the New York State Constitution 6S4 §3." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 3 (In Ref. - ESTOPPEL) (PART 3), MOTION IN OMNIBUS, "MOTION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que "[P]etitioner,, in order to address the alleged illegalities of the two MTA officers as those bei... more "[P]etitioner,, in order to address the alleged illegalities of the two MTA officers as those being of a bias nature upon himself and upon a[n] economic class of people, he requests the remanding of the TAB court trial to the Federal Court of Claims, as delineated within 28 USC 798(a) and §10 of the Court of Claims Act. as such would be as [ ] to enter into a new trial, in accordance with 42 USC 1983[ and] §17 of the Public Officers Law ('PBO'). He asserts such empowerment [be ]granted under 28 USC §§1441(c)(1)(A) & 1455 for providing notices of removal and requests jurisdiction be empowered under the Multiparty/Multiforum classification of 28 USC 1369. The granting of [a] Writ of Certiorari, in abidance with 18 USC 3150, shall be held in SDNY (state courts), as depicted within 28 USC 1257 and also stated within [the[ Deposition in Support of Redress of Grievances." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 3 (In Ref.) (PART 4), MOTION IN OMNIBUS, "MOTION FOR ALLOWANCE NUNC-PRO-TUNC," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que "for the allowance of the Petitioner to file this omnibus, amendments to [the] 'Petition for Redr... more "for the allowance of the Petitioner to file this omnibus, amendments to [the] 'Petition for Redress of Grievances,' Deposition In Support of Redress of Grievances,' motions and other documents specifically on the date in which he first made fil[ings] with the prose office of the SDNY, nun-pro-tunc... [A]s such basic allowances would be given to a person within a stable residence ot when addressing innocence to an accusatory instrument." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 3 (In Ref.) (PART 5), MOTION IN OMNIBUS, "MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que "Petitioner, under 28 USC 1292(b), insists upon an interlocutory judgment... by way of pretrial c... more "Petitioner, under 28 USC 1292(b), insists upon an interlocutory judgment... by way of pretrial conferences... Such determination,... may be fully obtained by the granting of his motion to introduce evidence,... to be filed nunc-pro-tunc." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 4, "ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE OR IFP APPLICATION," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 5, "AFFIDAVIT OF FILINGS FOR THE ESTATE OF LINDA P. S. WILLIAMS," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) (highlighted) Fed. R. Civ. P. "30(f)(2)(A)... requests the court t[o] have copies made of the exhibits provided... more Fed. R. Civ. P. "30(f)(2)(A)... requests the court t[o] have copies made of the exhibits provided to the Surrogate Court in Index #2013-3538... [T]he exhibits... are vital to the estate as a determinative factor to establish the neglect of the decedents; lawyer and successive holder of the Last Will & Testament with other codicils, Mr. Avrom R, Vann P.C.[.]" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 6, (ESTOPPEL) "MOTION TO SUPRESS/ DISCOVER," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) (highlighted) "[A]s a suppression... to prevent the disclosure and access to view [of ]filings by the general p... more "[A]s a suppression... to prevent the disclosure and access to view [of ]filings by the general public[,... and to] allow for the modification of 'timing' and 'extent of discovery' of pretrial [ ] papers[,... where] Judge Preska [may provide] an order to limit such discovery prior to pretrial conferences... and to further suppress the future discovery of all other filings prior to summonsing defendant[s... The] motion to discover,... requests the exhibits... of Filings for the Estate of Linda P. S. Williams[.] Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 7, (ESTOPPEL) "AFFIDAVIT OF URGENCY," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) (highlighted) "[T]o expedite an order pertaining to the scheduling of pretrial conferences [Civ. R. 16(b)(3)(B)... more "[T]o expedite an order pertaining to the scheduling of pretrial conferences [Civ. R. 16(b)(3)(B)(v)] in association with the filed deposition/complaint [Civ. R. 3]... and his petition for redress for grievances." See Slip law presented within "EXHIBIT 6" (Doc. 42-7, "Slip Law Draft Of Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 3.1, By Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams") of the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 50) for Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-240(JAC)(PWH)(Walker, rcs'd)(2nd Cir.). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 8, (ESTOPPEL) "MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) (highlighted) "[F]or the purposes of the docketed Petition for Redress... this Motion To Introduce Evidence... ... more "[F]or the purposes of the docketed Petition for Redress... this Motion To Introduce Evidence... is in abidance with... Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure[.]" The evidence attempted for introduction was of the Complaint's "EXHIBIT 2" (Doc. 2, Id. at 45), "A LIVE TESTIMONY OF THE PETITIONER'S INFECTION TO HIS LEFT FOOT (EVIDENCE ON A DVD DISC)," allegedly denied by the clerks office as being obscene. See "EXHIBIT 3" of the "AFFIDAVIT OF URGENCY" (Doc. 7 at 4), evidencing a still-frame shot of "THE INFECTION TO THE PETITIONER'S LEFT FOOT." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 10, (ESTOPPEL) "ORDER TO AMEND," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) (highlighted) PRIMA FACIE ESTOPPEL "Plaintiff filed this complaint under Article 78 of the New York Civil Prac... more PRIMA FACIE ESTOPPEL "Plaintiff filed this complaint under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules and 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Order To Amend, "Or.," Id. at 2. See Complaint, "COMP.," Doc. 2, an unconstitutionally filed Petition For Redress of Grievances ("COMP., Pet.," Id. at 10), "This Petition is... to be presented to Congress, as such is in enforcement of the Petitioner's First Amendment rights. This document is in accordance with its use as a complaint, as regulated by Civ. R. 27(a)(4)[.]" Id. at 10, 11 (the first nine pages are of a letter to the clerk). See also Or. (Id. at 3), "Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that he is entitled to relief." See also COMP. (Id. at 15), Petitioner's mother's "Testamentary Trust, naming... [him] as sole beneficiary,... [is[ claimed [where ]the eviction was an act perpetrated by CWCap. to intentionally rid rent stabilized tenants[,... where it is] insist[ed] the court place focus on [the] ownership and their inquiries into financial background checks of tenants,... [which] would have provided CWCap. knowledge of the decedent's Trust,... aid[ing] in establishing motive for the alleged improper eviction... to prevent him from obtaining the beneficial assets[.]" AIDING & ABETTING ANTITRUST (newly found evidence was presented to the appellate court of CWCap. utilizing Petitioner's trust assets within the CMBS trust of the residential community; such CMBS trust having also Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as its bondholders) See Or. (Id. at 3), "the complaint does not contain any facts suggesting that the federal government either played a role in any of the described events or should be held liable for any injury[.]" See also COMP. Pet. (Id. at 16), "TITLE II - OUTLINE OF GRIEVANCES TO BE AMENDED... SUBPART X - IDENTITY THEFT/SOCIAL SECURITY... SUBPART X-D - IDENTITY THEFT (INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE)[.]" See also the COMP. having an unconstitutionally filed "DEPOSITION IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REDRESS FOR GRIEVANCES; CERTIORARI; PER CURIAM"("COMP., Deposition," Id. at 18. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1)(a), "[p]apers after the Complaint... [T]he following... must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing: depositions[.]"): "Petitioner insists the court see fit to relate all matters of redress contained within the petition to the insolvency of the Estate of Linda P.S. Williams and the disputed eviction... Petitioner insists... CWCap. [had ]knowledge of decedents' Trust,... establishing motive[,... the assets of which were verified through an] email correspondence by the... Federal Depository and Insurance Corporation[,]... provid[ing] proof of... [the] Testamentary Trust containing stock assets of the Microsoft Corporation since the year 1987." COMP., Deposition, Id. at 20-22. See the Amended Complaint (Doc. 17), "Plaintiff reserves his jurisdictional right to claim preliminary and other injunctive relief, especially claims of undisputed fact (15 U.S.C.A. 26[; under the SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT).]" ~~~~ "Plaintiff... filed a... motion to suppress/ discover... and a motion to introduce evidence... Plaintiff's complaint does not comply with federal pleading rules[ u]nder Rule 8... See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,... (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly[).]" Or., Id. at 2, 3. See "Indigents in the Federal Courts: The in Forma Pauperis Statute - Equality and Frivolity" (by Mr. Stephen M. Feldman, 1985), referencing "Turner, When Prisoners Sue: A Study of Prisoner Section 1983 Suits in the Federal Courts, 92 Harv. L. Rev. 610, 618-21 (1979) (discussing problems with complaint screen[ing] process[).]" See Iqbal, citing Twombly, "[ ]a court must proceed 'on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)[.']" See also Twombly, "only a [com]plaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss . Id., at 556." See also "Twombly's New 'Plausibility' Standard for Complaints[:] A New Special Pleading Rule for Antitrust or Complex Case Plaintiffs, or for All Plaintiffs?" (Spiegel & McDiarmid, LLP), "Twombly arose out of a class action Sherman Act complaint[.]" See Stefler v. United States, 319 U.S. 38, 41 (1943), "[a] court[ ]... cannot dismiss the complaint on grounds of frivolousness until the issuance of process and the responsive pleadings." See "Tightening Twiqbal: Why Plausibility Must Be Confined to the Complaint" (by Mr.Justin Rand), citing Twombly, "Justice Souter laid the seeds for a new era of pleading practices. Stating a claim under section 1[ (SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT)], he wrote, would require a complaint 'with enough factual matter... to suggest that an agreement was made[' ('Id. at 556')." See "Twombly's New 'Plausibility' Standard for Complaints: A New Special Pleading Rule for Antitrust or Complex Case Plaintiffs, or for All Plaintiffs?" ("New Special Pleading Rule"): "Twombly arose out of a class action Sherman Act complaint... [P]arallel behavior[,]... was without more insufficient evidence to infer an unlawful agreement... [The] Twombly conspiracy theory could be viewed as [a]... 'parallelism plus' requirement for antitrust conspiracy claims... the new Twombly standard is intended primarily to protect... discovery burdens[,]... an engraved invitation to judicial activism- that courts can decide the 'plausibility' of a complaint at the onset,... unhinged from any factual record at all[.]" See "Controlling and Deterring Frivolous In Forma Pauperis Complaints," referencing "process[es] and [ ]responsive pleadings[.]" The court "cannot dismiss the complaint on grounds of frivolousness until the issuance of process and the responsive pleadings . E.g., Bayron v. Trudeau, 702 F.2d 43, 45 (2d Cir. 1983)." Id. See Iqbal, "[']a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of an illegal agreement[' ('Id. at 1965').]" See Or. (Id. at 3), "the 'plausibility standard[ ]'... consider[s] the context[.]" THE POST FILING DELAYED DISMISSAL DOCTRINE... for a complaint deposing references of antitrust matters, is to delay a dismissal until validation of any trust agreement, which can only THEN commence a trial; validating a contractual agreement ("evidence of an illegal agreement." See New Special Pleading Rule) and assets over $75,000 to be presented to a federal court. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 11, "ORDER GRANTING IFP APPLICATION," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) "See 28 U.S.C. § 1915... "August 12, 2015" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "GENERAL DOCKET," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "GENERAL DOCKET" (supplement), Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) (highlighted), by Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, Cestui Que Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 1 - "NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL, with district court docket, on behalf of Appellant Steven Talbert Williams, FILED," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL, with district court docket, on behalf of Appellant Steven Talbert Williams, FILED, 2016 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 2 - "DISTRICT COURT ORDER, dated 12/10/2015, RECEIVED," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) DISTRICT COURT ORDER, dated 12/10/2015, RECEIVED, 2016 "By order dated July 31, 2015, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint because ... more "By order dated July 31, 2015, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint because it was not clear that he could state any claims falling within this Court’s jurisdiction... Plaintiff filed an amended complaint... "The original complaint, which names the United States of America as a defendant, challenged Plaintiff’s eviction from his late mother’s apartment and matters that had either taken place or were pending in New York County Criminal Court, the Transit Adjudication Bureau, and in a court in Montgomery County, Maryland... "Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with federal pleading rules. Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The Supreme Court has held that this rule requires a plaintiff to provide some details about what each defendant did or failed to do. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007))... [SEE CIVIL RIGHTS & ANTITRUST CLAIMS - SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT DOES NOT NEED A CLAIM - PLAUSIBILITY STANDARD] Second, when deciding what is plausible, a district court must consider the context and 'draw on its judicial experience and common sense.' Id. at 679... "Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not contain “a short and plain statement” of his claims showing that he is entitled to relief... "Moreover, the Court is authorized to dismiss claims going beyond the scope of the original lawsuit and the permitted amendment... Having carefully reviewed the amended pleading, the Court finds that the new claims are not plausibly connected to the original claims... Court declines to review the merits of Plaintiff’s claims going beyond the scope of the amendment... "December 10, 2015" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 3 - "DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT, dated 12/10/2015, RECEIVED," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT, dated 12/10/2015, RECEIVED, 2016 "Pursuant to the order issued December 10, 2015, dismissing the complaint, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGE... more "Pursuant to the order issued December 10, 2015, dismissing the complaint, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the complaint is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)... "December 10, 2015" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 4 - "ELECTRONIC INDEX, in lieu of record, FILED.[1687945] [16-189] [Entered: 01/20/2016 04:24 PM]," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) ELECTRONIC INDEX, in lieu of record, FILED.[1687945] [16-189] [Entered: 01/20/2016 04:24 PM], 2016 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 6 - "LETTER, on behalf of Appellee United States of America, RECEIVED" (Highlighted), Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) LETTER, on behalf of Appellee United States of America, RECEIVED, 2016 "On January 20, 2016, this Office received a notice of the docketing... Plaintiff-appellant Steve... more "On January 20, 2016, this Office received a notice of the docketing... Plaintiff-appellant Steven Talbert Williams appeals from a December 10, 2015, Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York... The district court dismissed the complaint before the defendant-appellee had been served or appeared in the action... "PREET BHARARA... "BENJAMIN H. TORRANCE" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 9 - "LETTER TO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS; ROBERT A. KATZMANN" (ALLEGED HIDDEN EXHIBIT, Response Letter From Sen Charles S. Schumer), Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) LETTER TO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS; ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 2016 "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Sé), in reference to the accompanied let... more "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Sé), in reference to the accompanied letter offered for docketing, dated February 11, 2016, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Robert A. Katzmann ('RAK'), present this letter as additional notification of filing and verification of receipt of mailing from the Court, opposing counsel and response letter from Senator Charles Schumer." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 9 - "LETTER TO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS; ROBERT A. KATZMANN" (ALLEGED HIDDEN EXHIBIT, Response Letter From Sen Charles S. Schumer), Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) [ALLEGED HIDDEN EXHIBIT] LETTER TO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS; ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 2016 "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Sé), in reference to the accompanied let... more "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Sé), in reference to the accompanied letter offered for docketing, dated February 11, 2016, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Robert A. Katzmann ('RAK'), present this letter as additional notification of filing and verification of receipt of mailing from the Court, opposing counsel and response letter from Senator Charles Schumer." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Re. Doc. 14 (Doc. 10) - "ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FORM, on behalf of Party Steven Talbert Williams, FILED" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) [HIDDEN FROM DOCKET] ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FORM, on behalf of Party Steven Talbert Williams, FILED, 2016 "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Sé), present this document as a substitu... more "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Sé), present this document as a substitute to the 'Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form' provided by the U.S. Second Circuit Court; as such may provide allowance to file a 'Representative Statement,' as mentioned within the 'DOCKETING NOTICE,' dated January 20, 2016, provided by Hon.Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann ('RAK'). See 'PETITION TO DELAY NOTIFICATION OF NOTICES OF APPEARANCE/CLAIM,' as such may provide allowance to immediately adjudicate upon matters of claims against the Southern District Court of the State of New York ('SDNY') (Hon. Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska ('LAP') and the SDNY Pro Se Intake Unit), as request for enjoining. See 'MOTION TO ENJOIN CLAIMS AGAINST SDNY.'" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 14 - "NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING" ("DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT, Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance, [10], on behalf of Appellant Steven Talbert Williams, copy to pro se, FILED"), Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) "NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING" ("DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT, Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance, [10], on behalf of Appellant Steven Talbert Williams, copy to pro se, FILED", 2016 "On February 11, 2016 the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance, on behalf of the Appellant, St... more "On February 11, 2016 the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance, on behalf of the Appellant, Steven Talbert Williams was submitted... The document does not comply... for the following reason(s): "Improper proof of service... Served to an incorrect address... "Other: You must serve the opposing counsel listed on the general docket sheet. Please use the enclosed Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance form to cure the defect." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 16-1 (Part 1) - "MOTION, to proceed in forma pauperis, on behalf of Appellant Steven Talbert Williams, FILED" (Highlighted), Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) "CURED DEFECTIVE MOTION, to proceed in forma pauperis, [11], on behalf of Appellant Steven Talbert Williams, FILED.[1710611] [16-189] [Entered: 02/23/2016 10:07 AM]", 2016 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 16-2 (Part 2) - "MOTION LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) MOTION LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 2016 "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Se), in reference to the above mentioned... more "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Se), in reference to the above mentioned docket for actions against 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.' (Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant U.S. Attorney) and supporting documents 'NOTICE OF APPEAL' ('Document 20,' Docket No. 15-CV-05114 (LAP) (SDNY), filed January 20, 2016), 'AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS,' and 'AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE OF APPEAL/ MOTION ENJOIN CLAIMS AGAINST SDNY/PETITION In re CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS,' move for transference of waiver to the docket fee; as this motion is substitute for "Form T-1080" and is granted 'In Forma Pauperis' ('IFP'). Fed. R. App. P. 24; 28 USCA 1915." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Ref. Doc. 16-2 (Part 2) - "MOTION LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS" (LEGIBLE COPY) (Highlighted), Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) MOTION LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 2016 "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Se), in reference to the above mentioned... more "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Se), in reference to the above mentioned docket for actions against 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.' (Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant U.S. Attorney) and supporting documents 'NOTICE OF APPEAL' ('Document 20,' Docket No. 15-CV-05114 (LAP) (SDNY), filed January 20, 2016), 'AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS,' and 'AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE OF APPEAL/ MOTION ENJOIN CLAIMS AGAINST SDNY/PETITION In re CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS,' move for transference of waiver to the docket fee; as this motion is substitute for "Form T-1080" and is granted 'In Forma Pauperis' ('IFP'). Fed. R. App. P. 24; 28 USCA 1915." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) - (DRAFTED) "APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE HON. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., CHIEF J." (ALLEGEDLY SENT) (Original allegedly stolen), Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE HON. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., CHIEF J., 2017 "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams, ('Plaintiff,' Pro Sé), present this letter in light of ex... more "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams, ('Plaintiff,' Pro Sé), present this letter in light of experiencing numerous events of judicial obstruction from the court system within the State of New York which prevent myself from pursuing justice. Currently, Plaintiff has a proceeding within the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ('2nd Cir. Ct.,' CESTUI QUE STEVENTALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, et al. ('Matter of Cestui Que S.T. Williams,' for which 'et al.' [emphasis added] is excluded, despite Plaintiff having filed a 2nd Cir. Ct. 'Acknowledgement and notice of appearance form' and 'Motion To Correct Title Caption/Acknowledgment & Case Type,' to include other defendants), Docket No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant U.S. Attorney), as such is an appeal from the Southern District Court of the State of New York ('S.D.N.Y.,' Docket No. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY)) concerning an overall matter of subversion of life through domestic housing terrorism through conspired monopolized, racketeering and antitrust influenced, enterprise corruption, induced by financial institutions against himself as an individual of beneficiary rights to a... trust account and rent stabilized real property dwelling. Matter of Cestui Que S.T. Williams has yet to be seen within a courtroom, or before a jury, of either the S.D.N.Y.or the 2nd Cir. Ct., despite having requested such, and has been closed. Matter of Cestui Que S.T. Williams is currently pending reinstatement, for which Plaintiff seeks to initiate a proceeding within the U.S. S.Ct. to provide a mandated order to compel the federal employees of the 2nd Cir. Ct. to perform their duties under 28 U.S.C.A. §1361or to assume supervisory authority under the Due Process Clause of U.S. Const. Am. 5 and 14, wherein the trial may remain in the New York State 2nd Cir. Ct. via diversity jurisdiction." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) - (DRAFTED) "APPLICATION" ("LETTER OF EMERGENCY TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT") (ALLEGEDLY SENT) (Original allegedly stolen), Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) "APPLICATION" ("LETTER OF EMERGENCY TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT"), 2017 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 16-3 (Part 3) - "AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS" (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) [HIDDEN FROM DOCKET] AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 2016 "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Se), in association with the associated ... more "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Se), in association with the associated filing of 'MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,' present this document as a substitute filing of the form to obtain waiver of the initial docket fee (In Forma Pauperis, 'IFP') provided by the U.S. Second Circuit Appeals Court, entitled 'Affidavit Accompanying Motion For Permission To Appeal In Forma Pauperis.' L.R. 24.1; 28 U.S.C. 1746: 18 U.S.C. 1621." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Ref. Doc. 16-3 (Part 3) - "AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS" (LEGIBLE COPY) (Highlighted), Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 2016 "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Se), in association with the associated ... more "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Se), in association with the associated filing of 'MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,' present this document as a substitute filing of the form to obtain waiver of the initial docket fee (In Forma Pauperis, 'IFP') provided by the U.S. Second Circuit Appeals Court, entitled 'Affidavit Accompanying Motion For Permission To Appeal In Forma Pauperis.' L.R. 24.1; 28 U.S.C. 1746: 18 U.S.C. 1621." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 21-2 - "MOTION STAY LIMITATIONS; INITIAL FILINGS W/IN U.S. COURT OF APPEALS," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) MOTION STAY LIMITATIONS; INITIAL FILINGS W/IN U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 2016 "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Sé), in reference to the 'NOTICE OF APPE... more "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Sé), in reference to the 'NOTICE OF APPEAL' ('Document 20,' Docket No. 15-CV-05114 (LAP) (SDNY), filed January 20, 2016), and supporting documents of 'LETTER TO APPELLATE COURT; HON. CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT A. KATZMANN' and 'PETITION In re CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS,' move to have a mandate to stay statutory time limitations of initials filings within the appellate court. Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2); 21(a)(2)(B); 62(g)(2)." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Ref. Doc. 21-2 - "MOTION STAY LIMITATIONS; INITIAL FILINGS W/IN U.S. COURT OF APPEALS" (LEGIBLE COPY) (Highlighted), Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) MOTION STAY LIMITATIONS; INITIAL FILINGS W/IN U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 2016 "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Sé), in reference to the 'NOTICE OF APPE... more "I, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams ('Plaintiff,' Pro Sé), in reference to the 'NOTICE OF APPEAL' ('Document 20,' Docket No. 15-CV-05114 (LAP) (SDNY), filed January 20, 2016), and supporting documents of 'LETTER TO APPELLATE COURT; HON. CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT A. KATZMANN' and 'PETITION In re CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS,' move to have a mandate to stay statutory time limitations of initials filings within the appellate court. Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2); 21(a)(2)(B); 62(g)(2)." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact DOCKET, Williams v. United States of America (Department of Treasury), et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.) DOCKET, Williams, 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.) DOCKET, Williams v. United States of America (Department of Treasury), et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (S.... more DOCKET, Williams v. United States of America (Department of Treasury), et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (S.D.N.Y.) See “Twombly’s New ‘Plausibility’ Standard for Complaints[:] A New Special Pleading Rule for Antitrust or Complex Case Plaintiffs, or for All Plaintiffs?,” by Mr. Tillman L. Lay: “Twombly arose out of a class action Sherman Act complaint alleging a conspiracy in restraint of trade... [The] Twombly conspiracy theory could be viewed as little more than a... ‘parallelism plus’ requirement for antitrust conspiracy claims... that courts can decide the ‘plausibility’ of a complaint at the outset[.]" Deterring Frivolous In Forma Pauperis Complaints” (by Ms./Mrs. Mary Van Vort): “A court,... cannot dismiss the complaint on grounds of frivolousness until the issuance of process and the responsive pleadings. E.g., Bayron v. Trudeau, 702 F.2d 43, 45 (2d Cir. 1983)[.]” “‘[S]ee Tingler v. Marshall, 716 F.2d 1109, [1111, ]1112 (6th Cir. 1983)... holding dismissal on merits prior to responsive pleadings improper.’” “[R]esponsive pleadings are essential to the preservation of the adversarial scheme.” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 3 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547 (CM)(SDNY), CM BAR ORDER - Opinion, Casetext.com BAR ORDER (Opinion), 2020 "Court noted[,]... since filing the 677-page complaint in this action, Plaintiff had delivered se... more "Court noted[,]... since filing the 677-page complaint in this action, Plaintiff had delivered several hundreds of pages of additional documents to the Court's Pro Se Intake Unit for filing, and directed Plaintiff to limit any future filings in this action to ten pages unless he first receives leave from the Court to exceed that limit... "The Court bars Plaintiff from filing future civil actions IFP in this Court without first obtaining from the Court leave to file. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Plaintiff must attach a copy of his proposed complaint and a copy of this order to any motion seeking leave to file. The motion must be filed with the Pro Se Intake Unit of this Court... "Plaintiff is further warned that the continued submission of frivolous documents may result in the imposition of additional sanctions, including monetary penalties." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547 (CM)(SDNY), 20-451 (2nd Cir.), DOCKET SHEET Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Transport RoomPART G – PERTINENT HISTORICAL EVENTS OF MATTER OF CESTUI QUE S.T. WILLIAMS Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact PART E.3.g.iv.A – FACTUAL BACKGROUND: CONGRESIONAL & FEDERAL OVERSIGHT: HISTORY OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO THE IRA W/IN TRUST LPSW Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 241, "PART E.3.e – FACTUAL BACKGROUND: CONGRESIONAL & FEDERAL OVERSIGHT: HISTORICAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ESTATE OF MRS. LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS ('ESTATE LPSW')," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Doc. 241, "PART E.3.e – FACTUAL BACKGROUND: CONGRESIONAL & FEDERAL OVERSIGHT: HISTORICAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ESTATE OF MRS. LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS ('ESTATE LPSW')," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] Doc. 262, "MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE (ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF WILLIAMS V. USA, ET AL., 15CV5114(LAP)(SDNY))," ("SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226],..."), Williams, 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.) [*****] Doc. 262, "MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE (ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF WILLIAMS V. USA, ET AL., 15CV5114(LAP)(SDNY))" ("SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226],..."), Williams, 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 [*****] Doc. 262, "SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226], on behalf of Appellant Mr. Steven Talber... more [*****] Doc. 262, "SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226], on behalf of Appellant Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, FILED. Service date 04/25/2020 by CM/ECF, email, US mail.[2826269][262] [20-451] [Entered: 04/25/2020 04:24 PM]" ("MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE (ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF WILLIAMS V. USA, ET AL., 15CV5114(LAP)(SDNY))"), dated April 24, 2020, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.): "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in association with the NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL (Doc. 1, filed February 3, 2020) and In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 71), in abidance with Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(2)(B)(ii), Fed. R. Civ. P. 32, Fed. R. Crim. P. 60 and FRAP 27, move for the introduction of evidence of the original complaint for Williams v. USA, et al., 15cv5114(LA)(SDNY). See Nycourts.gov[ ('https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/4-RELEVANCE/4.11_CHARACTER%20EVIDENCE.pdf.%E2%80%9D'),] 'People v Mullin, 41 NY2d 475, 479 [1977].) This exclusionary rule is ‘one, not of logic, but of policy.’ ([‘People v Zackowitz, 254 NY 192, 197[, 198,] [1930]].’).'" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 226-2, "MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE (ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF WILLIAMS V. USA, ET AL., 15CV5114(LAP)(SDNY)," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.) Doc. 226-2, "MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE (ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF WILLIAMS V. USA, ET AL., 15CV5114(LAP)(SDNY)," Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 Doc. 226-2, "MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE (ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF WILLIAMS V. USA, ET AL., 15CV511... more Doc. 226-2, "MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE (ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF WILLIAMS V. USA, ET AL., 15CV5114(LAP)(SDNY)," dated April 25, 2020, Williams, 20-451 (2nd Cir. Ct.): "Set forth... relief sought: "For the introduction of evidence of the original complaint (type wriiten) for Williams v. USA, et al., 15cv5114(LAP)(SDNY). Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(2)(B)(ii); Fed. R. Civ. P. 32; FRAP 27; Fed. R. Crim. P. 60. See People v. Mullin, 41 NY2d 475, 479 (1977)." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547 (CM)(SDNY), 20-451 (2nd Cir.), AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, Docket sheet Id. Doc.'s 227-272) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 6 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] Doc. 262, "MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE (ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF WILLIAMS V. USA, ET AL., 15CV5114(LAP)(SDNY))," ("SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226],..."), Williams, 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.) [*****] Doc. 262, "MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE (ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF WILLIAMS V. USA, ET AL., 15CV5114(LAP)(SDNY))" ("SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226],..."), Williams, 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 [*****] Doc. 262, "SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226], on behalf of Appellant Mr. Steven Talber... more [*****] Doc. 262, "SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226], on behalf of Appellant Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, FILED. Service date 04/25/2020 by CM/ECF, email, US mail.[2826269][262] [20-451] [Entered: 04/25/2020 04:24 PM]" ("MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE (ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF WILLIAMS V. USA, ET AL., 15CV5114(LAP)(SDNY))"), dated April 24, 2020, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.): "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in association with the NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL (Doc. 1, filed February 3, 2020) and In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 71), in abidance with Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(2)(B)(ii), Fed. R. Civ. P. 32, Fed. R. Crim. P. 60 and FRAP 27, move for the introduction of evidence of the original complaint for Williams v. USA, et al., 15cv5114(LA)(SDNY). See Nycourts.gov[ ('https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/4- RELEVANCE/4.11_CHARACTER%20EVIDENCE.pdf.%E2%80%9D'),] 'People v Mullin, 41 NY2d 475, 479 [1977].) This exclusionary rule is ‘one, not of logic, but of policy.’ ([‘People v Zackowitz, 254 NY 192, 197[, 198,] [1930]].’).'" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] Doc. 262, “PEER-TO- PEER” NETWORKING - INTERNET INTRUSION (ORIGNINAL COMPLAINT of 15cv5114(LAP)(SDNY), "SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226],..."), Williams, 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.) [*****] Doc. 262, “PEER-TO- PEER” NETWORKING - INTERNET INTRUSION (ORIGNINAL COMPLAINT of 15cv5114(LAP)(SDNY), "SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226],..."), Williams, 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.), 2020 [*****] Doc. 262, "SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226], on behalf of Appellant Mr. Steven Talber... more [*****] Doc. 262, "SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS TO MOTION [226], on behalf of Appellant Mr. Steven Talbert Williams, FILED. Service date 04/25/2020 by CM/ECF, email, US mail.[2826269][262] [20-451] [Entered: 04/25/2020 04:24 PM]" ("MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE (ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF WILLIAMS V. USA, ET AL., 15CV5114(LAP)(SDNY))"), "PART F.1.c.iii – USE OF OPEN INTERNET ACCESS & INTRUSION: USE OF “PEER-TO- PEER” NETWORKING DURING FINANCIAL HARDSHIP," dated April 24, 2020, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 19-cv-11547-UA (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.): "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in association with the NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL (Doc. 1, filed February 3, 2020) and In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 71), in abidance with Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(2)(B)(ii), Fed. R. Civ. P. 32, Fed. R. Crim. P. 60 and FRAP 27, move for the introduction of evidence of the original complaint for Williams v. USA, et al., 15cv5114(LA)(SDNY). See Nycourts.gov[ ('https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/4- RELEVANCE/4.11_CHARACTER%20EVIDENCE.pdf.%E2%80%9D'),] 'People v Mullin, 41 NY2d 475, 479 [1977].) This exclusionary rule is ‘one, not of logic, but of policy.’ ([‘People v Zackowitz, 254 NY 192, 197[, 198,] [1930]].’).'" "“The [N.Y.S.D.F.S.] has been closely monitoring the ever-growing threat posed to information and financial systems by nation-states, terrorist organizations and independent criminal actors. Recently, cybercriminals have sought to exploit technological vulnerabilities to gain access to sensitive electronic data. Cybercriminals can cause significant financial losses for [N.Y.S.D.F.S.] regulated entities as well as for New York consumers whose private information may be revealed and/or stolen for illicit purposes. The financial services industry is a significant target of cybersecurity threats.” - 23 NYCRR §500, depicted within a N.Y.S.D.F.S. publication,[ ] entitled “CYBERSECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANIES” (by SUP. MARIA T. VULLO). “[T]elecommunications and computer networks ate targeted for the information that they carry. Industry depends on telecommunication networks, including the Internet and other data networks, to quickly disseminate information that must ne shared nu geographically dispersed domestic and international activities. The telecommunications system has become a vital part of the economic infrastructure of the United States and the information that it carries has become an important factor im the production of national wealth. Unless it is protected, this information is susceptible to interception while being transmitted while being transmitted or while it is resident in a networked computer. “In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Kenneth G. Ingram, Director of Product Development at AT&T, stated that his corporation spends in excess of three billion dollars per year on research and development, and has been subject to numerous attempts to steal property data. These included attempts by electronic intruders to access and obtain information from proprietary databases. He also noted that any information transmitted through international carriers… is subject to electronic commercial interception, and that such information is likely to be compromised. He stated that there was a significant need for exportable commercial encryption systems for protection of intellectual property. (INGRAM92)… “There is growing evidence of the use of electronic intrusion techniques by industrial spies. Electronic intruders have reported being offered substantial sums of money to gather information on corporations. There is also evidence that technical intelligence officers from disbanded Eastern European foreign intelligence services,… are stealing their talents to the highest bidder.” Id. at 2-17. - The Electronic Intrusion Threat to National Security and Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications[ ] (by DIANE Publishing Company, 1998) “[T]he term ‘exceeds authorized access’ means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter[.]” - 18 U.S.C. §1030(e)(6) “The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (‘CISA’)… has two main components. First, it authorizes companies to monitor and implement defensive measures on their own information systems to counter cyber threats. Second, CISA provides certain protections to encourage companies voluntarily to share information—specifically, information about ‘cyber threat indicators’ and ‘defensive measures’— with the federal government, state and local governments, and other companies and private entities.” “In authorizing companies to implement monitoring and defensive mechanisms on their information systems, the legislation responded to fears that certain such activities could result in liability, including under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The protections to encourage companies [3] to share information were meant to address concerns that sharing information with the government or other parties could risk litigation for violating privacy and antitrust laws, among others, as well as risk disclosure under FOIA and the waiver of privilege.” - Federal Guidance on the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015,[ ] a Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (by Mr. Brad S. Karp of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, dated March 3, 2016) “[A]ny person who… intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication[ ]… shall be punished… or shall be subject to suit[.]” - 18 U.S.C. §2511(1)(a) "PART F.1.c.iii – USE OF OPEN INTERNET ACCESS & INTRUSION: USE OF “PEER-TO- PEER” NETWORKING DURING FINANCIAL HARDSHIP:" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Doc. 9, "APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS; re: for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.) (highlighted) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact CIVIL DOCKET, Williams v United States, et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.) by Steven T . ( T A L B E R T ) Williams and Steven T. (Talbert) Williams CIVIL DOCKET for Williams v United States, et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.) Evidencing 23 docu... more CIVIL DOCKET for Williams v United States, et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.) Evidencing 23 documents and numerous claims of collateral and promissory estoppel. Filings contain evidence of Supreme Court of the United States estoppel for: i. Williams v United States, et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.), 19-5398(U.S. S.Ct.); and ii. Williams v United States, et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.), 19-240(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-5399(U.S. S.Ct.); iii. Williams v United States, et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.), 19-1392(JAC)(PWH)(Walker, rcs'd)(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-5399(U.S. S.Ct.); Williams v United States, et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(S.D.N.Y.), 19-39(JAC)(PWH)(Walker, rcs'd)(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-6565(U.S. S.Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 4 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] UNDOCUMENTED - "AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT, PART V," Williams, 18-cv-12064 (S.D.N.Y.) "AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT, PART V" (UNDOCUMENTED), Williams, 18-cv-12064 (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 "AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT, PART V," Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS)... more "AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT, PART V," Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.) " PART I.2.c.iv.I – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: " CLAIMS AGAINST THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT " OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: DOCKET NO. 15-CV-5114: " ASSOCIATED CLAIMS: SEIZURE OF COURT PROCESSES TO " ADJUDICATE UPON CLAIMED STATE OFFENSES UNDER CPLR " (FURTHER CLAIMS OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, " U.S. CONST. AM. 5 & 14 §1)... " PART I.2.c.iv.J – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: " CLAIMS AGAINST THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF THE " STATE OF NEW YORK: DOCKET NO. 15-CV-5114: ASSOCIATED CLAIMS: " INSURRECTION & REBELLION, “STRIKE” UPON THE U.S. GOVERNMENT " (U.S. CONST. ART. 3 §3 & U.S. CONST. AM. 14 §4)... " PART I.2.c.v – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: " CLAIMS AGAINST THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT " OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: DOCKET NO. 15-CV-5114: " PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL RULES (EXHIBIT 41)... " PART I.2.d – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: " CLAIMED PROMISSORY & COLLATERAL JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE " NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE " (MATTERS RELATED TO NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS " SERVICES FOR ARREST NO. 1 & NEW YORK COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT)... " PART I.2.d.i – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: D.A. OFFICE: " FEDERAL QUESTIONS... " PART I.2.d.ii – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: D.A. OFFICE: " SUMMARY OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS " SERVICES’ ARREST NO. 1: LEGAL USE OF A CITIBANK, NA VESTIBULE: " ILLEGAL STOP & FRISK PROCEDURE (A CLAIMED POLICE STATE ACTION)... " PART I.2.d.iii – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: D.A. OFFICE: " REITERATION OF AFFILIATED INVESTMENTS OF THE NEW CITY " DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES, NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT, " PETER COOPER VILLAGE/STUYVESANT TOWN & THE IRA " OF THE LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFIAL TRUST (TRUST2007-C30)... " PART I.2.d.iv – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: D.A. OFFICE: " ASSIGNMENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL TO " (LEGAL AID REPRESENTATIVE MS./MRS. [ ] KIM)... " PART I.2.d.v – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: D.A. OFFICE: " NEW YORK COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT (PEOPLE V. WILLIAMS, STEVEN, " DOCKET NO. 2012NY089333(NYCC))... " PART I.2.d.vi – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: D.A. OFFICE: " CLAIMED PRETRIAL CONSPIRED ACTS OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL BY " ASSIGNED DISTRICT ATTORNEY SOPHIA “KHON” & MS./MRS. [ ] KIM " (KNOWING & MALICIOUS DETERENCE TO INCUR CHARGES AGAINST PUBLIC " SERVANTS OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES " AFTER REPORTS OF PHYSICAL & SEXUAL ABUSE)... " PART I.2.d.vii – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: D.A. OFFICE: " ADJOURNED TRIAL OF PEOPLE V. STEVEN WILLIAMS, DOCKET NO. " 2012NY089333(NYCC)... " PART I.2.d.viii – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: D.A. OFFICE: " CITIBANK, NA (DETERENCE TO ACQUIRE " ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED MATERIAL EVIDENCE)... " PART I.2.d.ix – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: D.A. OFFICE: " FURTHER ADJOURNED TRIALS OF " PEOPLE V. STEVEN WILLIAMS, DOCKET NO. 2012NY089333(NYCC): " CLAIMS OF U.S. CONST. AM. 6 " (KNOWING & MALICIOUS DELAY OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS) & " VOLUNTARY RELEASE OF DEFENSE ATTORNEY MS./MRS. [ ] KIM... " PART I.2.d.x – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: D.A. OFFICE: " PRO SÉ FILINGS W/IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS’ OFFICE OF THE " COUNTY OF NEW YORK: 'LETTER TO A JUDICIAL HEARING OFFICER' " ('MOTION TO DISMISS (DAMAGES)/ PROTECTIVE ORDER')... " PART I.2.d.xi – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: D.A. OFFICE: " CLAIMED DISCREPENCIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICIALS OF ASSIGNMENT " (HON. STEVEN M. STATSINGER &/OR HON. KEVIN MCGRATH &/OR " HON. ANN SCHERZER): COMPARISON OF EVIDENCED " ADJOURNMENT SLIPS TO ELECTRONIC MAIL NOTIFICATIONS " OF THE NEW YORK COUNTY COURT SYSTEM... " PART I.2.d.xii – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: D.A. OFFICE: " ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL JUDGMENT (HON. " STEVEN M. STATSINGER): CLAIMS OF PROMISSORY JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL " AGAINST DISTRICT ATTORNEY [ ] 'KHON' & " ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY ‘ABREN’ (JOHN DOE (4)) " AFTER FILINGS OF REPORTED PHYSICAL & SEXUAL ABUSE " W/IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS’ OFFICE... " PART I.2.d.xiii – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: D.A. OFFICE: " CLAIMS AGAINST THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS’ OFFICE OF THE COUNTY OF " NEW YORK LACHES UNDER CPL §170.25 TO REMAND TRIAL TO A " SUPERIOR COURT (ENFORCEMENT UNDER FED. R. CRIM. P. [ ] & THE " SCOTT CAMPBELL, STEPHANIE ROPER, WENDY PRESTON, LOUARNA " GILLIS, & NILA LYNN CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS ACT)... " PART I.2.d.xiv – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: D.A. OFFICE: " CLAIMS AGAINST THE ASSIGNMENT OF ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY " 'ABREN' (JOHN DOE (4)): KNOWING & MALICIOUS CONSPIRED ACT TO " ASSIGN AN ASSISTANT FOR “UNUSUAL DIFFICULTY” (CNT §703) & TO " ACQUIRE FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS (INSURRECTION & REBELLION)... " PART I.3 – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: " MATTERS RELATED TO TAXATION: " NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION & FINANCE (JPMORGAN) " & SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY BY EXECUTIVE ORDER (TAX-SHIFTED " LIABILITIES & “INDIVIDUAL TAX IMMUNITY ACT” SLIP LAW PROPOSAL)... " PART I.3.a – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: TAXATION RELATED: " NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION & FINANCE... " PART I.3.a.iii – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: TAXATION RELATED: " UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEVY: FEDERAL QUESTIONS SOUGHT FOR REVIEW... " PART I.3.a.i – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: TAXATION RELATED: " PRIMA FACIE CLAIMS AGAINST THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT " OF TAXATION & FINANCE (UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEVY CHARGE/ " DOUBLE TAXATION) (JPMORGAN ANTITRUST INVESTIGATION)... " PART I.3.b – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: TAXATION RELATED: " SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY (EARLY RETIREMENT) " CONCLUSION " (provided for amending) " (See 'Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part V: Exhibits 41 To 64') " (See 'Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part VI') Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] Doc. 7, "AFFIDAVIT... IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT ('PART I')" (Highlighted), Williams, 18-cv-12064 (S.D.N.Y.) "AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT ('PART I')," Doc. 7, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS), 2018 "AFFIDAVIT of Steven T. Williams IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT ('Part 1'); re: 2 Complaint. Document fi... more "AFFIDAVIT of Steven T. Williams IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT ('Part 1'); re: 2 Complaint. Document filed by Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Main Document, # 2 Main Document)(sc) (Entered: 01/02/2019)" (highlighted), dated December 28, 2018, Doc. 7, Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.): "AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT('PART I')" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(JAC)(RJS)(SJM)(2nd Cir.), "LETTER OF PRIOR DISTRICT COURT FILINGS (EXHIBITED FILINGS OF DOCK. 19-5405(US S.Ct.)" ('Supplemental Brief: Aiding & Abetting Antitrust, Subversion & Domestic Housing Terrorism')," Doc.212 "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... inform defendants and the Unite... more "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... inform defendants and the United States Court Appeals for the Second Circuit of PLAINTIFFs’ Southern District Court filings of Dock. 19-5405(US S. Ct.): “'Brief Upon Its Merit: U.S.D.O.J., Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit, S.D.N.Y.;' “'Supplemental Brief: Aiding & Abetting Antitrust, Subversion & Domestic Housing Terrorism;' “'Supplemental Brief: Homelessness: A Hazardous Threat To Life (Judicial Review Of Experimental Nano-Biotechnology & Nano-Robotics, In Situ Drug Delivery; A Public Concern);' and “'Supplemental Brief: Sovereignty Of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams;' "exhibited in both 15 page and oversized versions." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. US, et al., 19-cv-11547 (CM)(SDNY), 20-451(2nd Cir.), "LETTER OF PRIOR DISTRICT COURT FILINGS (EXHIBITED FILINGS OF DOCK. 19-5405(US S.Ct.))," Doc. 212 "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... in abidance with Fed. R. Crim. ... more "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... in abidance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 60 and FRAP 10, 16, 17, 25(c), 27, 32(c)(2), 35 to 37, 62.1(a)(3), (b), inform defendants and the United States Court Appeals for the Second Circuit of PLAINTIFFs’ Southern District Court filings of Dock. 19-5405(US S. Ct.): “'Brief Upon Its Merit: U.S.D.O.J., Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit, S.D.N.Y.;' “'Supplemental Brief: Aiding & Abetting Antitrust, Subversion & Domestic Housing Terrorism;' “'Supplemental Brief: Homelessness: A Hazardous Threat To Life (Judicial Review Of Experimental Nano-Biotechnology & Nano-Robotics, In Situ Drug Delivery; A Public Concern);' and “'Supplemental Brief: Sovereignty Of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams;' exhibited in both 15 page and oversized versions." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) Williams v. U.S., et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.), "BRIEF" (Hidden from docket w/in filings of Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY)) (excluding notary) "26. This matter is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.') from an... more "26. This matter is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.') from an appellate mandamus action associated to the trial of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), where such seeks a response to requested orders for sanctions from HON. CHIEF J. MCMAHON against HON. STANTON and employees of the PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT of the S.D.N.Y. for claims of contempt of court processes and conspired retaliatory promissory and collateral discriminatory estoppel (U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371), perpetrated in aid of subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact (U.S. Const. Am. 1; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) of antitrust claims of Dock. Nos. 19-39 and 19-240 of the Appellate Court, to profit from claims of the illegal reinvested assets of PLAINTIFFs’ alleged beneficial trust ('Trust LPSW,' managed by PERSHING, LLC, UBS AG and FMR, LLC (formerly Correspondent Services Corporation)); as such claimed illegally reinvested assets are evidenced as being illegally reinvested into the rent stabilized residential community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST,' of PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial real property of a claimed illegal eviction), where the Assets Under Management of UBS AG (with use of Trust LPSW) were reinvested into the Initial Public Offering of PERSHING SQUARE HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC and further reinvested into the prior securitized trust of PCV/ST (WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-C30 ('TRUST2007-C30'), including affiliated tranches and foreign BONDHOLDERS). U.S. Const. Art. 3 §2, Cl. 1; U.S. S.Ct. Rule 11, 20.3, 33.2(b), 34; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), 16, 37, 42, 54(c), FRAP. 15.1, 16(a), 19, 21(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b)(2); 5 C.F.R. §1201.43; 5 U.S.C. Ch. 5, Subch. I, §500, et seq. (see Administrative Procedure Act and Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 18 U.S.C. §§3173, 3174, 3771(d)(3); 28 U.S.C. §§158(d)(2)(A)(ii), (d)(2)(A)(iii), Ch. 16, Ch. 51, 1251(a), 1253, 1254(2), 1361, 1391(e), 1404(a), 1631, 1651(a), 1657, 1927, Ch. 158, Ch. 161. See WILBUR v. UNITED STATES, ex Rel. KADRIE, 281 U.S. 206, 218 (1930), 'to direct the retraction or reversal of action already taken[.]' See also the opinion by Hon. Chief J. WARREN within HON. HERBERT L. WILL, J., U.S. N. DIST. CT. OF ILLINOIS v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 90, 95, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967): “'the writ has been invoked where unwarranted judicial action threatened ‘to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations,’ Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 588, 63 S.Ct. 793, 799, 87 L.Ed. 1014 (1943)[,]… and where a district judge displayed a persistent disregard of the Rules of Civil Procedure[ ]… La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957)[.]' [ ] "See also U.S. Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual §1064: “'18 U.S.C. § 2521,… directs the court to proceed ‘as soon as practicable’ to the hearing and determination of such an action, and… to prevent a continuing and substantial injury to the United States or to any person[.]' [ ] "See also EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 241, 245, 248, syll. n. 1, 4 (1932): “'[t]his Court has full power in its discretion to issue the writ of mandamus to a federal district court, although… this Court ha[s] ultimate discretionary jurisdiction by certiorari, [wherein] such power will be exercised only where a question of public importance is involved, or where the question is of such a nature that it is peculiarly appropriate that such action by this Court should be taken[,… and whereby a] grand jury conclusively determines the existence of probable cause for the purpose of holding the accused to answer.' [ ]" Id. at 58, 59. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 3 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) Williams v. U.S., et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.), " SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF AIDING & ABETTING ANTITRUST, SUBVERSION & DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM" (Hidden from docket w/in filings of Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY)) (excluding notary) "PART A – STATEMENT OF THE CASE" "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), i... more "PART A – STATEMENT OF THE CASE" "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in reference to the 'NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL' (Doc. 1), present this brief as a claimed factual testimony of relevant events surrounding an alleged conspired antitrust, economic espionage ([...]) and racketeering ([...]) scheme, via the corruption of enterprises[,]... within and without government agencies... (namely the I.R.S. and S.S.A.), New York, New Jersey, Maryland and the District of Columbia, violating PLAINTIFFs’ rights as a beneficiary and rent stabilized tenant... 18 U.S.C. §§2, 241, 286, 371, including various antitrust statutes such as the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§1–7), Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§12–27), Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, Security Act of 1933, Securities & Exchange Act of 1934 (§§10(b), 13), Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Investment Company Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §§1681, et seq.), and Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. §§ 77aaa, et. seq.). "It is claimed, such scheme was perpetrated so as to deter PLAINTIFF from the acquisition of beneficial assets within an Individual Retirement Account... through the inducing of a claimed illegal eviction of PLAINTIFF from a rent stabilized dwelling... The claimed illegal fiduciary acquisition of the IRA by the controlling entities of PERSHING (B.N.Y.), UBS, and FMR allegedly occurred after PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial assets of the trust went insolvent during the final years of the U.S. housing crisis (2000–2010) and further utilized by UBS in securitized investments to allegedly reinvest such assets through 'dark-pool' trading and an Initial Public Offering ('IPO') of P.S.H., who acquired ownership of a mezzanine mortgaged loan of PCV/ST[,]... as such Commercial Mortgaged-Backed Securitized ('CMBS') loan was the leading investment loan in a series of tranches... It is unknown how the IRA went insolvent[,]... however, to the best of PLAINTIFFs’ knowledge, neither he nor his father (MR. WILLIS WILLIAMS, JR.), the two beneficiaries to the estate of MRS. LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS (DECEDENT, PLAINTIFFs’ mother), ever received notification from the financial institutions or DECEDENT last known legal representative, MR. AVROM R. VANN, of AVROM R. VANN, PC (where PLAINTIFF, as aforementioned evidenced, was the sole beneficiary to the 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST,' 'Trust LPSW,'... which contains securitized assets, as confirmed within an email from the Federal Depository & Insur. Corp. and the U.S. TREAS., one of which being a certificate of ownership, since 1987, for stocks from Microsoft)... MR. VANN, as aforementioned evidenced, is claimed to have lached upon his legal duties to contact PLAINTIFF on his thirtieth birthday[,... and] provided DECEDENTs’ original Last Will & Testament (with codicils, including the testamentary trust agreement) to MR. WILLIAMS, JR. two years after DECEDENTs’ death and denied PLAINTIFF access to any information concerning DECEDENTs’ estate. PLAINTIFF allegedly attempted to acquire information concerning the trust from PERSHING, who stated Trust LPSW’s Employer Identification Number ('EIN') for the IRA was in their ownership, despite UBS, after his PERSHING visit, stated the trust was there (despite their emails stating otherwise) and FMR[ (Fidelity)]... stating they would not provide PLAINTIFF with any information without letters testamentary from a surrogate’s court. PLAINTIFF thought it best to not claim the trust from his visit to UBS and file for probate within S.C.N.Y. (the county surrogate court in which DECEDENT allegedly received hospice care and passed away in),... "It is further claimed, not only had owners of PCV/ST profited from real property assets (maliciously raising rental prices), but they (along with financial institutions of PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial IRA trust and additional institutions) utilized such reinvested assets to invest within the gambling casino corporation of P.N.K.; whereby assets of the IRA (through the invested Assets Under Management ('AUM') of UBS) were redistributed to the previous owners of the PCV/ST community, namely BLACKROCK, due to the financial institution 'control[ling] ‘9.65%’ of beneficial assets in Pinnacle[ (P.N.K.)], as such was amended upon the onset of the 2010' (the year of DECEDENTs’ passing) (allegedly cited in PLAINTIFFs’ originally filed 'PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI' of the U.S. S.Ct., CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Index No. 16M111 (U.S. S.Ct.) (137 U.S. 1611, Mar.15, 2017)). "In essence, the assets of PCV/ST and the IRA within Trust LPSW were sold by TISHMAN/BLACKROCK at the DIL auction to P.S.H. (with the use of Trust LPSW’s assets acquired by UBS, Underwriter of P.S.H.’s IPO) and returned to BLACKROCK and other financial institutions upon reinvestment into P.N.K.’s casino... "But why then would the property of PCV/ST be further sold to the financial entity of BLACKSTONE GRP., with claimed illegal use of municipal bonds (Sustainable Neighborhood Bonds[ ]), that is, if not for a claimed conspired scheme by MR. LARY FINK of BLACKROCK to provide a welcomed gift to BLACKSTONE for such financial institution accelerating MR. FINK’s career..., and can PLAINTIFFs’ eviction be attributed to the possible elimination of the J-51 tax exemption of PCV/ST to change the community to market-rate prices through the reduction of elderly and rent-stabilized tenants, specified within the Department of Housing & Community Renewal’s Pub. FACT SHEET #36? "During PLAINTIFFs’ displacement,... he claims to have experienced numerous acts of corruption of enterprises in aid of subversion of his life within impoverishment (deterring him from acquiring Trust LPSW’s securitized assets), where PLAINTIFF... was: (i) denied acquisition of a renter’s insurance policy by STATE FARM; (ii) denied restitution to his dwelling by N.Y.H.C.; (iii) had two laptop computer screens turn black after plugging them into a Manhattan FEDEX electrical outlet (the same store where he allegedly made a copy of copyrighted works which are registered within the Library of Congress, 'LOC'), where, thereafter, PLAINTIFF allegedly experienced numerous cases of internet intrusion,...; (iv) tackled by W.P.P.D. officers for attempting to retrieve personal belongings which were within a White Plains FEDEX store, abducted by them, and detained at W.P. HOSP., where physicians took blood and urine samples after being forced into wearing a strait jacket, only to be ejected from the hospital and attempt to acquire a life insurance policy from AMAL. LIFE the next day (who confirmed the policy’s existence the day prior to his visit to White Plains)...; (v) arrested twice by N.Y.P.D. (D.H.S.) officers and provided numerous appearance tickets by N.Y.P.D. (M.T.A.) officers, where one[...] acquired an unconstitutional N.Y. S.CT., KINGS CO., CIV. judgment by the T.A.B. Court without the providing of an index number; (vi) denied redress in a superior court by the D.A. OFFICE after filing a motion to dismiss with damages sought; (vii) denied redress within S.D.N.Y. for CESTUI QUE WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., Dock. No. 15cv5114(LAP)(SDNY); (viii) had his driver’s license and DECEDENTs’ social security numbers exposed to the public by S.D.N.Y. and S.C.N.Y. employees (deterring him from executing a formal probate for DECEDENTs’ estate without federal oversight); (ix) abducted by a SUN CAB CO. taxi driver in Washington, DC after falling asleep[,]... only to be driven to Bethesda, MD (the city to the headquarters of W.D.C. and their subsidiary of CWCAM, PLAINTIFFs’ prior landlord) and further incarcerated for a month within the M.C.C.F. for a charge of theft under $100,... where PLAINTIFF allegedly experienced an act of medical malpractice by the attending physician of the facility’s C.I.U.; (x) experienced numerous cases of identity theft (such as driver’s licenses stolen or never arriving within PLAINTIFFs’ P.O. Box and even two years of tax returns filed with the I.R.S. without PLAINTIFFs’ consent); (xi) denied two applications for federal funded housing by BREAKING GROUND; (xii) and other events... "Further questions of law are sought for review. See a forthcoming 'Memorandum Of Law: Matter Of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams' ('Memorandum'). "PART B.a – ARGUMENT (PART B TO END) (To Be Amended)" Id. at 19-23. "PART F – CONCLUSION "[ ]This Supplemental Brief is sought for adjudication through a sua sponte Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion (reopening the trial of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.)), where tis trial may be enjoined within a new U.S. S.Ct. trial to determine claims of aiding and abetting related to claims of conspired antitrust, economic espionage, racketeering, corruption of enterprises, subversion within impoverishment (slavery) and Domestic Housing Terrorism." Id. at 319. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 4 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (Hidden Doc. 25) (Leave to file Doc. 27) - AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT ("SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN)"), Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY) (Hidden Doc. 25) - AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT (SUPP. BRIEF: HOMELESSNESS: NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.)) (Leave to file Doc. 27), Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY), 2019 (Hidden Doc. 25) (Leave to file Doc. 27), Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY) "AFF... more (Hidden Doc. 25) (Leave to file Doc. 27), Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY) "AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT: HOMELESSNESS: A HAZARDOUS THREAT TO LIFE (JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL NANO-BIOTECHNOLOGY & NANO-ROBOTICS, IN SITU DRUG DELIVERY; A PUBLIC CONCERN)" Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) Williams v. U.S., et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.), "BRIEF" (Hidden from docket w/in filings of Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY)) (docketing & notary) "Brief Upon Its Merits: U.S.D.O.J., Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit, S.D.N.Y." "ARGUM... more "Brief Upon Its Merits: U.S.D.O.J., Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit, S.D.N.Y." "ARGUMENT "27. Estoppel is, in essence, an undermining factor for claimants seeking redress while living within impoverishment; a back-hand slap against U.S. citizens and the constitutional provisions which safeguard them against tyranny and oppression. When combined with the likelihood of antitrust offenses, which, as claimed, not only affect the general world economy but citizens within dwellings run by such financial institutions (with a strong-arm of monopolized power and federally established rights to inspect financial documents of tenants), the threat of domestic invasion is at the doorstep of an Anti-Jacksonian enslavement; a modern day Calvinist movement upon those without the financial means to enjoy the liberties for which this great and powerful Country was founded upon." Id. at 60. "STATEMENT "26. This matter is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.') from an appellate mandamus action associated to the trial of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), where such seeks a response to requested orders for sanctions from HON. CHIEF J. MCMAHON against HON. STANTON and employees of the PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT of the S.D.N.Y. for claims of contempt of court processes and conspired retaliatory promissory and collateral discriminatory estoppel (U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371), perpetrated in aid of subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact (U.S. Const. Am. 1; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) of antitrust claims of Dock. Nos. 19-39 and 19-240 of the Appellate Court, to profit from claims of the illegal reinvested assets of PLAINTIFFs’ alleged beneficial trust ('Trust LPSW,' managed by PERSHING, LLC, UBS AG and FMR, LLC (formerly Correspondent Services Corporation)); as such claimed illegally reinvested assets are evidenced as being illegally reinvested into the rent stabilized residential community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST,' of PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial real property of a claimed illegal eviction), where the Assets Under Management of UBS AG (with use of Trust LPSW) were reinvested into the Initial Public Offering of PERSHING SQUARE HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC and further reinvested into the prior securitized trust of PCV/ST (WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-C30 ('TRUST2007-C30'), including affiliated tranches and foreign BONDHOLDERS). U.S. Const. Art. 3 §2, Cl. 1; U.S. S.Ct. Rule 11, 20.3, 33.2(b), 34; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), 16, 37, 42, 54(c), FRAP. 15.1, 16(a), 19, 21(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b)(2); 5 C.F.R. §1201.43; 5 U.S.C. Ch. 5, Subch. I, §500, et seq. (see Administrative Procedure Act and Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 18 U.S.C. §§3173, 3174, 3771(d)(3); 28 U.S.C. §§158(d)(2)(A)(ii), (d)(2)(A)(iii), Ch. 16, Ch. 51, 1251(a), 1253, 1254(2), 1361, 1391(e), 1404(a), 1631, 1651(a), 1657, 1927, Ch. 158, Ch. 161. See WILBUR v. UNITED STATES, ex Rel. KADRIE, 281 U.S. 206, 218 (1930), 'to direct the retraction or reversal of action already taken[.]' See also the opinion by Hon. Chief J. WARREN within HON. HERBERT L. WILL, J., U.S. N. DIST. CT. OF ILLINOIS v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 90, 95, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967): “'the writ has been invoked where unwarranted judicial action threatened ‘to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations,’ Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 588, 63 S.Ct. 793, 799, 87 L.Ed. 1014 (1943)[,]… and where a district judge displayed a persistent disregard of the Rules of Civil Procedure[ ]… La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957)[.]' [ ] "See also U.S. Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual §1064: “'18 U.S.C. § 2521,… directs the court to proceed ‘as soon as practicable’ to the hearing and determination of such an action, and… to prevent a continuing and substantial injury to the United States or to any person[.]' [ ] "See also EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 241, 245, 248, syll. n. 1, 4 (1932): “'[t]his Court has full power in its discretion to issue the writ of mandamus to a federal district court, although… this Court ha[s] ultimate discretionary jurisdiction by certiorari, [wherein] such power will be exercised only where a question of public importance is involved, or where the question is of such a nature that it is peculiarly appropriate that such action by this Court should be taken[,… and whereby a] grand jury conclusively determines the existence of probable cause for the purpose of holding the accused to answer.' [ ]" Id. at 58, 59. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 4 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY), "PETITION FOR REDRESS" (filed in an affidavit of documents for 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.), UNRECORDED FROM DOCKET) (see Doc. 25, "ORDER," "it would be an undue burden... to scan and docket") "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... petition for redress with the U.... more "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... petition for redress with the U.S. S.Ct. and Congress for the issuance of an order for HON. CHIEF J. COLLEEN MCMAHON, of the SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK‘s, to enforce a 10-day response for sanctioned orders against HON. LOUIS L. STANTON and employees of the PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT for claims of contempt and conspired retaliatory promissory and collateral discriminatory estoppel[,]... perpetrated in aid of subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact... of antitrust claims of Dock. Nos. 19-39 and 19-240 of the Appellate Court, to profit from claims of the illegal reinvested assets of PLAINTIFFs’ alleged beneficial trust ('Trust LPSW,' managed by PERSHING, LLC, UBS AG and FMR, LLC); as such claimed illegally reinvested assets are evidenced as being illegally reinvested into the rent stabilized residential community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town[,]... where the Assets Under Management of UBS AG (with use of Trust LPSW) were reinvested into the Initial Public Offering of PERSHING SQUARE HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC and further reinvested into the prior securitized trust of PCV/ST (WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-C30, including affiliated tranches and foreign BONDHOLDERS)." Id. at 1-2. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir.), 19-6227(U.S. S.Ct.) (CERTIORARI) (MANDAMUS) (Cert. Returned, June 21, 2019) (filed in an affidavit for 19-cv-11547(SDNY), UNRECORDED FROM DOCKET) "ARGUMENT "41. This matter is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.... more "ARGUMENT "41. This matter is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.') from an appellate mandamus action associated to the trial of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), where such seeks a response to requested orders for sanctions from HON. CHIEF J. MCMAHON against HON. STANTON and employees of the PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT of the S.D.N.Y. for claims of contempt of court processes and conspired retaliatory promissory and collateral discriminatory estoppel (U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371), perpetrated in aid of subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact (U.S. Const. Am. 1; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) of antitrust claims of Dock. Nos. 19-39 and 19-240 of the Appellate Court, to profit from claims of the illegal reinvested assets of PLAINTIFFs’ alleged beneficial trust ('Trust LPSW,' managed by PERSHING, LLC, UBS AG and FMR, LLC (formerly Correspondent Services Corporation)); as such claimed illegally reinvested assets are evidenced as being illegally reinvested into the rent stabilized residential community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST,' of PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial real property of a claimed illegal eviction), where the Assets Under Management of UBS AG (with use of Trust LPSW) were reinvested into the Initial Public Offering of PERSHING SQUARE HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC and further reinvested into the prior securitized trust of PCV/ST (WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-C30 ('TRUST2007-C30'), including affiliated tranches and foreign BONDHOLDERS). U.S. Const. Art. 3 §2, Cl. 1; U.S. S.Ct. Rule 11, 20.3, 33.2(b), 34; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), 16, 37, 42, 54(c), FRAP. 15.1, 16(a), 19, 21(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b)(2); 5 C.F.R. §1201.43; 5 U.S.C. Ch. 5, Subch. I, §500, et seq. (see Administrative Procedure Act and Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 18 U.S.C. §§3173, 3174, 3771(d)(3); 28 U.S.C. §§158(d)(2)(A)(ii), (d)(2)(A)(iii), Ch. 16, Ch. 51, 1251(a), 1253, 1254(2), 1361, 1391(e), 1404(a), 1631, 1651(a), 1657, 1927, Ch. 158, Ch. 161. See WILBUR v. UNITED STATES, ex Rel. KADRIE, 281 U.S. 206, 218 (1930), 'to direct the retraction or reversal of action already taken[.]' See also the opinion by Hon. Chief J. WARREN within HON. HERBERT L. WILL, J., U.S. N. DIST. CT. OF ILLINOIS v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 90, 95, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967): “'the writ has been invoked where unwarranted judicial action threatened ‘to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations,’ Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 588, 63 S.Ct. 793, 799, 87 L.Ed. 1014 (1943)[,]… and where a district judge displayed a persistent disregard of the Rules of Civil Procedure[ ]… La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957)[.]' [emphasis added] "See also U.S. Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual §1064: “'18 U.S.C. § 2521,… directs the court to proceed ‘as soon as practicable’ to the hearing and determination of such an action, and… to prevent a continuing and substantial injury to the United States or to any person[.]' [emphasis added] "See also EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 241, 245, 248, syll. n. 1, 4 (1932): “'[t]his Court has full power in its discretion to issue the writ of mandamus to a federal district court, although… this Court ha[s] ultimate discretionary jurisdiction by certiorari, [wherein] such power will be exercised only where a question of public importance is involved, or where the question is of such a nature that it is peculiarly appropriate that such action by this Court should be taken[,… and whereby a] grand jury conclusively determines the existence of probable cause for the purpose of holding the accused to answer.' [emphasis added] "ARGUMENT "42. Estoppel is, in essence, an undermining factor for claimants seeking redress while living within Impoverishment; a back-hand slap against U.S. citizens and the constitutional provisions which safeguard them against tyranny and oppression. When combined with the likelihood of antitrust offenses, which, as claimed, not only affect the general world economy but citizens within dwellings run by such financial institutions (with a strong-arm of monopolized power and federally established rights to inspect financial documents of tenants), the threat of domestic invasion is at the doorstep of an Anti-Jacksonian enslavement; a modern day Calvinist movement upon those without the financial means to enjoy the liberties for which this great and powerful Country was founded upon. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY), 20-451(JAC)(RJS)(SJM)(2nd Cir.), "LETTER OF NON-TEXT SEARCHABILITY (DEFERRED APPENDIX)," Doc. 221, p23 ("AFFIRMATION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1651") "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... inform defendants and the Unite... more "I, STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, CESTUI QUE ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... inform defendants and the United States Court Appeals for the Second Circuit of PLAINTIFFs’ inability to pay for a text searchable scan into the PACER system. A paper filing has been filed in the overnight box during this period of coronavirus.... " Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 6 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(JAC)(PWH)(Walker, rcs'd)(2nd Cir.)(MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, Doc. 171-1) "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... move[ ] to reconsider and furthe... more "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... move[ ] to reconsider and further reinstate the above referenced docket of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ('2nd Cir. Ct.'), in light of references to legal and factual matters of emergency presented within this document. FRAP 27(a)(1); LR 27.1(d), (g), (i), 40.2; 22 NYCRR 500.20(d). See JASER v. JASER, 37 Conn. App. 194, 203, 655 A.2d 790 (1995), 'reconsideration hearing[s] involves consideration of the trial evidence[.]' See also BINNER v. LIMESTONE COUNTY, 129 S.W.3d 710 (Tex. App. 2004), 'motion to reinstate is the failsafe to prevent cases… from being improperly dismissed.' See also DUEITT v. ARROWHEAD LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS INC., No. 10-04-00274-CV(2005)), 'motion to reinstate ensures that the dismissed party has received due process, because participation... cures any due process concerns.'” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-240(JAC)(PWH)(Walker, rcs'd)(2nd Cir.)(MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, Doc. 50-1) "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... move[ ] to reconsider and furthe... more "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé),... move[ ] to reconsider and further reinstate the above referenced docket of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ('2nd Cir. Ct.'), in light of references to legal and factual matters of emergency presented within this document. FRAP 27(a)(1); LR 27.1(d), (g), (i), 40.2; 22 NYCRR 500.20(d). See JASER v. JASER, 37 Conn. App. 194, 203, 655 A.2d 790 (1995), 'reconsideration hearing[s] involves consideration of the trial evidence[.]' See also BINNER v. LIMESTONE COUNTY, 129 S.W.3d 710 (Tex. App. 2004), 'motion to reinstate is the failsafe to prevent cases… from being improperly dismissed.' See also DUEITT v. ARROWHEAD LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS INC., No. 10-04-00274-CV(2005)), 'motion to reinstate ensures that the dismissed party has received due process, because participation... cures any due process concerns.'" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 10 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "Motion for: PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI," Doc. 68, Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.) "Motion for: PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI," Doc. 68, Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2017 "Motion for: PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (Highlighted) (w/ Acknowledgement of Service), Doc.... more "Motion for: PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (Highlighted) (w/ Acknowledgement of Service), Doc. 68, filed February 1, 2017, Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.): "Motion for: PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" "Making service of (3) copies of Plaintiffs' certiorari petition sought for filing within the Supreme Court of the United States... "An extension motion accompanies Plaintiffs' filings within the Supreme Court of the United States due to 'extraordinary circumstances' which have caused service of this petition to be given in a late Is oral argument on motion requested? manner, namely not being notified of the order denying reinstatement." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Ref. Doc. 68 (Part 1), U.S. S.Ct. Questions, "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI," Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.) In Ref. Doc. 68 (Part 1), U.S. S.Ct. Questions, "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (DRAFTED - Original allegedly stolen), Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2017 In Ref. Doc. 68 (Part 1), U.S. S.Ct. Questions, "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (DRAFTED - Orig... more In Ref. Doc. 68 (Part 1), U.S. S.Ct. Questions, "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (DRAFTED - Original allegedly stolen), Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.): DISCLAIMER Due to claims against the N.Y.P.D. (20TH PRECINCT) stealing PLAINTIFFs’ personal property (containing most evidence of this trial matter, which were preciously filed within CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., 137 U.S.1611(2017)), as such was shortly after an event where PLAINTIFF filed a police report (Complaint Report No. “3687.” [highlighting and emphasis added]) with the 20th for having his 137 U.S. 1611(2017) documents (namely the certiorari petition with exhibits) allegedly stolen from him after sleeping at Richard Tucker Park (located at Columbus Avenue and 66th Street) at approximately 5:15 in the morning, on the date of September 6, 2017, PLAINTIFF unfortunately is unable to provide the District Court of S.D.N.Y. proper evidence in support of his complaint. However, most of the evidence is still filed in the Supreme Court of the United States and some still in PLAINTIFFs’ possession, as such are presented to the Court in accompanying exhibited documents. "The aforementioned questions are presented to the Supreme Court of the United States... for review in opposition of the 'MOTION ORDER' ('MANDATE,' 'Document 35,' filed May 18, 2016, Docket No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.), Appendix A), the Southern District Court of the State of New York... 'ORDER OF DISMISSAL' ('Document 18,' Appendix B) and 'CIVIL JUDGMENT' ('Document 19,' Appendix C) (both filed December 10, 2015 within Docket No. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY)),... as well as the accompanying filings of the U.S. S.Ct.’s 'MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,' 'AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,' and Plaintiffs’ 'Affidavit In Support Of Petition For Writ Of Certiorari (Mandamus/Sine Qua Non/Order Nisi)'... and 'Motion For Extraordinary Relief (28 U.S.C. §1929)'... U.S. S.Ct. Rule 10(a) to (c), 11 (see 28 U.S.C. §2101(c)[)],... as such may be afforded via the filing of 'Motion For Extension Or Stay Of Limitations: In Forma Pauperis & Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, et seq.,' U.S. S.Ct. Rule 13.5), 12.2, 12.3, 20.1 to 20.3 (see... 'Affidavit Of Proof Of Service, In Kind: Motion For Extraordinary Relief'); Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b)(2); 18 U.S.C. §§3173, 3174, 3771(a), (b), (d)(1); 28 U.S.C.§§1257(a), 1651(a), 1657, 2101(f). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact In Ref. Doc. 68 (Part 2), "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI," Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.) In Ref. Doc. 68 (Part 2), "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (DRAFTED - Original allegedly stolen) (HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), Williams, 16-189 (2nd Cir. Ct.), 2017 "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (DRAFTED - Original allegedly stolen) (ESTOPPEL, HIDDEN FROM DO... more "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (DRAFTED - Original allegedly stolen) (ESTOPPEL, HIDDEN FROM DOCKET), Doc. 68, filed February 1, 2017, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.) Doc. 68, "Motion for: PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" "Making service of (3) copies of Plaintiffs' certiorari petition sought for filing within the Supreme Court of the United States... "An extension motion accompanies Plaintiffs' filings within the Supreme Court of the United States due to 'extraordinary circumstances' which have caused service of this petition to be given in a late Is oral argument on motion requested? manner, namely not being notified of the order denying reinstatement." "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI" REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION The following are reasons to review this certiorari (U.S. S.Ct. Rule 10, 11; 28 U.S.C. §2101(c)) in favor of Plaintiff and to assume authoritative control over Matter of Cestui Que S.T. Williams in opposition of the referenced May 18, 2016 MOTION ORDER (Docket No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.), Appendix A), as well as the December 10, 2015 ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Docket No. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), Appendix B): • S.D.N.Y. and the 2nd Cir. Ct. refused to acknowledge Plaintiff (sole beneficiary and named alternate executor to Trust LPSW) conveying information of having never being provided notification of Trust LPSW being transferred for ownership to U.B.S. and Pershing, nor that a death index search was never performed by the financial institutions after the passing of Decedent in abidance with local laws of the state of New York or the Estates, Powers and Trusts laws; • S.D.N.Y. and the 2nd Cir. Ct. refused to acknowledge claimed illegalities by N.Y.H.C. as being a valid federal claim, wherein upon the death of Decedent, CWCAM (in their interim ownership of PCV/ST, after performing a financial background check on all of the tenants of PCV/ST, and having affiliations with U.B.S. and other hedge fund firms, including Bank of America, N.A., their insurer and the banking institution handling Estate LPSW) filed for eviction within N.Y.H.C. without providing Plaintiff, as successor, a renewal lease (despite his requests) and well prior to the eviction date, whereby Hon. Chan J. authorized the eviction of himself and Mr. Willis Eugene Williams, Jr. (Plaintiffs’ father) from the dwelling unit as if they were rent controlled tenants instead of rent stabilized tenants in violation of local laws of New York (having the warrant posted on the dwelling unit door on the day of eviction, the key card deactivated to deny entry into the apartment building and top lock plunged in, allegedly without prior notice of attending trial within N.Y.H.C.); • S.D.N.Y. and the 2nd Cir. Ct. refused to acknowledge Plaintiffs’ conveyances of financial trade secrets, wherein Trust LPSW was affirmed as having considerable amounts of financial assets within it by U.S. Government agencies, and whereby Pershing (and partner U.B.S. for Trust LPSW) allegedly denied Plaintiff acquisition of beneficial trust assets or information upon his visitation (the I.R.S. as well); • U.B.S., J.P. Sec. and P.H.S., in their joint effort to offer financial assets to the general public, utilized their finances (of which include Trust LPSW) to bail out CWCAM from mortgaged debt acquired from the previous ownership of PCV/ST; • S.D.N.Y. and the 2nd Cir. Ct. allegedly refused to acknowledge Plaintiffs’ conveyances of judicial and legal malpractice by Avrom R. Vann (Avrom R. Vann, P.C.), Hon. Chan J., Hon. J.H.S., D.A. Sophia “Khon” (and John Doe (4), Asst. D.A.) and the S.C.N.Y. and to report such claims to the proper authoritative power in abidance with Judicial Code 2.15; • The 2nd Cir. Ct. refused to acknowledge Plaintiffs’ conveyance of CWCAM initiating the sale of PCV/ST to BlackstoneGrp. immediately after Plaintiff filed papers within S.D.N.Y. seeking redress; • S.D.N.Y. and the 2nd Cir. Ct. allegedly refused to seek justice at all costs and dismissed Matter of Cestui Que S.T. Williams primarily in light of a procedural oversight of the statement provision associated to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), while further exposing personal confidential information to the general public in defiance with Plaintiffs’ federally protected right to suppress and protect such information and allegedly committing other violations in aid of named primary defendants; and • Plaintiff has been living on the streets of New York City for over four years, allegedly battling retaliation, prejudice, violent acts of aggression and fierce weather conditions (causing near loss of body parts) all claimed due to the alleged illegal eviction (Hon. Chan J. and Hon. J.H.S.) and the relationship of the court system with CWCAM, as well as California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Bondholder for CWCAM and PCV/ST), wherein numerous occurrences of alleged police state actions were performed upon his person within a three year period. As highlighted within the jurisdiction section of this petition, as well as evidenced within appendices of the accompanying previously mentioned extension or stay of limitations motion, a “Petition: Rehearing” “Document 46”), “Motion for Emergency Reconsideration” (“Document 46”), “Motion to Recall Mandate” (“Document 42”), and “Motion To Expedite” (“Document 44”), all filed on July 6, 2016, including a further filing of a “Motion For Immediate Emergency Reinstatement” (“Document 40,” filed July 7, 2016), have yet to be answered by the 2nd Cir. Ct., wherein, after additionally filing a “threat to life” affidavit, enjoining motion and supplemental notice of appeal for matters pertaining to the M.T.A., T.A.B., and U.S. S.Ct., Kings Co., Civ., the Court has denied any further filing within the docket, as he is unable to file an extension motion to file a certiorari petition (as referenced within U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14(e)(ii)). Furthermore, the above filings, as they appear on the CIVIL DOCKET for Docket No. 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.), were filed in the incorrect numerical order, a claimed U.S. Const. Am. 10 violation, wherein the July 7, 2016 motion for reinstatement is numbered earlier than the July 6 rehearing petition and subsequent motions. In abidance with U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14(e)(v), it is additionally noted, due to claimed subversion of life restricting the availability of funds to deliver this petition and I.F.P. motion to all named defendants by certified mail, only the mentioned defendants in section B of the accompanying Affidavit Of Proof Of Service, In Kind: Motion For Extraordinary Relief (previously mentioned) have been served in person, while the remaining defendants are sought process of service through the Solicitor General and the accompanying filing of the Motion For Extraordinary Relief (28 U.S.C. §1929) (also previously referenced). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. US, et al., 15cv5114(SDNY), 16-189(2nd Cir.), Dock. 16M111(U.S. S.Ct.)(137 US 1611) Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out of time, US Sup.Ct., Dock. 16M111(U.S. S.Ct.)(137 US 1611), 2017 Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out of time. See Certiorar... more Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out of time. See Certiorari filed within Williams v. US, et al., 16-189(2nd Cir.). Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact U.S. Supreme Court Index No. 16M111 (Highlighted), Williams v. United States, et al., 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP), 137 S.Ct. 1611(2017) U.S. Supreme Court Index No. 16M111, 2017 "Mar 1 2017 Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out of t... more "Mar 1 2017 Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out of time filed. Mar 22 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017. Apr 17 2017 Motion Denied." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact U.S. S.CT. LETTER, "petition is out-of-time," Williams v. U.S., et al., 15-cv-5114 (LAP)(S.D.N.Y.), 16-189(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct.), 137 S.Ct. 1611(2017) U.S. S.CT. LETTER, "petition is out-of-time", 2016 "petition for writ of certiorari was originally postmarked February 3, 2017 and received again om... more "petition for writ of certiorari was originally postmarked February 3, 2017 and received again om February 23, 2017. The papers are returned for the following reason(s)" "The petition is out-of-time. The date of the lower court judgment... was October 18, 2016... [T]he petition was due on January 16, 2017... "If you wish to file a motion to direct the Clerk to file the petition out of time, you must submit the appropriately-titled motion... "Scott S. Harris, Clerk By: Jacob Levitan" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact U.S. Supreme Court "[ ]ORDER LIST: 581 U.S.[; ]MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2017[; ]CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS," "16M111 WILLIAMS, STEVEN T. V. UNITED STATES"), Law.Cornell.edu (Highlighted) U.S. Supreme Court "[ ]ORDER LIST: 581 U.S.[; ]MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2017[; ]CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS", 2016 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(JAC)(PWH)(Walker, rcs'd)(2nd Cir.), 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.)(CERTIORARI - APPENDICES) Williams v. US, et al., 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.)(APPENDICES), 2019 Williams v. US, et al., 18cv12064(SDNY), 19 -39(2nd Cir.), 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.)(APPENDICES) AP... more Williams v. US, et al., 18cv12064(SDNY), 19 -39(2nd Cir.), 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.)(APPENDICES) APPENDIX A DISMISSAL (Williams v. US, et al., 19-39(2nd Cir.)) "Appellant, pro se, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, to supplement the record on appeal, and for other relief. 2d Cir. 19-39, docs. 66, 82, 91. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motions are DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED because it 'lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.'" APPENDIX B ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Williams v. US, et al., 19-39(2nd Cir.)) "Appellant, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams filed a motion for reconsideration and the panel that determined the motion has considered the request. "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion is denied." APPENDIX C CIVIL JUDGMENT (Williams v. US, et al., 18cv12064 (LLS)) "complaint is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). "The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Court’s judgment would not be taken in good faith. "Dated: December 26, 2018" APPENDIX D ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Williams v. US, et al., 18cv12064 (LLS)) "Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action alleging that his 'primary claims' are against the United States for its 'co-conspired infiltration and influence within the IRS to conceal tax documents.' By order dated December 21, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, informa pauperis. The Court dismisses the complaint for the reasons set forth below... "Plaintiff brought an earlier suit challenging his eviction from his late mother’s apartment and unrelated matters that had either taken place or were pending in New York County Criminal Court, the Transit Adjudication Bureau, and a criminal court in Montgomery County, Maryland. Williams v. United States, No. 15-CV-5114 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2015). In the earlier action, then-Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska granted Plaintiff leave to amend his initial complaint because it was unintelligible and failed to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Court noted was 'hundreds of pages long and names scores of new Defendants located in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and the District of. Columbia.' Williams, No. 15-CV-5114 (Order filed Dec. 10, 2015 at 2). The district court dismissed that action, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that 'the appeal is dismissed because ‘it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).' Williams v. United States, No. 16-189 (2d Cir. May 18, 2016). "In this new action, Plaintiff again refers to his eviction, his criminal proceedings, and matters relating to his late mother... "Plaintiff indicates that this matter is 'brought before the Court primarily as an ‘anti-trust’ matter.' (Letter, ECF No. 3.)... "Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(JAC)(PWH)(Walker, rcs'd)(2nd Cir.), 19-5398(U.S. S.Ct.)(CERTIORARI) "This matter is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.') from an appe... more "This matter is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.') from an appellate action associated to the trial of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), where such seeks questioning of a provided ORDER, denying a reconsideration motion (claimed unconstitutionally provided by the appellate); as such is in further questioning of a federal court’s use of Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004) to dismiss reconsideration motions (especially when PLAINTIFFs’ attempts to seek 'an adequate, alternative mean[ ] of obtaining relief' were allegedly prevented by clerical officers and judicial officials). Sanctions are not sought, however, the reopening or remand of the trial to the U.S. S.Ct. is sought, sua sponte. U.S. Const. Art. 3 §2, Cl. 1; U.S. S.Ct. Rule 10. See WILBUR v. UNITED STATES, exRel. KADRIE, 281 U.S. 206, 218 (1930), 'to direct the retraction or reversal of action already taken[.]'” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 12 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(JAC)(PWH)(Walker, rcs'd)(2nd Cir.), 19-5398(U.S. S.Ct.) Williams v. US, et al., 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.), CERTIORARI (W/ APPENDICES) "This matter is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.') from an appe... more "This matter is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.') from an appellate action associated to the trial of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States,18cv12064(LLS) (SDNY), where such seeks questioning of a provided ORDER, denying a reconsideration motion (claimed unconstitutionally provided by the appellate);[ "S]uch is in further questioning of a federal court’s use of Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004) to dismiss reconsideration motions (especially when PLAINTIFFs’ attempts to seek 'an adequate, alternative mean[ ] of obtaining relief' were allegedly prevented by clerical officers and judicial officials).[ "]Sanctions are not sought, however, the reopening or remand of the trial to the U.S. S.Ct. is sought, sua sponte. U.S. Const. Art. 3 §2, Cl. 1; U.S. S.Ct. Rule 10. See WILBUR v. UNITED STATES, exRel. KADRIE, 281 U.S. 206, 218 (1930), 'to direct the retraction or reversal of action already taken[.]'” QUESTIONS "1. Fed. R. App. P. 27, L.R. 27(d), (g), (i), L.R. 40.2 and 22 NYCRR §500.20(d) (pendent jurisdiction): " a. Will the Court provide for questioning upon Fed. R. App. P. 27, L.R. 27(d), (g), (i) and L.R. 40.2 of the Local Rules and Internal Operating Procedures of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, local statute 22 NYCRR §500.20(d) (collateral claims of pendent jurisdiction) for the recently provided dismissal of CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ETAL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(JAC)(PWH)(JMW (2nd Cir. Ct.) (see Appendix A and B. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi)) and what delineates 'an adequate, alternative mean[ ] of obtaining relief' when judicial officials cite 'Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)' for a reason to dismiss reconsideration motions? " i. Upon affirmation of a justified reconsideration by PLAINTIFF (see Appendix B. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi)), will the Court see just to provide a sua sponte order to reopen the above trial (Dock. Nos. 19-39), by writ of error, in question of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60? "2. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 11: " a. Under Rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (U.S. S.Ct. Rules), seeking review of a district court judgment before a judgment within an appeal, if the district court’s judgment references associated appeal trials, may those associated appeal trials be sought for review within the same certiorari, either under U.S. S.Ct. Rule 11 and/or U.S. S.Ct. Rule 12.4 (closely related multiple judgments)?" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 4 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-240(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir.), 19-5399(U.S. S.Ct.) (CERTIORARI) "This matter is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct') from an appel... more "This matter is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct') from an appellate action associated to the trial of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), where such seeks questioning of a provided ORDER, denying a reconsideration motion (claimed unconstitutionally provided by the appellate); as such is in further questioning of a federal court’s use of Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380—81 (2004) to dismiss reconsideration motions (especially when PLAINTIFFs’ attempts to seek 'an adequate, alternative mean[ ] of obtaining relief' were allegedly prevented by clerical officers and judicial officials). Sanctions are not sought, however, the reopening or remand of the trial to the U.S. S.Ct. is sought, sua sponte. U.S. Const. Art. 3 §2, Cl. 1; U.S. S.Ct. Rule 10. See WILBUR v. UNITED STATES, ex Rel. KADRIE, 281 U.S. 206, 218 (1930), 'to direct the retraction or reversal of action already taken[.]'” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 6 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.) (PETITION FOR REHEARING) "PETITION FOR REHEARING... "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, 'PLAINTIFF,' Pro Se, being of... more "PETITION FOR REHEARING... "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, 'PLAINTIFF,' Pro Se, being of sound mind, state I am over the age of 18 (currently displaced), and in reference to the denied 'PETITION FOR CERTIORARI' ('Petition,' denied on October 8, 2019), petitions the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.') to rehear the Petition based upon alleged prima facie evidence of constitutional illegalities of sanctions for aiding/abetting antitrust offenses, evidenced in the accompanying appendices. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 44 (presented in good faith for 'intervening circumstances'); Fed. R. App. P. 15(a), 20, 40(a), 41(d); Fed. R. Crim. P. 51(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See UNITED STATES v. ALLEN-BRADLEY CO., 352 U. S. 306. See also NATIONAL LEAD CO. v. COMMISSIONER, 352 U. S. 313. See also UNITED STATES v. OHIO POWER CO., 353 U. S. 98-99. See also a Villanova University publication[ ('entitled 'Federal Appellate Procedure — Recall of Mandate Review of Judgments after Rehearing and Appeal Periods Expire' (Vol. 24, Issue 1, Art. 9) (by Steven D. McLamb, dated January 1, 1978)...')], where such suggests the procedure is to recall prior to mandate, a 'balancing [of] interests" between the recall and rehearing petition (by 'reexamination or alteration' when a filing party feels as though the Court "misapplied or overlooked an issue of law'), as such would quash its ruling and recall the matter for an additional consideration, 'because the correction of such errors is considered the primary purpose of petitions for rehearing,' where the publication further states: "'[a] petition for rehearing will usually stay... the mandate... Neither the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure nor the Judicial Code[ ] provides for any reexamination or alteration of an issued mandate, which becomes the law of the case.[ ] A litigant... may move for that court to recall its mandate... because the correction of such errors is considered the primary purpose of petitions for rehearing[,]...' Id. at 1, 3 , 7. "The Villanova publication seeks to validate the procedure of a motion to recall within a superior court, citing such stipulating: "'[n]o statute,... has been enacted to aid courts of appeals in balancing these interests when they are requested to recall their mandates ... See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 244 (1944); Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC[ ('[s]ee Villanova's citation of the matter of '...Greater Boston[ (463 F.2d at 274), wherein] the FCC petitioned the court to recall its mandate... in order to reopen its proceedings and receive new evidence[ and where the] court summarized the scant precedent on the recall of mandates[,]... not[ing] that mandates had been traditionally recalled if the[y]... would have produced an unintended[ (...the mandate must be changed... 463 F.2d at 279. See Meredith v. Fair, 306 F.2d 374 (5th Cir. 1962) (sua sponte recall).'] or unconscionable result.43' [ ] Id. at 5, 6...'),] 463 F.2d 263, 277-78 (D.C. Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 950 (1972); Hines v. Royal Indem. Co., 253 F.2d 111, 114 (6th Cir. 1958)... Neither the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure nor the Judicial Code 19 provides for any reexamination or alteration of a[ ]mandate[ (see 'In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247, 255 (1895)'),... where a] litigant who believes [ ] the court [ ] has misapplied or overlooked an issue of law may move for... recall[.]" [ ] Id. 1, 3. "The Villanova publication states: "'courts... possess the power to recall issued mandates... See United States v. Ohio Power Co., 353 U.S. 98 (1957)[. See also] Marine Ins. Co. of Alexandria v. Hodgson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 332 (1813)[, wherein]... mandate could be recalled... only upon a clear showing of fraud or unconscionable result. 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) at 337.' [ ] Id. at 4. "'The Villanova, quoting 28 U.S.C. '...[02106[,... further states,] federal [ ] courts may, inter alia, 'require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.' [ ] Id. Additionally, the publication states: "'the Third Circuit substantially contributed to the development of this area of law in American Iron and Steel Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency (AISI I1)[ (`560 F.2d 589 (3d Cir. 1977).'),]... in light of the conflicting policies of finality of judgment and reopening litigation where justice so [re]quires[,... and whereby t]he Fifth Circuit has sought to answer this question through its rulemaking power[ (referencing '28 § 2071 (1970); FED. R. App. P. 47.'), f]or a discussion of providing that '[a] mandate once issued will not be recalled except by the court and to prevent injustice[' (5TH CIR. R. 15. See Gradsky v. United States, 376 F.2d 993, 995 (5th Cir.), vacated... Roberts v. United States, 389 U.S. 18 (1967). Gradsky was decided under a rule... to follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), which states that a judgment entered in district court may be vacated by that court for any reason 'justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.' [ ] Id. at 4, 5. "The Villanova publication, referencing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and the matter of 'Greater Boston,' states, the: "'court contributed two new factors... First, recall would be justified where significant evidence has been discovered after the [ ] mandate has issued[,... and s]econd,... that recall of mandates may be warranted where there is an interest in intracircuit uniformity[.]' [ ] Id. at 6. "[ ]Villanova highlights "Legate v. Maloney,[ `(348 F.2d 164 (1st Cir. 1965).'),' wherein: ""the... court stated in dicta that if a subsequent... opinion were to show that the original opinion was 'demonstrably wrong ' a motion to recall that mandate might be entertained[,'... and] that even if an error of law had been made, 'we believe it would be far greater error to permit reconsideration now after denial of petitions for rehearing...' [ ] Id. at 7. "Such 'balancing,' he adds, is further advised by Villanova, as proper procedure, to: "'adopt the balancing approach advanced by the Third Circuit[,... where t]he diligence of the litigant in moving for a rehearing... should be considered, and the litigant's diligence in moving for the recall should also enter into the balancing process.' See 'American Iron and Steel Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency (AISI I),' 526 F.2d 1027 (3d Cir. 1975). See also AISI II, 'argued June 9, 1977. 560 F.2d at 589.' [ ] Villanova, Id. at 10. "Further citing Villanova, he emphasizes the publications reference to: "'AISI II[,... wherein] the issue of whether the policy interests favoring putting an end to litigation were so outweighed by the circumstances of the case as to warrant an extraordinary recall of mandate ... [stating] that the case fit within the Legate 'demonstrably wrong' exception to the recall prohibition[ (560 F.2d at 595.'),... as such] a refusal to recall its mandate would impose substantial administrative hardship...[ 560 F.2d at 600)]." Villanova, Id. at 10, 11. "Villanova compares 'Greater Boston' to 'AISI II,' concluding, within Greater Boston, "'the D.C. Circuit did not provide any guidance to courts or litigants as to whether the presence of one or several factors was necessary to warrant recall[,]' and that it was in the publication's opinion 'that [ ] courts confronted with a motion to recall a mandate should adopt the balancing approach advanced by the Third Circuit in AISI II.' [ ] Villanova, Id. at 12. Villanova concluded, stating that: "'[w]ith respect to fairness to the litigants certain factors should be weighed[,... such as t]he diligence of the litigant in moving for a rehearing... and the litigant's diligence in moving for the recall... enter[ing such] into a balancing process... "'[T]he court should examine the [ex]tent to which a party who has relied on the judgment would be injured by its recall[ (See United States v. Ohio Power Co., 353 U.S. 98, 99 (1957) (Harlan, J, dissenting);...')], as well as... any abuse of the judicial process... [and] the interest of society in finality of judgment and in the outcome of a particular suit, as well as the degree its expectations would be upset by recall of a mandate, must be considered.' [ ] Villanova, Id. at 13." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 3 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.) (CERTIORARI - APPENDICES) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.) (CERTIORARI) "STATEMENT "This matter is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.') ... more "STATEMENT "This matter is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.') from an appellate mandamus action associated to the trial of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 1932(2nd Cir. Ct.)[(RSP)(BDP)(RR)], where such seeks a response to requested orders for sanctions from HON. CHIEF J. MCMAHON against HON. STANTON and employees of the PRO SE INTAKE UNIT of the SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (“S.D.N.Y.”) for claims of contempt of court processes and conspired retaliatory promissory and collateral discriminatory estoppel (U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371), perpetrated in aid of subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact (U.S. Const. Am. 1; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) of antitrust claims of Dock. Nos. 19-39 and 19-240 of the Appellate Court, to profit from claims of the illegal reinvested assets of PLAINTIFFs’ alleged beneficial trust ('Trust LPSW,' managed by PERSHING, LLC, UBS AG and FMR, LLC); as such claimed illegally reinvested assets are evidenced as being illegally reinvested into the rent stabilized residential community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST,' of PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial real property of a claimed illegal eviction), where the Assets Under Management of UBS AG (with use of Trust LPSW) were reinvested into the Initial Public Offering of PERSHING SQUARE HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC and further reinvested into the prior securitized trust of PCV/ST (WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-C30 ('TRUST2007-C3'), including affiliated tranches and foreign BONDHOLDERS). U.S. Const. Art. 3 §2, Cl. 1; U.S. S.Ct. Rule 11, 33.2(b), 34; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), 16, 37, 42, 54(c), FRAP. 15.1, 16(a), 19, 21(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b)(2); 5 C.F.R. §1201.43; 5 U.S.C. Ch. 5, Subch. I, §500, et seq. (see Administrative Procedure Act and Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 18 U.S.C. §§3173, 3174, 3771(d)(3); 28 U.S.C. §§158(d)(2)(A)(ii), (d)(2)(A)(iii), Ch. 16, Ch. 51, 1251(a), 1253, 1254(2), 1361, 1391(e), 1404(a), 1631, 1651(a), 1657, 1927, Ch. 158, Ch. 161. See WILBUR v. UNITED STATES, ex Rel. KADRIE, 281 U.S. 206, 218 (1930), 'to direct the retraction or reversal of action already taken].]” See also the opinion by Hon. Chief J. WARREN within HON. HERBERT L. WILL, J., U.S. N. DIST. CT. OF ILLINOIS v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 90, 95, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967): "'the writ has been invoked where unwarranted judicial action threatened ‘to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations.’ Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 588, 63 S.Ct. 793, 799, 87 L.Ed. 1014 (1943)],]... and where a district judge displayed a persistent disregard of the Rules of Civil Procedure[ ]... La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957)[.]' [ ] "See also U.S. Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual §1064: "'18 U.S.C. § 2521,... directs the court to proceed ‘as soon as practicable’ to the hearing and determination of such an action, and... to prevent a continuing and substantial injury to the United States or to any person].' [ ] "See also EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 241, 245, 248, syll. n. 1, 4 (1932): "'[t]his Court has full power in its discretion to issue the writ of mandamus to a federal district court, although... this Court ha[s] ultimate discretionary jurisdiction by certiorari, [wherein] such power will be exercised only where a question of public importance is involved, or where the question is of such a nature that it is peculiarly appropriate that such action by this Court should be taken],... and whereby a] grand jury conclusively determines the existence of probable cause for the purpose of holding the accused to answer.'"[ ] Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 7 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.) (PETITION FOR REHEARING - APPENDICES) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir.), 19-6227(U.S. S.Ct.) (CERTIORARI - APPENDICES) (MANDAMUS) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir.), 19-6227(U.S. S.Ct.) (CERTIORARI) (MANDAMUS) "Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus; In Re., Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United S... more "Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus; In Re., Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al. (Sanctions upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit, S.D.N.Y.) "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Se), in reference to the accompanying 'Petition For Writ of Certiorari,' as well as the associated documents of 'Petition For Waiver Of Sovereign Immunity (Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit, S.D.N.Y.)' (Immunity Petition) and 'Motion For Preliminary Summary Judgment: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit,' currently filed m the appellate mandamus action of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18cvl2064(LLS)(SDNY), present this mandamus to order the Second Circuit Court and SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK‘s ('S.D.N.Y.') to proceed with the issuance of sanctions upon HON. LOUIS L. STANTON and employees of S.D.N.Y.’s PRO SE INTAKE UNIT (namely rdz, mro, tp, aea and sc) for claims involving contempt and conspired retaliatory promissory and collateral discriminatory estoppel (U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371) (see Appendix A), claimed perpetrated in aid of subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life in impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact (U.S. Const. Am. 1; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) of antitrust claims of Dock. Nos. 19-39 and 19-240 of the Appellate Court, to profit from claims of the illegal reinvested assets of PLAINTIFFs’ alleged beneficial trust ('Trust LPSW,' managed by PERSHING, LLC, UBS AG and FMR, LLC); as such claimed illegally reinvested assets are evidenced as being illegally reinvested into the rent stabilized community of Peter Cooper Village /Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST,' of PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial real property of a claimed illegal eviction), where the Assets Under Management of UBS AG (with use of Trust LPSW) reinvested into the Initial Public Offering of PERSHING SQUARE HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC and further reinvested into the prior trust of PCV/ST (WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST were 2007-C30, including affiliated tranches and foreign BONDHOLDERS). U.S. S.Ct. Rule 11, 20.3, 33.2(b), 34; "Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), 16, 37, 42, 54(c), FRAP. 15.1,16(a), 19, 21(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b)(2); 5 C.F.R. §1201.43; 5 U.S.C. Ch. 5, Subch. I, §500, et seq. (see Administrative Procedure Act and Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 18 U.S.C. §§3173, 3174, 3771(d)(3); 28 U.S.C. §§158(d)(2)(A)(ii), (d)(2)(A)(iii), Ch. 16, Ch. 51, 1251(a), 1253,' 1254(2), 1361, 1391(e), 1404(a), 1631, 1651(a), 1657, 1927, Ch. 158, Ch. appellate docket associated to this matter at Dock. No. 1392(JAC)(PWH)(JMW). See the accompanying Immunity Petition. See also 'Motion To Vacate Dismissal Order Of Hon. Lois L. Stanton, In Re.: Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)[.]' See also 'Motion For Injunctive Relief: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit,' seeking relief amounts for sanctions and requesting an alternative dispute resolution where defendants will not have to merely perform community service obligations and where the UNITED STATES Government, and society at large, may benefit from numerous revolving real property and securitized accounts, contracted initially with the U.S. Department of Treasury. See also WILBUR v. UNITED STATES, ex Rel. KADRIE, 281 U.S. 206, 218 (1930), 'to direct the retraction or reversal of action already taken[.]' See also the opinion by Hon. Chief Justice WARREN within HON. HERBERT L. WILL J U.S. N. DIST. CT. OF ILLINOIS v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 90, 95 88 S Ct 269 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967): "'the writ has been invoked where unwarranted judicial action threatened ’to embarrass the executive arm of the government, in conducting foreign relations.' Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 588, 63 S.Ct. 793, 799, 87 L.Ed. 1014 (1943)[,]... where it was the only means of forestalling intrusion by the federal judiciary on a delicate area of federal state relations. State of Maryland v. Soper, 270 U.S. 9, 46 S.Ct. 185, 70 L.Ed. 449 (1926)[,]... and where a district judge displayed a persistent disregard of the Rules of Civil Procedure[ ]... La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957)[;]... And the party seeking mandamus has ‘the burden of showing that its right to issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable.’[’] Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384, 74 S.Ct. 145, 148, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953)[.] "See also U.S. Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual §1064: “18 U.S.C. §2521,... directs the court to proceed ‘as soon as practicable’ to the hearing and determination of such an action, and... other action as is warranted before final determination to prevent a continuing and substantial injury to the United States or to any person[.]” [ ] "See also EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 241, 245, 248, syll. n. 1, 4 (1932): Court has full power in its discretion to issue the writ of mandamus to a federal district court, although... this Court ha[s] ultimate discretionary jurisdiction by certiorari, [wherein] such power will be exercised only where a question of public importance is involved, or where the question is of such a nature that it is peculiarly appropriate that such action by this Court should be taken[,.... and whereby a] grand jury conclusively determines the existence of probable cause for the purpose of holding the accused to answer.' [ ] "See also PALMA v. U.S. INDUSTRIAL FASTENERS, INC., 36 Cal.3d 171, 177-180(1984), citing ‘People v. Turner, supra, 1 Cal. 143, 151[,]... ‘notice of the application having been given, and copies of the papers served, the court may award either an alternative or peremptory mandamus, according to the exigency of the case.' [ ] "[ ] "See also TAM, M.D. v. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, No. 66346 (2015): "‘[a] writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station [o]r to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. ’Humphries v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 85, 312 P.3d 484, 486 (2013) (quoting Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179P.3d 556, 558 (2008))[.]'” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 3 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact "APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: HON. SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR., CHIEF J.," Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-5405(U.S. S. CT.), 19-6227(U.S. S.Ct.) (CERTIORARI) (MANDAMUS) "affirmation of the documents being over 40 pages and request permission to file them. U.S. Const... more "affirmation of the documents being over 40 pages and request permission to file them. U.S. Const. Art. 3 §2, Cl. 1; U.S. S.Ct. Rule 22, 33.2(b)." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.), 19-6227(U.S. S.Ct.) (CERTIORARI) (MANDAMUS) "Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus; In Re., Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United S... more "Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus; In Re., Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al. (Sanctions upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit, S.D.N.Y.) "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Se), in reference to the accompanying 'Petition For Writ of Certiorari,' as well as the associated documents of 'Petition For Waiver Of Sovereign Immunity (Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit, S.D.N.Y.)' (Immunity Petition) and 'Motion For Preliminary Summary Judgment: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit,' currently filed m the appellate mandamus action of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18cvl2064(LLS)(SDNY), present this mandamus to order the Second Circuit Court and SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK‘s ('S.D.N.Y.') to proceed with the issuance of sanctions upon HON. LOUIS L. STANTON and employees of S.D.N.Y.’s PRO SE INTAKE UNIT (namely rdz, mro, tp, aea and sc) for claims involving contempt and conspired retaliatory promissory and collateral discriminatory estoppel (U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371) (see Appendix A), claimed perpetrated in aid of subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life in impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact (U.S. Const. Am. 1; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) of antitrust claims of Dock. Nos. 19-39 and 19-240 of the Appellate Court, to profit from claims of the illegal reinvested assets of PLAINTIFFs’ alleged beneficial trust ('Trust LPSW,' managed by PERSHING, LLC, UBS AG and FMR, LLC); as such claimed illegally reinvested assets are evidenced as being illegally reinvested into the rent stabilized community of Peter Cooper Village /Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST,' of PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial real property of a claimed illegal eviction), where the Assets Under Management of UBS AG (with use of Trust LPSW) reinvested into the Initial Public Offering of PERSHING SQUARE HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC and further reinvested into the prior trust of PCV/ST (WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST were 2007-C30, including affiliated tranches and foreign BONDHOLDERS). U.S. S.Ct. Rule 11, 20.3, 33.2(b), 34; "Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), 16, 37, 42, 54(c), FRAP. 15.1,16(a), 19, 21(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b)(2); 5 C.F.R. §1201.43; 5 U.S.C. Ch. 5, Subch. I, §500, et seq. (see Administrative Procedure Act and Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 18 U.S.C. §§3173, 3174, 3771(d)(3); 28 U.S.C. §§158(d)(2)(A)(ii), (d)(2)(A)(iii), Ch. 16, Ch. 51, 1251(a), 1253,' 1254(2), 1361, 1391(e), 1404(a), 1631, 1651(a), 1657, 1927, Ch. 158, Ch. appellate docket associated to this matter at Dock. No. 1392(JAC)(PWH)(JMW). See the accompanying Immunity Petition. See also 'Motion To Vacate Dismissal Order Of Hon. Lois L. Stanton, In Re.: Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)[.]' See also 'Motion For Injunctive Relief: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit,' seeking relief amounts for sanctions and requesting an alternative dispute resolution where defendants will not have to merely perform community service obligations and where the UNITED STATES Government, and society at large, may benefit from numerous revolving real property and securitized accounts, contracted initially with the U.S. Department of Treasury. See also WILBUR v. UNITED STATES, ex Rel. KADRIE, 281 U.S. 206, 218 (1930), 'to direct the retraction or reversal of action already taken[.]' See also the opinion by Hon. Chief Justice WARREN within HON. HERBERT L. WILL J U.S. N. DIST. CT. OF ILLINOIS v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 90, 95 88 S Ct 269 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967): "'the writ has been invoked where unwarranted judicial action threatened ’to embarrass the executive arm of the government, in conducting foreign relations.' Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 588, 63 S.Ct. 793, 799, 87 L.Ed. 1014 (1943)[,]... where it was the only means of forestalling intrusion by the federal judiciary on a delicate area of federal state relations. State of Maryland v. Soper, 270 U.S. 9, 46 S.Ct. 185, 70 L.Ed. 449 (1926)[,]... and where a district judge displayed a persistent disregard of the Rules of Civil Procedure[ ]... La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957)[;]... And the party seeking mandamus has ‘the burden of showing that its right to issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable.’[’] Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384, 74 S.Ct. 145, 148, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953)[.] "See also U.S. Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual §1064: “18 U.S.C. §2521,... directs the court to proceed ‘as soon as practicable’ to the hearing and determination of such an action, and... other action as is warranted before final determination to prevent a continuing and substantial injury to the United States or to any person[.]” [ ] "See also EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 241, 245, 248, syll. n. 1, 4 (1932): Court has full power in its discretion to issue the writ of mandamus to a federal district court, although... this Court ha[s] ultimate discretionary jurisdiction by certiorari, [wherein] such power will be exercised only where a question of public importance is involved, or where the question is of such a nature that it is peculiarly appropriate that such action by this Court should be taken[,.... and whereby a] grand jury conclusively determines the existence of probable cause for the purpose of holding the accused to answer.' [ ] "See also PALMA v. U.S. INDUSTRIAL FASTENERS, INC., 36 Cal.3d 171, 177-180(1984), citing ‘People v. Turner, supra, 1 Cal. 143, 151[,]... ‘notice of the application having been given, and copies of the papers served, the court may award either an alternative or peremptory mandamus, according to the exigency of the case.' [ ] "[ ] "See also TAM, M.D. v. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, No. 66346 (2015): "‘[a] writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station [o]r to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. ’Humphries v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 85, 312 P.3d 484, 486 (2013) (quoting Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179P.3d 556, 558 (2008))[.]'” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.), 19-6227(U.S. S.Ct.) (CERTIORARI - APPENDICES) (MANDAMUS) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*] JOINT APPENDIX, MANDAMUS/OTHER, Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.) JOINT APPENDIX, MANDAMUS/OTHER, Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 JOINT APPENDIX, MANDAMUS/OTHER, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-c... more JOINT APPENDIX, MANDAMUS/OTHER, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.): See Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-39 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.); See also Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-240 (JAC) (PWH) (Walker, rcs'd) (2nd Cir. Ct.); See also Williams v. United States, et al., 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.) See also Supreme Court of the United States trials: Williams v. United States, et al., 19-5398 (U.S. S.Ct.) Williams v. United States, et al., 19-5399 (U.S. S.Ct.) Williams v. United States, et al., 19-5405 (U.S. S.Ct.) Williams v. United States, et al., 19-6227 (U.S. S.Ct.) Williams v. United States, et al., 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) APPENDICES APPENDIX A – Dismissal (Doc. “4” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)) APPENDIX B – In Forma (Doc. “6” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)) APPENDIX C – Comp. (Doc. “2” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), filed Dec. 20, 2018) APPENDIX D – CIVIL DOCKET (Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)) APPENDIX E – NATURE OF SUIT & DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP (Doc “6” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)) APPENDIX F – “CIVIL JUDGMENT” [highlighting added] (Doc “5” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)) APPENDIX G – “ORDER” [highlighting added] (Doc “20” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)) APPENDIX H – “General Docket” [highlighting added] (Dock. No. 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1 – Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion, hidden in the filings of Doc. “8” of Dock. No. 18cv12064 (LLS)(SDNY) EXHIBIT 2 – Missing filing of Petition For Permission To Appeal To The United States Supreme Court from Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), stamped by S.D.N.Y. as filed on January 7, 2019 EXHIBIT 3 – Missing filing of Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part IV from Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), stamped by S.D.N.Y. as filed on January 7, 2019 EXHIBIT 4 – The CIVIL DOCKET’s “Appeal Remark as to 8 Notice of Appeal…(tp) (Entered: 01/03/2019),” [highlighting added] S.D.N.Y.’s PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT employee, tp, stating: “LITIGANT INSISTED ON FILING TWO SEPARATE NOA’S. EACH NOA HAS OTHER DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO IT. NOA #2 IS ATTACHED TO THE FIRST.” [highlighting and emphasis added] EXHIBIT 5 – CIVIL DOCKET mailings to “General Delivery Services 333, 1st Avenue NY, NY 10003” (a trucking company, no longer in service) entered by aea on “12/26/2018” and “12/27/2018,” as well as vn on “1/11/2019.” EXHIBIT 6 – Slip Law Draft Of Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 3.1, By Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams (see Exhibit 46 of the Injunctive Motion for the mandamus action of this certiorari, Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY),1392(2nd Cir. Ct.) EXHIBIT 7 – An Act to Immunize an Individual from Tax liability within Sovereignty (Individual Tax Immunity Act). See Exhibit 45, of the Injunctive Motion for the mandamus action of this certiorari, Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 1392(2nd Cir. Ct.) EXHIBIT 8 – PLAINTIFFs’ “Affidavit In Support Of Complaint (‘Part 1’),” [highlighting added] time-stamped on December 28, 2018 from the “NIGHT DEPOSITORY” [highlighting added] box of 40 Foley Sq., yet docketed January 2, 2019 by sc EXHIBIT 9 – PLAINTIFFs’ replacement title page for his filed Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion EXHIBIT 10 – N.Y.A.G.’s MS./MRS. JAMES’ “LETTER” to the Appellate Court and PLAINTIFF (see Doc. “60” of the General Docket) notifying them of not receiving a summons EXHIBIT 11 – U.S. ASST. ATTORNEY, BENJAMIN H. TORRANCE’s “LETTER” to the Appellate Court and PLAINTIFF (Doc. “40” of the General Docket) notifying them of not receiving a summons EXHIBIT 12 – A comparison of named defendants, listed on the CIVIL DOCKET to those listed upon the General Docket of the Appellate Court EXHIBIT 13 – PLAINTIFFs’ “COMPLAINT: STATEMENT OF NAMED PARTIES” [highlighting added] (filed December 20, 2018), evidencing the first and last pages (p.1 and p.21), naming One Hundred & Seventy-Six defendants, not “169,” as evidenced by HON. STANTON within the Dismissal EXHIBIT 14 – "Slip Law Proposal: Deprived Economic Status" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact Williams v. U.S., et al., 18-cv-12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir.), 19-6565(U.S. S.Ct.) (CERTIORARI) Certiorari, Williams v. U.S., et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19 -1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir.), 19-... more Certiorari, Williams v. U.S., et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19 -1392(RSP)(BDP)(RR)(2nd Cir.), 19-6565 (U.S. S.Ct.) "STATEMENT... "11. This matter, under U.S. Const. Art. 3 §2, Cl. 1; U.S. S.Ct. Rule 12, is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.') from an appeal of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States,[ ]et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), questions the (i) 'ORDER' (Doc. '108,' Appendix A, of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), dated September 5, 2019) and (ii) 'STRIKE ORDER' ('Strike Or.,' Appendix C, Doc. '104' of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), dated June 27, 2019), where: a. The 'ORDER' (Doc. '108,' Appendix A. See also a duplicate 'ORDER,' Doc. '109,' Appendix B) of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), PLATNTTFF claims, was intentionally erred, through collateral estoppel. by the Appellate Court in issuing sanctions (intentionally lathing upon their 'work product protection" obligations, under the 'Fairness,' 'Extrajudicial Partial Disclosure,' 'Implied Subject Matter' and 'Exhaustion' doctrines) for his claimed collateral and promissory estoppel of an early dismissal (under the Post-Filing Delayed Review doctrine for antitrust matters), the disclosure of financial trade secrets and personally identifying number (PLATNTEFFs' and his mothers' social security number exposed to the general public; claimed to have induce threats to his personal well-being to national security of the U.S. Government) and numerous attempts to resolve claimed intentional discriminatory clerical errors of contempt including missing defendants and documents, associated to the overall claimed antitrust matter of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY); allegedly pertinent for validating the claimed illegally reinvested beneficial assets of the 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST,' as well as economic espionage, racketeering, enterprise corruption, and identity theft claims, where the District Court is claimed to have blatantly denied PLATNTTFF his First Amendment right to pursue an antitrust action (under the Post-Filing Delayed Review doctrine, after PLATNTTFF allegedly provided the Court evidence within his COMPLAINT (Appendix H) of the last four digits for most of his deceased mother's trust account filings (which, as claimed induced an illegal eviction from PLATNTTFFs' apartment dwelling after such assets were allegedly reinvested into his community of residence, Peter Cooper Village/ Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST'), and after being denied a renewal lease for his alleged rent stabilized apartment) (all enforced under: U.S. Const. Am. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13 §3 (claimed aiding and abetting subversion within impoverishment), 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §402); and "b. The provided 'STRIKE ORDER' ('Strike Or.,' Appendix C, Doc. '104' of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), dated June 27, 2019), striking PLAINTIFFs': 'Supplementary Papers to Writ, Certificate of Service, Deferred Appendix, Exhibits, Brief & Special Appendix, Motion, for certificate of appealability, for consent judgment, for continuance of appeal, for default judgment for leave to appeal, for restraining order, to certify question, to expedite appeal, to intervene, to vacate judgment Form B, Certificate of Service for Form B and Oral Argument Statement, Brief, Certificate of Service for Brief, Motion. for injunction Exhibits, Supplementary Papers to Writ, Motion., for consent judgment, for summary enforcement Motion, for restraining order Motion for continuance of appeal, Motion, to file supplemental documents Letter. Exhibits and Motion, to strike.' [ ] "claimed unconstitutionally provided, where PLATNTIFFs' initial filings of supplemental papers were denied for filing in light of 'the defect has not been cured' (Strike Or. at ¶1); where the 'NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING' (Doc. '84' of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), dated May 23, 2019) stated, '[o]n May 21, 2019 the Motion, to file supplemental documents... [were m]issing supporting papers for motion (e.g, affidavit/affirmation/ declaration) (FRAP 27)[.]' "PLAINTIFF insists the Court see evidence of the filing of a supporting affidavit, was, in fact, filed on May 20, 2019 (as a 'PROCEDURAL MOTION'), where, on May 21, 2019, such filings were a personal[ ] curing of dates within electronic filings; as such are evidenced within Appendix D (signifying a replacement T-1080 and replacement Certificate of Service, both filed May 21, 2019). "i. The 'Motion, for injunction' is claimed to have been the first filing for relief, which allegedly contains numerous trade secrets (mostly related to real property auctions) and "ii. scientific theories ekposed to defendants and the general public for over a two month period before its striking. "iii. The 'Letter, Exhibits and Motion, to strike [defectiveness]' are claimed to have never been associated to the filing of supplemental papers for the clerk to strike as defective. "iv. Sanctions are not sought against the clerical employees of the Appellate Court, however, the struck filings are sought for re-docketing and/or re-docketing upon to the U.S. S.Ct. remand (sought sua sponte). "12. PLAINTIFF insists upon this trial being consolidated within the trial of 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.) for collateral estoppel (contempt) claims against HON. POOLER, HON. PARKER, and HON. RAGGT, upon waiver of official immunity, in an amount not less than: (i) ONE MILLION DOLLARS, for contempt of conspired retaliatory and discriminatory obstruction claims related to antitrust offenses (U.S. Const. Am. 1, 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§401, 1031(c), 1341, 1505, 1513; 42 U.S.C. §1981; Antitrust Civil Process Act; Sherman Act. See CRM §§1725, 1727); and (ii) THREE-HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, for compensatory and punitive damages (including costs and legal fees) (see 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(3), (b)(10)(all in their capacities)." Id. 9-11. "ARGUMENT "Estoppel is, in essence, an undermining factor for claimants seeking redress while living within impoverishment; a back-hand slap against U.S. citizens and the constitutional provisions which safeguard them against tyranny and oppression. When combined with the likelihood of antitrust offenses, which, as claimed, not only affect the general world economy but citizens within dwellings run by such financial institutions (with a strong-arm of monopolized power and federally established rights to inspect financial documents of tenants), the threat of domestic invasion is at the doorstep of an Anti-Jacksonian enslavement; a modern day Calvinist movement upon those without the financial means to enjoy the liberties for which this great and powerful Country was founded upon." Id. at 20. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 11 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*] JOINT APPENDIX, APPENDIX A.1, "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF 'CIVIL' APPEAL," (15 pg.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS, Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.) APPENDIX A.1, "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF 'CIVIL' APPEAL," JOINT APPENDIX, (15 pg.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS, Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 APPENDIX A.1, "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF 'CIVIL' APPEAL," JOINT APPENDIX, (15 p... more APPENDIX A.1, "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF 'CIVIL' APPEAL," JOINT APPENDIX, (15 pg.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS, dated November 5, 2019 (filed w/in S.D.N.Y.: November 3, 2021; Williams, 19- cv-11547 (CM)), Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.): INDEX TO APPENDICES APPENDIX A - ORDER, WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), Doc. “20” (by HON. STANTON, dated Mar. 22, 2019). APPENDIX A.1 - “Affidavit In Support Of Notice Of ‘Civil’ Appeal,” Doc. “21” of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.) APPENDIX B - ORDER OF DISMISSAL, “Signed by” HON. STANTON, WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), Doc. “4,” filed by “(mro)” (dated Dec. 26, 2019). See Appendix W. APPENDIX C - ORDER GRANTING IFP APPLICATION, “Signed by” HON. CHIEF J. MCMAHON, WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), Doc. “6,” filed by “(rdz).” APPENDIX D - COMPLAINT, WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), Doc. “2.” APPENDIX E - CIVIL DOCKET, WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY) (originally Appendix B of the Mandamus). APPENDIX F - “NATURE OF SUIT & DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP,” WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), Doc. “3,” filed by “(sc).” APPENDIX G - ORDER, denying reconsideration (by Hon. Cabranes and Hon. Hall, “Judge Walker has recused”) (Doc. “187” of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.)(JAC)(PWH)(JMW), June 11, 2019) (see also “ORDER,” Doc. “59” of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS) (SDNY), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.)(JAC)(PWH) (JMW), dated May 31, 2019); evidenced as Doc. “183” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19- 39(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir. Ct.)), denying Appendices and Exhibits). APPENDIX H - ORDER and MANDATE, denying reconsideration (by Hon. Cabranes and Hon. Hall, “Judge Walker has recused”) (Docs. “66” and “68” of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS) (SDNY), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.). APPENDIX I - PLAINTIFFs’ “Motion For Reconsideration” (with appendices and exhibits), Doc. “171-1” of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.)(JAC)(PWH)(JMW) (similar to the motion in Doc. “50-1” of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064 (LLS)(SDNY), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.)(JAC)(PWH) (JMW)). See accompanying original filings of appendices and exhibits. Id. at App.81 to App.186. See also Appendix X. APPENDIX J - “Motion For Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), (b)(1) to (b)(6), (d)(1) to (d)(3) (Coram Nobis/Coram Vobis): Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 137 U.S. S.Ct. 1611(2017) (15 U.S.C. §26; Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d); 5 U.S.C. §§552(b)(7), 552a(l)(1); 49 U.S.C. §30301(d)(7)),” hidden in the filings of Doc. “8” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY). APPENDIX K - Missing filings of “Petition For Permission To Appeal To The United States Supreme Court” from WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), stamped by S.D.N.Y. as filed on January 7, 2019. APPENDIX L - Missing filings of “Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part IV” from WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), stamped, filed January 7, 2019. APPENDIX M - The CIVIL DOCKET’s “Appeal Remark as to 8 Notice of Appeal…(tp) (Entered: 01/03/2019),” S.D.N.Y.’s PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT employee, tp, stating: “LITIGANT INSISTED ON FILING TWO SEPARATE NOA’S. EACH NOA HAS OTHER DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO IT. NOA #2 IS ATTACHED TO THE FIRST.” mandamus action, Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.). APPENDIX P - “STRIKE ORDER,” Doc. “104” of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.). See the accompanying “NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING” (Doc. “84” of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.) and the confirmation Filing Numbers to PLAINTIFFs’ “Letter To Chief Clerk Ms./Mrs. Kathleen O’Hagan: Validation Of Filing An Affidavit (Doc. 82)” (Appendix Q) and “Motion To Strike Defectiveness (Doc. 84)” (see Appendix R). APPENDIX Q - “Letter To Chief Clerk Ms./Mrs. Kathleen O’Hagan: Validation Of Filing An Affidavit (Doc. 82),” Doc. “88” of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.). APPENDIX R - “Motion To Strike Defectiveness (Doc. 84)” Doc. “89-1” of Dock. No. 19- 1392(2nd Cir. Ct.). APPENDIX S - “CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE” for Doc. “98-1” of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), June 10, 2019. APPENDIX T - “An Act to Immunize an Individual from Tax liability within Sovereignty” (“Individual Tax Immunity Act”). See “Exhibit 44,” [highlighting omitted] of the injunctive motion for the mandamus action of this certiorari, Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.). APPENDIX U - “SLIP LAW PROPOSAL: DERIVED ECONOMIC STATUS” and “AMENDMENT TO §2000D OF THE UNITED STATES CODE.” APPENDIX V - “RE: Williams v. United States[,] USCA Nos. 19-39, 19240, 19-1392 (?),” letter from the Clerk of the U.S.S.Ct. (Scott S. Harris, Jacob Levitan), dated June 7, 2019. See the accompanying two letters from the U.S.S.Ct. (all dated June 21, 2019), entitled: (i) “RE: Williams v. United States[,] USCA2 Nos. 19-39, 19-240, 19-1392 (?)” (two pages); and (ii) “RE: In Re Williams.” See also the accompanying two U.S.S.Ct. letters (both dated June 4, 2019), entitled: (i) “RE: On Petition for Waiver of Sovereign Immunity …[;]” and “RE: In Re Williams.” APPENDIX W - CIVIL JUDGMENT, WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), Doc. “5.” See Appendices A & B. APPENDIX X - The “LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST” (“Trust LPSW”) (see accompanying F.D.I.C. email to PLAINTIFF providing prima facie evidence of assets within the trust; originally presented to the U.S.S.Ct. in WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 19-5405(U.S.S.Ct)). APPENDIX Y - Trust LPSW registered with the United States Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service. APPENDIX Y.1 - Correspondent Services Corporation (now FMR, LLC “Fidelity”). APPENDIX Z - FACT SHEET #36 of New York State’s Division of Housing and Community Renewal (a landlords’ J-51 or 421-a benefit termination to qualify for coop/condo conversion). APPENDIX AA - PLAINTIFFs’ jurisdictional claim of “15 U.S.C. §26” [emphasis added] (Comp. at p.5. See ¶21 of the Amended Complaint for Dock. No. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 5 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*] JOINT APPENDIX, (15 pg.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS, Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.) JOINT APPENDIX, (15 pg.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS, Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 JOINT APPENDIX, (15 pg.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS, dated November 5, 2019 (filed w/in S.D.N.Y.: Novemb... more JOINT APPENDIX, (15 pg.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS, dated November 5, 2019 (filed w/in S.D.N.Y.: November 3, 2021; Williams, 19- cv-11547 (CM)), Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.): INDEX TO APPENDICES APPENDIX A - ORDER, WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), Doc. “20” (by HON. STANTON, dated Mar. 22, 2019). APPENDIX A.1 - “Affidavit In Support Of Notice Of ‘Civil’ Appeal,” Doc. “21” of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.) APPENDIX B - ORDER OF DISMISSAL, “Signed by” HON. STANTON, WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), Doc. “4,” filed by “(mro)” (dated Dec. 26, 2019). See Appendix W. APPENDIX C - ORDER GRANTING IFP APPLICATION, “Signed by” HON. CHIEF J. MCMAHON, WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), Doc. “6,” filed by “(rdz).” APPENDIX D - COMPLAINT, WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), Doc. “2.” APPENDIX E - CIVIL DOCKET, WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY) (originally Appendix B of the Mandamus). APPENDIX F - “NATURE OF SUIT & DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP,” WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), Doc. “3,” filed by “(sc).” APPENDIX G - ORDER, denying reconsideration (by Hon. Cabranes and Hon. Hall, “Judge Walker has recused”) (Doc. “187” of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.)(JAC)(PWH)(JMW), June 11, 2019) (see also “ORDER,” Doc. “59” of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS) (SDNY), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.)(JAC)(PWH) (JMW), dated May 31, 2019); evidenced as Doc. “183” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19- 39(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2nd Cir. Ct.)), denying Appendices and Exhibits). APPENDIX H - ORDER and MANDATE, denying reconsideration (by Hon. Cabranes and Hon. Hall, “Judge Walker has recused”) (Docs. “66” and “68” of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS) (SDNY), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.). APPENDIX I - PLAINTIFFs’ “Motion For Reconsideration” (with appendices and exhibits), Doc. “171-1” of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.)(JAC)(PWH)(JMW) (similar to the motion in Doc. “50-1” of WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064 (LLS)(SDNY), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.)(JAC)(PWH) (JMW)). See accompanying original filings of appendices and exhibits. Id. at App.81 to App.186. See also Appendix X. APPENDIX J - “Motion For Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), (b)(1) to (b)(6), (d)(1) to (d)(3) (Coram Nobis/Coram Vobis): Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 137 U.S. S.Ct. 1611(2017) (15 U.S.C. §26; Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d); 5 U.S.C. §§552(b)(7), 552a(l)(1); 49 U.S.C. §30301(d)(7)),” hidden in the filings of Doc. “8” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY). APPENDIX K - Missing filings of “Petition For Permission To Appeal To The United States Supreme Court” from WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), stamped by S.D.N.Y. as filed on January 7, 2019. APPENDIX L - Missing filings of “Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part IV” from WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), stamped, filed January 7, 2019. APPENDIX M - The CIVIL DOCKET’s “Appeal Remark as to 8 Notice of Appeal…(tp) (Entered: 01/03/2019),” S.D.N.Y.’s PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT employee, tp, stating: “LITIGANT INSISTED ON FILING TWO SEPARATE NOA’S. EACH NOA HAS OTHER DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO IT. NOA #2 IS ATTACHED TO THE FIRST.” mandamus action, Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.). APPENDIX P - “STRIKE ORDER,” Doc. “104” of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.). See the accompanying “NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING” (Doc. “84” of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.) and the confirmation Filing Numbers to PLAINTIFFs’ “Letter To Chief Clerk Ms./Mrs. Kathleen O’Hagan: Validation Of Filing An Affidavit (Doc. 82)” (Appendix Q) and “Motion To Strike Defectiveness (Doc. 84)” (see Appendix R). APPENDIX Q - “Letter To Chief Clerk Ms./Mrs. Kathleen O’Hagan: Validation Of Filing An Affidavit (Doc. 82),” Doc. “88” of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.). APPENDIX R - “Motion To Strike Defectiveness (Doc. 84)” Doc. “89-1” of Dock. No. 19- 1392(2nd Cir. Ct.). APPENDIX S - “CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE” for Doc. “98-1” of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), June 10, 2019. APPENDIX T - “An Act to Immunize an Individual from Tax liability within Sovereignty” (“Individual Tax Immunity Act”). See “Exhibit 44,” [highlighting omitted] of the injunctive motion for the mandamus action of this certiorari, Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.). APPENDIX U - “SLIP LAW PROPOSAL: DERIVED ECONOMIC STATUS” and “AMENDMENT TO §2000D OF THE UNITED STATES CODE.” APPENDIX V - “RE: Williams v. United States[,] USCA Nos. 19-39, 19240, 19-1392 (?),” letter from the Clerk of the U.S.S.Ct. (Scott S. Harris, Jacob Levitan), dated June 7, 2019. See the accompanying two letters from the U.S.S.Ct. (all dated June 21, 2019), entitled: (i) “RE: Williams v. United States[,] USCA2 Nos. 19-39, 19-240, 19-1392 (?)” (two pages); and (ii) “RE: In Re Williams.” See also the accompanying two U.S.S.Ct. letters (both dated June 4, 2019), entitled: (i) “RE: On Petition for Waiver of Sovereign Immunity …[;]” and “RE: In Re Williams.” APPENDIX W - CIVIL JUDGMENT, WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), Doc. “5.” See Appendices A & B. APPENDIX X - The “LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST” (“Trust LPSW”) (see accompanying F.D.I.C. email to PLAINTIFF providing prima facie evidence of assets within the trust; originally presented to the U.S.S.Ct. in WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., 19-5405(U.S.S.Ct)). APPENDIX Y - Trust LPSW registered with the United States Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service. APPENDIX Y.1 - Correspondent Services Corporation (now FMR, LLC “Fidelity”). APPENDIX Z - FACT SHEET #36 of New York State’s Division of Housing and Community Renewal (a landlords’ J-51 or 421-a benefit termination to qualify for coop/condo conversion). APPENDIX AA - PLAINTIFFs’ jurisdictional claim of “15 U.S.C. §26” [emphasis added] (Comp. at p.5. See ¶21 of the Amended Complaint for Dock. No. 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) Williams v. U.S., et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.), "BRIEF UPON ITS MERIT: U.S.D.O.J., HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SE INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y." (Hidden from docket w/in Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY)) (PROOF - docketing & notary) "Brief Upon Its Merits: U.S.D.O.J., Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit, S.D.N.Y." "ARGUM... more "Brief Upon Its Merits: U.S.D.O.J., Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit, S.D.N.Y." "ARGUMENT "27. Estoppel is, in essence, an undermining factor for claimants seeking redress while living within impoverishment; a back-hand slap against U.S. citizens and the constitutional provisions which safeguard them against tyranny and oppression. When combined with the likelihood of antitrust offenses, which, as claimed, not only affect the general world economy but citizens within dwellings run by such financial institutions (with a strong-arm of monopolized power and federally established rights to inspect financial documents of tenants), the threat of domestic invasion is at the doorstep of an Anti-Jacksonian enslavement; a modern day Calvinist movement upon those without the financial means to enjoy the liberties for which this great and powerful Country was founded upon." Id. at 60. "STATEMENT "26. This matter is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.') from an appellate mandamus action associated to the trial of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), where such seeks a response to requested orders for sanctions from HON. CHIEF J. MCMAHON against HON. STANTON and employees of the PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT of the S.D.N.Y. for claims of contempt of court processes and conspired retaliatory promissory and collateral discriminatory estoppel (U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371), perpetrated in aid of subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact (U.S. Const. Am. 1; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) of antitrust claims of Dock. Nos. 19-39 and 19-240 of the Appellate Court, to profit from claims of the illegal reinvested assets of PLAINTIFFs’ alleged beneficial trust ('Trust LPSW,' managed by PERSHING, LLC, UBS AG and FMR, LLC (formerly Correspondent Services Corporation)); as such claimed illegally reinvested assets are evidenced as being illegally reinvested into the rent stabilized residential community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST,' of PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial real property of a claimed illegal eviction), where the Assets Under Management of UBS AG (with use of Trust LPSW) were reinvested into the Initial Public Offering of PERSHING SQUARE HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC and further reinvested into the prior securitized trust of PCV/ST (WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-C30 ('TRUST2007-C30'), including affiliated tranches and foreign BONDHOLDERS). U.S. Const. Art. 3 §2, Cl. 1; U.S. S.Ct. Rule 11, 20.3, 33.2(b), 34; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), 16, 37, 42, 54(c), FRAP. 15.1, 16(a), 19, 21(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b)(2); 5 C.F.R. §1201.43; 5 U.S.C. Ch. 5, Subch. I, §500, et seq. (see Administrative Procedure Act and Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 18 U.S.C. §§3173, 3174, 3771(d)(3); 28 U.S.C. §§158(d)(2)(A)(ii), (d)(2)(A)(iii), Ch. 16, Ch. 51, 1251(a), 1253, 1254(2), 1361, 1391(e), 1404(a), 1631, 1651(a), 1657, 1927, Ch. 158, Ch. 161. See WILBUR v. UNITED STATES, ex Rel. KADRIE, 281 U.S. 206, 218 (1930), 'to direct the retraction or reversal of action already taken[.]' See also the opinion by Hon. Chief J. WARREN within HON. HERBERT L. WILL, J., U.S. N. DIST. CT. OF ILLINOIS v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 90, 95, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967): “'the writ has been invoked where unwarranted judicial action threatened ‘to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations,’ Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 588, 63 S.Ct. 793, 799, 87 L.Ed. 1014 (1943)[,]… and where a district judge displayed a persistent disregard of the Rules of Civil Procedure[ ]… La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957)[.]' [ ] "See also U.S. Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual §1064: “'18 U.S.C. § 2521,… directs the court to proceed ‘as soon as practicable’ to the hearing and determination of such an action, and… to prevent a continuing and substantial injury to the United States or to any person[.]' [ ] "See also EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 241, 245, 248, syll. n. 1, 4 (1932): “'[t]his Court has full power in its discretion to issue the writ of mandamus to a federal district court, although… this Court ha[s] ultimate discretionary jurisdiction by certiorari, [wherein] such power will be exercised only where a question of public importance is involved, or where the question is of such a nature that it is peculiarly appropriate that such action by this Court should be taken[,… and whereby a] grand jury conclusively determines the existence of probable cause for the purpose of holding the accused to answer.' [ ]" Id. at 58, 59. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [**] (15 pg.) [MANDAMUS] "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (PART 1)" (Highlighted), Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (PART 1), 15 pg., Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (PART 1) ... more SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (PART 1) (highlighted), dated November 5, 2019 (filed w/in S.D.N.Y.: December 27, 2019; Williams, 19- cv-11547 (CM)), Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.): "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in reference to the Mandamus, accompanying 'Supplemental Brief: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit, S.D.N.Y. (Part 1)' ('Supp.B.1,' Appendices A to AA), present this supplemental brief under Rule 15.8 to call attention to the new Sept. 5, 2019 ORDER (Doc. 108 of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.)) (Id. Supp.B.1, App. A; see YUSUF ABDI ALI, v. FARHAN MOHAMOUD TANI WARFAA, 137 S. Ct. 2289 (2017)) and in support of federal questions and claims against HON. LOUIS L. STANTON and employees of the S.D.N.Y. PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT (for collateral and promissory estoppel, enforced under U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1, associated to the trials of: CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct), 137 U.S. 1611(No. 16M111, 2017); File No. 2013-3538(SCNY) (Estate of Linda Williams); PEOPLE v. STEVEN WILLIAMS, Docket No. 2012NY089333(NYCC); MARYLAND v. WILLIAMS, STEVEN T., N0. ID00283543 (M.C. Dist.Ct., 2012); and ST OWNER LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC)), as this supplemental brief provides for material evidence to negate such ORDER, where the judicial official and subordinate officers may be held liable for conspired discriminatory civil rights offenses (under: 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1983; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371) to act in offense advocacy (U.S. Const. Am. 1; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) of claimed associated antitrust related offenses by various banking institutions affiliated with PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial securitized trust assets (IRA) and the prior Trust2007-C30 of PCV/ST. U.S. Const. Art. 3 §2 Cl. 1 and U.S. S.Ct. Rules 12.6, 12.7, 15.3, 15.8 (“other intervening matter”), 18.10, 21.1, 22, 33.1(d), 33.2(b); FRAP 27(a)(2)(B)(i), 32(c)(2). See WINKELMAN, ET AL. v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. 05-983(U.S. S.Ct.), 'to review the interlocutory order.' "PART A – BILL OF PARTICULARS... "PART C – CONCLUSION "November 5, 2019" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [**] (15 pg.) [MANDAMUS] "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (PART 2)" (Highlighted), Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (PART 2), Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (PART 2) ... more SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (PART 2) (highlighted), dated November 5, 2019 (filed w/in S.D.N.Y.: December 27, 2019; Williams, 19- cv-11547 (CM)), Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.): "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in reference to the Mandamus, accompanying 'Supplemental Brief: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit, S.D.N.Y. (Part 1)' ('Supp.B.1,' Appendices A to AA), present this supplemental brief under Rule 15.8 to call attention to the new Sept. 5, 2019 ORDER (Doc. 108 of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.)) (Id. Supp.B.1, App. A; see YUSUF ABDI ALI, v. FARHAN MOHAMOUD TANI WARFAA, 137 S. Ct. 2289 (2017)) and in support of federal questions and claims against HON. LOUIS L. STANTON and employees of the S.D.N.Y. PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT (for collateral and promissory estoppel, enforced under U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1, associated to the trials of: CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct), 137 U.S. 1611(No. 16M111, 2017); File No. 2013-3538(SCNY) (Estate of Linda Williams); PEOPLE v. STEVEN WILLIAMS, Docket No. 2012NY089333(NYCC); MARYLAND v. WILLIAMS, STEVEN T., N0. ID00283543 (M.C. Dist.Ct., 2012); and ST OWNER LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC)), as this supplemental brief provides for material evidence to negate such ORDER, where the judicial official and subordinate officers may be held liable for conspired discriminatory civil rights offenses (under: 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1983; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371) to act in offense advocacy (U.S. Const. Am. 1; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) of claimed associated antitrust related offenses by various banking institutions affiliated with PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial securitized trust assets (IRA) and the prior Trust2007-C30 of PCV/ST. U.S. Const. Art. 3 §2 Cl. 1 and U.S. S.Ct. Rules 12.6, 12.7, 15.3, 15.8 (“other intervening matter”), 18.10, 21.1, 22, 33.1(d), 33.2(b); FRAP 27(a)(2)(B)(i), 32(c)(2). See WINKELMAN, ET AL. v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. 05-983(U.S. S.Ct.), 'to review the interlocutory order.' "PART A – BILL OF PARTICULARS "PART B – PROMISSORY & COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (U.S. CONST. AM. 5, 14 §1)... "PART B.1 – PART B.1 – PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL "PART B.1.a – PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL: CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, 15CV5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189CV(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2ND CIR. CT.), 137 U.S. 1611(NO. 16M111, 2017)... "PART C – CONCLUSION "November 5, 2019" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 0 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [**] (15 pg.) [MANDAMUS] "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (PART 3)" (Highlighted), Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (PART 3), Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (PART 3) ... more SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SANCTIONS UPON HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (PART 3) (highlighted), dated November 5, 2019 (filed w/in S.D.N.Y.: December 27, 2019; Williams, 19- cv-11547 (CM)), Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.): "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in reference to the Mandamus, accompanying 'Supplemental Brief: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit, S.D.N.Y. (Part 1)' ('Supp.B.1,' Appendices A to AA), present this supplemental brief under Rule 15.8 to call attention to the new Sept. 5, 2019 ORDER (Doc. 108 of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.)) (Id. Supp.B.1, App. A; see YUSUF ABDI ALI, v. FARHAN MOHAMOUD TANI WARFAA, 137 S. Ct. 2289 (2017)) and in support of federal questions and claims against HON. LOUIS L. STANTON and employees of the S.D.N.Y. PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT (for collateral and promissory estoppel, enforced under U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1, associated to the trials of: CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, 15-cv-5114(LAP)(SDNY), 16-189cv(ALK)(DJ)(BDP)(2nd Cir. Ct), 137 U.S. 1611(No. 16M111, 2017); File No. 2013-3538(SCNY) (Estate of Linda Williams); PEOPLE v. STEVEN WILLIAMS, Docket No. 2012NY089333(NYCC); MARYLAND v. WILLIAMS, STEVEN T., N0. ID00283543 (M.C. Dist.Ct., 2012); and ST OWNER LP v. EUGENE WILLIAMS, Index No. 52069/12(Chan)(JHS)(NYHC)), as this supplemental brief provides for material evidence to negate such ORDER, where the judicial official and subordinate officers may be held liable for conspired discriminatory civil rights offenses (under: 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1983; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371) to act in offense advocacy (U.S. Const. Am. 1; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) of claimed associated antitrust related offenses by various banking institutions affiliated with PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial securitized trust assets (IRA) and the prior Trust2007-C30 of PCV/ST. U.S. Const. Art. 3 §2 Cl. 1 and U.S. S.Ct. Rules 12.6, 12.7, 15.3, 15.8 (“other intervening matter”), 18.10, 21.1, 22, 33.1(d), 33.2(b); FRAP 27(a)(2)(B)(i), 32(c)(2). See WINKELMAN, ET AL. v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. 05-983(U.S. S.Ct.), 'to review the interlocutory order.' "PART A – BILL OF PARTICULARS (PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL: CONTINUED) "PART A.1 – PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL: “PARALLELISM” DOCTRINES OF ASHCROFT v. IQBAL, 556 U.S. 678 (2002), BELL ATLANTIC CORP. v. TWOMBLY, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) & ERICKSON v. PARDUS, 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007)... "PART B – COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL... "PART C – CONCLUSION "November 5, 2019" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) Williams v. U.S., et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.), "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF AIDING & ABETTING ANTITRUST, SUBVERSION & DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM" (Hidden from docket w/in Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY)) (PROOF - docketing & notary) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF AIDING & ABETTING ANTITRUST, SUBVERSION & DOMESTIC HOUSING TERRORISM "PART A – STATEMENT OF THE CASE" "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), i... more "PART A – STATEMENT OF THE CASE" "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), in reference to the 'NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL' (Doc. 1), present this brief as a claimed factual testimony of relevant events surrounding an alleged conspired antitrust, economic espionage ([...]) and racketeering ([...]) scheme, via the corruption of enterprises[,]... within and without government agencies... (namely the I.R.S. and S.S.A.), New York, New Jersey, Maryland and the District of Columbia, violating PLAINTIFFs’ rights as a beneficiary and rent stabilized tenant... 18 U.S.C. §§2, 241, 286, 371, including various antitrust statutes such as the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§1–7), Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§12–27), Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, Security Act of 1933, Securities & Exchange Act of 1934 (§§10(b), 13), Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Investment Company Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §§1681, et seq.), and Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. §§ 77aaa, et. seq.). "It is claimed, such scheme was perpetrated so as to deter PLAINTIFF from the acquisition of beneficial assets within an Individual Retirement Account... through the inducing of a claimed illegal eviction of PLAINTIFF from a rent stabilized dwelling... The claimed illegal fiduciary acquisition of the IRA by the controlling entities of PERSHING (B.N.Y.), UBS, and FMR allegedly occurred after PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial assets of the trust went insolvent during the final years of the U.S. housing crisis (2000–2010) and further utilized by UBS in securitized investments to allegedly reinvest such assets through 'dark-pool' trading and an Initial Public Offering ('IPO') of P.S.H., who acquired ownership of a mezzanine mortgaged loan of PCV/ST[,]... as such Commercial Mortgaged-Backed Securitized ('CMBS') loan was the leading investment loan in a series of tranches... It is unknown how the IRA went insolvent[,]... however, to the best of PLAINTIFFs’ knowledge, neither he nor his father (MR. WILLIS WILLIAMS, JR.), the two beneficiaries to the estate of MRS. LINDA PAULA STREGER WILLIAMS (DECEDENT, PLAINTIFFs’ mother), ever received notification from the financial institutions or DECEDENT last known legal representative, MR. AVROM R. VANN, of AVROM R. VANN, PC (where PLAINTIFF, as aforementioned evidenced, was the sole beneficiary to the 'LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST,' 'Trust LPSW,'... which contains securitized assets, as confirmed within an email from the Federal Depository & Insur. Corp. and the U.S. TREAS., one of which being a certificate of ownership, since 1987, for stocks from Microsoft)... MR. VANN, as aforementioned evidenced, is claimed to have lached upon his legal duties to contact PLAINTIFF on his thirtieth birthday[,... and] provided DECEDENTs’ original Last Will & Testament (with codicils, including the testamentary trust agreement) to MR. WILLIAMS, JR. two years after DECEDENTs’ death and denied PLAINTIFF access to any information concerning DECEDENTs’ estate. PLAINTIFF allegedly attempted to acquire information concerning the trust from PERSHING, who stated Trust LPSW’s Employer Identification Number ('EIN') for the IRA was in their ownership, despite UBS, after his PERSHING visit, stated the trust was there (despite their emails stating otherwise) and FMR[ (Fidelity)]... stating they would not provide PLAINTIFF with any information without letters testamentary from a surrogate’s court. PLAINTIFF thought it best to not claim the trust from his visit to UBS and file for probate within S.C.N.Y. (the county surrogate court in which DECEDENT allegedly received hospice care and passed away in),... "It is further claimed, not only had owners of PCV/ST profited from real property assets (maliciously raising rental prices), but they (along with financial institutions of PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial IRA trust and additional institutions) utilized such reinvested assets to invest within the gambling casino corporation of P.N.K.; whereby assets of the IRA (through the invested Assets Under Management ('AUM') of UBS) were redistributed to the previous owners of the PCV/ST community, namely BLACKROCK, due to the financial institution 'control[ling] ‘9.65%’ of beneficial assets in Pinnacle[ (P.N.K.)], as such was amended upon the onset of the 2010' (the year of DECEDENTs’ passing) (allegedly cited in PLAINTIFFs’ originally filed 'PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI' of the U.S. S.Ct., CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, Index No. 16M111 (U.S. S.Ct.) (137 U.S. 1611, Mar.15, 2017)). "In essence, the assets of PCV/ST and the IRA within Trust LPSW were sold by TISHMAN/BLACKROCK at the DIL auction to P.S.H. (with the use of Trust LPSW’s assets acquired by UBS, Underwriter of P.S.H.’s IPO) and returned to BLACKROCK and other financial institutions upon reinvestment into P.N.K.’s casino... "But why then would the property of PCV/ST be further sold to the financial entity of BLACKSTONE GRP., with claimed illegal use of municipal bonds (Sustainable Neighborhood Bonds[ ]), that is, if not for a claimed conspired scheme by MR. LARY FINK of BLACKROCK to provide a welcomed gift to BLACKSTONE for such financial institution accelerating MR. FINK’s career..., and can PLAINTIFFs’ eviction be attributed to the possible elimination of the J-51 tax exemption of PCV/ST to change the community to market-rate prices through the reduction of elderly and rent-stabilized tenants, specified within the Department of Housing & Community Renewal’s Pub. FACT SHEET #36? "During PLAINTIFFs’ displacement,... he claims to have experienced numerous acts of corruption of enterprises in aid of subversion of his life within impoverishment (deterring him from acquiring Trust LPSW’s securitized assets), where PLAINTIFF... was: (i) denied acquisition of a renter’s insurance policy by STATE FARM; (ii) denied restitution to his dwelling by N.Y.H.C.; (iii) had two laptop computer screens turn black after plugging them into a Manhattan FEDEX electrical outlet (the same store where he allegedly made a copy of copyrighted works which are registered within the Library of Congress, 'LOC'), where, thereafter, PLAINTIFF allegedly experienced numerous cases of internet intrusion,...; (iv) tackled by W.P.P.D. officers for attempting to retrieve personal belongings which were within a White Plains FEDEX store, abducted by them, and detained at W.P. HOSP., where physicians took blood and urine samples after being forced into wearing a strait jacket, only to be ejected from the hospital and attempt to acquire a life insurance policy from AMAL. LIFE the next day (who confirmed the policy’s existence the day prior to his visit to White Plains)...; (v) arrested twice by N.Y.P.D. (D.H.S.) officers and provided numerous appearance tickets by N.Y.P.D. (M.T.A.) officers, where one[...] acquired an unconstitutional N.Y. S.CT., KINGS CO., CIV. judgment by the T.A.B. Court without the providing of an index number; (vi) denied redress in a superior court by the D.A. OFFICE after filing a motion to dismiss with damages sought; (vii) denied redress within S.D.N.Y. for CESTUI QUE WILLIAMS v. USA, ET AL., Dock. No. 15cv5114(LAP)(SDNY); (viii) had his driver’s license and DECEDENTs’ social security numbers exposed to the public by S.D.N.Y. and S.C.N.Y. employees (deterring him from executing a formal probate for DECEDENTs’ estate without federal oversight); (ix) abducted by a SUN CAB CO. taxi driver in Washington, DC after falling asleep[,]... only to be driven to Bethesda, MD (the city to the headquarters of W.D.C. and their subsidiary of CWCAM, PLAINTIFFs’ prior landlord) and further incarcerated for a month within the M.C.C.F. for a charge of theft under $100,... where PLAINTIFF allegedly experienced an act of medical malpractice by the attending physician of the facility’s C.I.U.; (x) experienced numerous cases of identity theft (such as driver’s licenses stolen or never arriving within PLAINTIFFs’ P.O. Box and even two years of tax returns filed with the I.R.S. without PLAINTIFFs’ consent); (xi) denied two applications for federal funded housing by BREAKING GROUND; (xii) and other events... "Further questions of law are sought for review. See a forthcoming 'Memorandum Of Law: Matter Of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams' ('Memorandum'). "PART B.a – ARGUMENT (PART B TO END) (To Be Amended)" Id. at 19-23. "PART F – CONCLUSION "[ ]This Supplemental Brief is sought for adjudication through a sua sponte Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion (reopening the trial of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-240(2nd Cir. Ct.)), where tis trial may be enjoined within a new U.S. S.Ct. trial to determine claims of aiding and abetting related to claims of conspired antitrust, economic espionage, racketeering, corruption of enterprises, subversion within impoverishment (slavery) and Domestic Housing Terrorism." Id. at 319. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 2 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [***] APPENDICES & EXHIBITS, (15 pg.) "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): U.S.D.O.J., HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (18 U.S.C. §§2, 3)," Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.) APPENDICES & EXHIBITS, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): U.S.D.O.J., HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (18 U.S.C. §§2, 3), 15 pg., Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 APPENDICES & EXHIBITS, "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): U.S.D.O.J., HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO S... more APPENDICES & EXHIBITS, "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): U.S.D.O.J., HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (18 U.S.C. §§2, 3), dated October 5, 2019, Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.): APPENDICES APPENDIX A – Dismissal (Doc. “4” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)) APPENDIX B – In Forma (Doc. “6” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)) APPENDIX C – Comp. (Doc. “2” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), filed Dec. 20, 2018) APPENDIX D – CIVIL DOCKET (Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)) APPENDIX E – NATURE OF SUIT & DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP (Doc “6” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)) APPENDIX F – “CIVIL JUDGMENT” [highlighting added] (Doc “5” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)) APPENDIX G – “ORDER” [highlighting added] (Doc “20” of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY)) APPENDIX H – “General Docket” [highlighting added] (Dock. No. 19-39(2nd Cir. Ct.) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1 – Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion, hidden in the filings of Doc. “8” of Dock. No. 18cv12064 (LLS)(SDNY) EXHIBIT 2 – Missing filing of Petition For Permission To Appeal To The United States Supreme Court from Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), stamped by S.D.N.Y. as filed on January 7, 2019 EXHIBIT 3 – Missing filing of Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part IV from Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), stamped by S.D.N.Y. as filed on January 7, 2019 EXHIBIT 4 – The CIVIL DOCKET’s “Appeal Remark as to 8 Notice of Appeal…(tp) (Entered: 01/03/2019),” [highlighting added] S.D.N.Y.’s PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT employee, tp, stating: “LITIGANT INSISTED ON FILING TWO SEPARATE NOA’S. EACH NOA HAS OTHER DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO IT. NOA #2 IS ATTACHED TO THE FIRST.” [highlighting and emphasis added] EXHIBIT 5 – CIVIL DOCKET mailings to “General Delivery Services 333, 1st Avenue NY, NY 10003” (a trucking company, no longer in service) entered by aea on “12/26/2018” and “12/27/2018,” as well as vn on “1/11/2019.” EXHIBIT 6 – Slip Law Draft Of Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 3.1, By Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams (see Exhibit 46 of the Injunctive Motion for the mandamus action of this certiorari, Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY),1392(2nd Cir. Ct.) EXHIBIT 7 – An Act to Immunize an Individual from Tax liability within Sovereignty (Individual Tax Immunity Act). See Exhibit 45, of the Injunctive Motion for the mandamus action of this certiorari, Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 1392(2nd Cir. Ct.) EXHIBIT 8 – PLAINTIFFs’ “Affidavit In Support Of Complaint (‘Part 1’),” [highlighting added] time-stamped on December 28, 2018 from the “NIGHT DEPOSITORY” [highlighting added] box of 40 Foley Sq., yet docketed January 2, 2019 by sc EXHIBIT 9 – PLAINTIFFs’ replacement title page for his filed Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion EXHIBIT 10 – N.Y.A.G.’s MS./MRS. JAMES’ “LETTER” to the Appellate Court and PLAINTIFF (see Doc. “60” of the General Docket) notifying them of not receiving a summons EXHIBIT 11 – U.S. ASST. ATTORNEY, BENJAMIN H. TORRANCE’s “LETTER” to the Appellate Court and PLAINTIFF (Doc. “40” of the General Docket) notifying them of not receiving a summons EXHIBIT 12 – A comparison of named defendants, listed on the CIVIL DOCKET to those listed upon the General Docket of the Appellate Court EXHIBIT 13 – PLAINTIFFs’ “COMPLAINT: STATEMENT OF NAMED PARTIES” [highlighting added] (filed December 20, 2018), evidencing the first and last pages (p.1 and p.21), naming One Hundred & Seventy-Six defendants, not “169,” as evidenced by HON. STANTON within the Dismissal Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [***] (15 pg.) "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): U.S.D.O.J., HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (18 U.S.C. §§2, 3)" (Highlighted), Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): U.S.D.O.J., HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (18 U.S.C. §§2, 3), 15 pg., Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): U.S.D.O.J., HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y.... more "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): U.S.D.O.J., HON. LOUIS L. STANTON & PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT, S.D.N.Y. (18 U.S.C. §§2, 3)" (highlighted), dated October 5, 2019, Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.): "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), present this supplemental brief in support of the Certiorari Petition ('Cert.'), in light of accompanying claims of aiding and abetting (see the original complaint of Dock. No. 18-12064(LLS)(SDNY)), for which this sanctions action is sought. This supplemental brief was confirmed as delivered for filing on August 22, 2019, yet missing from the docket of Dock. No. 19-5405(U.S.S.Ct.), titled 'Supplemental Brief: Elaborated Sanction Claims Against Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Se Intake Unit, S.D.N.Y..' A renewed application to file the original supplemental brief is sought (see 'Application To Individual Justice Of The Supreme Court Of The United States: Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg).' " "5. This matter is brought before the Supreme Court of the United States ('U.S. S.Ct.') from an appellate mandamus action associated to the trial of Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), where such seeks a response to requested orders for sanctions from HON. CHIEF J. MCMAHON against HON. STANTON and employees of the PRO SÉ INTAKE UNIT of the S.D.N.Y. for claims of contempt of court processes and conspired retaliatory promissory and collateral discriminatory estoppel (U.S. Const. Am. 5, 14 §1; 18 U.S.C. §§241, 371), perpetrated in aid of subversion of PLAINTIFFs’ life within impoverishment, as an accessory after the fact (U.S. Const. Am. 1; 18 U.S.C. §§2, 3) of antitrust claims of Dock. Nos. 19-39 and 19-240 of the Appellate Court, to profit from claims of the illegal reinvested assets of PLAINTIFFs’ alleged beneficial trust ('Trust LPSW,' managed by PERSHING, LLC, UBS AG and FMR, LLC (formerly Correspondent Services Corporation)); as such claimed illegally reinvested assets are evidenced as being illegally reinvested into the rent stabilized residential community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST,' of PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial real property of a claimed illegal eviction), where the Assets Under Management of UBS AG (with use of Trust LPSW) were reinvested into the Initial Public Offering of PERSHING SQUARE HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC and further reinvested into the prior securitized trust of PCV/ST (WACHOVIA BANK COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-C30 ('TRUST2007-C30'), including affiliated tranches and foreign BONDHOLDERS). U.S. Const. Art. 3 §2, Cl. 1; U.S. S.Ct. Rule 11, 20.3, 33.2(b), 34; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), 16, 37, 42, 54(c), FRAP. 15.1, 16(a), 19, 21(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b)(2); 5 C.F.R. §1201.43; 5 U.S.C. Ch. 5, Subch. I, §500, et seq. (see Administrative Procedure Act and Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 18 U.S.C. §§3173, 3174, 3771(d)(3); 28 U.S.C. §§158(d)(2)(A)(ii), (d)(2)(A)(iii), Ch. 16, Ch. 51, 1251(a), 1253, 1254(2), 1361, 1391(e), 1404(a), 1631, 1651(a), 1657, 1927, Ch. 158, Ch. 161. See WILBUR v. UNITED STATES, ex Rel. KADRIE, 281 U.S. 206, 218 (1930), 'to direct the retraction or reversal of action already taken[.]' See also the opinion by Hon. Chief J. WARREN within HON. HERBERT L. WILL, J., U.S. N. DIST. CT. OF ILLINOIS v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 90, 95, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967): [ ] 'the writ has been invoked where unwarranted judicial action threatened ‘to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations,’ Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 588, 63 S.Ct. 793, 799, 87 L.Ed. 1014 (1943)[,]… and where a district judge displayed a persistent disregard of the Rules of Civil Procedure[ ]… La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957)[.]' [emphasis added]" Id. at 10-12. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact (ESTOPPEL) Williams v. U.S., et al., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.), "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SOVEREIGNTY OF CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS" (Hidden from docket w/in Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547(CM)(SDNY)) (PROOF - docketing & notary) "PART A – STATEMENT OF THE CASE (RESTATED) "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' ... more "PART A – STATEMENT OF THE CASE (RESTATED) "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), present this deposing affidavit as a claimed factual testimony of relevant events surrounding an alleged conspired antitrust, economic espionage (18 U.S.C. §1831, Economic Espionage Act of 1996) and racketeering (18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq., Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act) scheme, via the corruption of enterprises (PEN Art. 460; 18 U.S.C. §§1962(c), (d), 1964(4)), within and without federal and local government agencies of the areas of New York, New Jersey, Maryland and the District of Columbia, violating various provisions of PLAINTIFFs’ rights set forth within the U.S. Constitution... "It is claimed, such scheme was perpetrated so as to deter PLAINTIFF from the acquisition of beneficial assets within an Individual Retirement Account ('IRA,' attached to a securitized testamentary trust instrument) through the inducing of a claimed illegal eviction of PLAINTIFF from a rent stabilized dwelling, located within a world renowned commercial housing community of Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town ('PCV/ST'),... "It is further claimed, not only had owners of PCV/ST profited from real property assets (malicious raising of rental prices), but they (along with other financial institutions, including the financial institutions of PLAINTIFFs’ beneficial IRA trust from his mother,... "PART B – ARGUMENT (To Be Amended)... "PART I.3.a – CLAIMS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION: "MATTERS RELATED TO TAXATION & RETIREMENT: "REQUESTED MANDATE (SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY BY EXECUTIVE ORDER)" Id. at 10-15 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 545 ViewsTop 2% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] (15 pg.) "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 & RULE 15.3)" (Highlighted), Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 & RULE 15.3), 15 pg., Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 & RULE 15.3)" (highlighted), da... more "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 & RULE 15.3)" (highlighted), dated August 25, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.): "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), present this supplemental brief seeking new questions for review (Appendix A) for the parameters of: (i) Rule 12.6; (ii) Rule 12.7; and (iii) Rule 15.3." Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] APPENDIX A, FEDERAL QUESTIONS, (15 pg.) "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 & RULE 15.3)" (Highlighted), Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 & RULE 15.3), 15pg., Williams, 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 APPENDIX A, FEDERAL QUESTIONS, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 &... more APPENDIX A, FEDERAL QUESTIONS, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (RULE 12.6, RULE 12.7 & RULE 15.3) (highlighted), dated August 25, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 5405 (U.S. S.CT.): "[NEW CERTIORARI QUESTIONS]... " APPENDIX A " QUESTIONS PRESEN[T]ED "1. Rule 12.6 is questioned where the parameters of its provision 'Parties who file no document [(a ‘brief in support’ or ‘the position that the petition should be denied’) ]will not qualify for any relief from this Court' is pondered as to whether such 'relief,' if the respondent fails to respond within the timeframe after the filed petition (in any way), entails the respondents’ denial of rights to appear at trial (hence, a sua sponte default judgment) or, simply a waiver of their right to respond? "2. Rule 12.7 is questioned where the parameters of its provision 'possession of the record… until notified by the Clerk' should be amended to have the record immediately transferred for certification to the Clerk upon docketing of the certiorari petition? "3. Rule 15.3 is questioned where the parameters of a respondents’ extension may be automatically forfeited if they fail to respond to the petition, as stated in Rule 12.6?" Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 1 View Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [****] (15 pg.) "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): SOVEREIGNTY OF CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS" (Highlighted), Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): SOVEREIGNTY OF CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS, 15 pg., Williams, 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.), 2019 "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): SOVEREIGNTY OF CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS" (highlighted)... more "SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (RULE 15.8): SOVEREIGNTY OF CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS" (highlighted), dated October 6, 2019, Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United States, 18-cv-12064 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. ), 19-1392 (RSP) (BDP) (RR) (2nd Cir. Ct.), 19- 6227 (U.S. S.CT.): "I, CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS ('PLAINTIFF,' Pro Sé), present this supplemental brief under Rule 15.8: (i) in support of question 16.a of the Mandamus; (ii) to call attention to the new Sept. 5, 2019 ORDER (Doc. 108 of Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), Appendix A; see YUSUF ABDI ALI, v. FARHAN MOHAMOUD TANI WARFAA, 137 S. Ct. 2289 (2017)), denying PLAINTIFF the opportunity to hold the District Court employees accountable for claims surrounding estoppel, where an offered settlement under the economic benefit doctrine (seeking mandatory sovereignty as an allied amicus of the U.S. Government and Judiciary (observing PLAINTIFF as a third-party contracted 'recognized' sovereign (trustee or other) with certain rights to citizenship), would be acquired (presented as a pseudo 'trade secret' (5 U.S.C. §§552(b)(4), 552a), in PLAINTIFFs’ intent to form a law firm); and (iii) to provide for 'new legislation' (originally offered for revision to sovereignty statutes, via slip law exhibits, within the appellate court, Dock. No. 19-1392(2nd Cir. Ct.), as 'Motion For Injunctive Relief: Sanctions Upon Hon. Louis L. Stanton & Pro Sé Intake Unit,' denied of its filing by the appellate court in a claimed unconstitutional 'STRIKE ORDER,' Doc. '104,' and filed within this matter as a supplemental brief; see 'Supplemental Brief (Rule 15.8): Highlighted Injunctive Motion In Anticipation Of Summary Judgment,' 'Supp.B.Inj.'); as such is in light of accompanying claims of aiding and abetting the Internal Revenue Service ('I.R.S.') and Social Security Administration ('S.S.A.') (presented in the complaint of Dock. No. 18-12064(LLS)(SDNY)), for which this sanctions action is sought. This supplemental brief was originally confirmed as delivered for filing on August 22, 2019 (within Dock. No. 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.)), yet missing from the docket (evidence available). See WINKELMAN, ET AL. v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. 05-983(U.S. S.Ct.), 'to review the interlocutory order.'” Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 551 ViewsTop 2% Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] Doc. 2, "COMPLAINT" (PROMISSORY JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL), Williams v. U.S., et al., 19-cv-11547 (CM) (SDNY) "COMPLAINT," Doc. 2, (PROMISSORY JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL), Williams, 19-cv-11547 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), 2019 Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 64 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact [*****] Doc. 129, BRIEF, Williams, 20-451(2nd Cir. Ct.) CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., Mar 12, 2020 "HON. CHIEF J. McMAHON is claimed to have misconstrued the action of all trials by associating th... more "HON. CHIEF J. McMAHON is claimed to have misconstrued the action of all trials by associating the antitrust claim (under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act), where UNITED STATES defendants were named as aiders and abettors to the claimed reinvestments of the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST, solely as a claim for an illegal lockout of DECEDENTs’ (MRS. LINDA PAULA STREGER [ ] WILLIAMS’) real property apartment of PCV/ST, associated to DECEDENTs’ estate; as if never reading the COMP. (allegedly referencing the 'plausibility standard' [ ] for antitrust claims, specifically delineated by: [ ] "(i) [Bell Atlantic Corp. v. ]Twombly[, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 5901]; [ ] "(ii) Erickson [v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (2007), 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 6814](see COMP. at PLAINTIFFs’ specified page 18, 19, 'parallelism,' 'parallelism plus' and 'plausibility stan[dard],' Id. at 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200); [ ] "(iii) Ashcroft v. Iqbal [ ], 556 U.S. 662, 678(2009); and [ ] "(iv) Cryer[ v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Services, Dock. No. 8118-09 (U.S. T.C., 2013))]... "stating previous actions of 'Williams v. United States, ECF 1:18-CV-12064, 4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2018)' and 'Williams v. United States, ECF 1:15-CV-5114, 18 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2015)' were 'related to [PLAINTIFFs’] eviction from his late mother’s apartment, administration of her estate, and other unrelated matters' [ ] (Dismissal, at 2)... "HON. CHIEF J. McMAHON further stated PLAINTIFFs’ claims against the UNITED STATES were frivolous and malicious, based upon the Court having to 'dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)' [ ] (Dismissal, at 1); as such 'subject matter' against the UNITED STATES for PLAINTIFFs’ COMP. is asserted as the Court having jurisdiction to waiver immunity, or dismiss the action, only after responsive pleadings and entertaining investigative discovery of assets within the LINDA WILLIAMS BENEFICIAL TRUST, in order to determine whether UNITED STATES employees of the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION committed offenses of aiding and abetting through corruption of enterprises." Id. at 23-25. Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 15 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact U.S. Sup. Ct. Ignores Nano-Robotics & Estoppel (REOPEN MY CASES) (Promissory Estoppel), Steven T. Williams (Pro Se) by Steven Talbert Williams, Steven T. (Talbert) Williams, Steven T . ( T A L B E R T ) Williams, and Steven Talbert Williams, 137 S.Ct. 1611(denied) U.S. Sup. Ct. Ignores Nano-Robotics & Estoppel (REOPEN MY CASES) (Promissory Estoppel), Steven T. Williams (Pro Se), 2022 U.S. Sup. Ct. Ignores Nano-Robotics & Estoppel (REOPEN MY CASES) Antitrust funding human experi... more U.S. Sup. Ct. Ignores Nano-Robotics & Estoppel (REOPEN MY CASES) Antitrust funding human experimentations? A Computer for the World & Council for Code Writing - - - Please Help w/ NEWS MEDIA (Promissory Estoppel) Steven T. Williams (Pro Se) Save to LibraryDownloadEditCompare Citation Rank 8 Views Readers Related Papers MentionsView Impact ×Close LOG IN Log in with Facebook Log in with Google Sign in with Apple or Email Password Remember me on this computer or reset password Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Need an account? Click here to sign up * About * Press * Blog * People * Papers * Topics * Academia Biology * Academia Engineering * Academia Medicine * Job Board * We're Hiring! * Help Center * Find new research papers in: * Physics * Chemistry * Biology * Health Sciences * Ecology * Earth Sciences * Cognitive Science * Mathematics * Computer Science * Terms * Privacy * Copyright * Academia ©2023