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 DOM
GET 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’
Ҧ 2
Ҧ 3 The filing of a complaint, in accordance with Rule 3,
Ҧ 4 provides for a timely response, no later than 14 days, by a
judicial officer
Ҧ 5 of the court in which the complaint is filed within.
Ҧ 6 a. In the event of delay, for good cause shown, the judicial
officer of the court,
Ҧ 7 shall provide complainant notice within the civil docket
Ҧ 8 and by certified mail of any extended time period.
Ҧ 9 i. In no event shall the extended time allowance of a
Ҧ 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’
Ҧ 2
Ҧ 3 The filing of a complaint, in accordance with Rule 3,
Ҧ 4 provides for a timely response, no later than 14 days, by a
judicial officer
Ҧ 5 of the court in which the complaint is filed within.
Ҧ 6 a. In the event of delay, for good cause shown, the judicial
officer of the court,
Ҧ 7 shall provide complainant notice within the civil docket
Ҧ 8 and by certified mail of any extended time period.
Ҧ 9 i. In no event shall the extended time allowance of a
Ҧ 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