www.academia.edu Open in urlscan Pro
99.84.88.17  Public Scan

Form analysis
3 forms found in the DOM

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="2UMT67GTXCz0hZVanSL9cQlV/uCpixYb6DdzMaQkvsgWRV6SrOEbTlb3mnZwe/ZqL6pmJPDjUl6gLNZ8VnnDmw==" 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://www.academia.edu/72625130/_15_pg_SUPPLEMENTAL_BRIEF_RULE_15_8_HOMELESSNESS_A_HAZARDOUS_THREAT_TO_LIFE_JUDICIAL_REVIEW_OF_EXPERIMENTAL_NANO_BIOTECHNOLOGY_and_NANO_ROBOTICS_IN_SITU_DRUG_DELIVERY_A_PUBLIC_CONCERN_Highlighted_Williams_19_5405_U_S_S_CT_"
    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="2UMT67GTXCz0hZVanSL9cQlV/uCpixYb6DdzMaQkvsgWRV6SrOEbTlb3mnZwe/ZqL6pmJPDjUl6gLNZ8VnnDmw==" 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><input class="btn btn-primary btn-block g-recaptcha js-password-reset-submit" data-sitekey="6Lf3KHUUAAAAACggoMpmGJdQDtiyrjVlvGJ6BbAj" type="submit"
    value="Email me a link">
</form>

GET https://www.academia.edu/search

<form class="js-SiteSearch-form select2-no-default-pills" action="https://www.academia.edu/search" accept-charset="UTF-8" method="get"><input name="utf8" type="hidden" value="✓" autocomplete="off"><svg style="width: 14px; height: 14px;"
    aria-hidden="true" focusable="false" data-prefix="fas" data-icon="search" class="header--search-icon svg-inline--fa fa-search fa-w-16" role="img" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 512 512">
    <path fill="currentColor"
      d="M505 442.7L405.3 343c-4.5-4.5-10.6-7-17-7H372c27.6-35.3 44-79.7 44-128C416 93.1 322.9 0 208 0S0 93.1 0 208s93.1 208 208 208c48.3 0 92.7-16.4 128-44v16.3c0 6.4 2.5 12.5 7 17l99.7 99.7c9.4 9.4 24.6 9.4 33.9 0l28.3-28.3c9.4-9.4 9.4-24.6.1-34zM208 336c-70.7 0-128-57.2-128-128 0-70.7 57.2-128 128-128 70.7 0 128 57.2 128 128 0 70.7-57.2 128-128 128z">
    </path>
  </svg>
  <div class="select2-container select2-container-multi" id="s2id_autogen1"><input class="header--search-input header--search-input-ds2 js-SiteSearch-form-input select2-input" data-main-header-click-target="search_input" name="q" placeholder="Search"
      type="text" 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>

Text Content

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.

×

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.

×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


Log InSign Up



 * Log In
 * Sign Up
 * more
 * * Job Board
   * About
   * Press
   * Blog
   * People
   * Papers
   * Terms
   * Privacy
   * Copyright
   * We're Hiring!
   * Help Center
   * less

Download Free PDF


Download Free PDF



(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.)


(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.)


(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.)


(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.)


(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.)

Steven T. (Talbert) Williams

2019, 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.)

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."


Continue ReadingDownload PDF
Continue ReadingDownload PDF


Continue ReadingDownload PDF

Loading Preview

scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd.
scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd.
scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd.
scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd.
 
 

 
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) Supreme Court Of The United States In re.:
Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United
 
States, et al., Docket No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2 
nd
 Cir. Ct.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.)
 
2
 
CERTIORARI QUESTIONS
i.
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 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. 18cv12064(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
): 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?
 
i.


 
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) Supreme Court Of The United States In re.:
Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United
 
States, et al., Docket No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2 
nd
 Cir. Ct.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.)
 
3
 
ii.
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 S
É
 INTAKE UNIT
’s
 personal
 
classification of PLAINTIFFs
’
Comp.
’s
 case type as
“
440 Civil Rights
”
(evidenced on the
“
CIVIL DOCKET 
.”
 
Id
. at p.1; Appendices E and AA; filed by S.D.N.Y.
’s
 Pro S
é
 Intake Unit
’
s
“
rdz
”
 and
“
sc
”
) be seen as unconstitutional (under
U.S. Const. Am. 1, 5, 14
§
1
and
 18 U.S.C.
§§
241, 371, 1001(a)
), 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 QUE STEVEN 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. STEVEN WILLIAMS 
, 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 PLAINTIFFs
’
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)(2
nd
 Cir. Ct.) and
CESTUI QUE STEVEN TALBERT WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES 
,
ET AL
., 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-240(JAC)(PWH)(JMW)(2
nd
 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 spont
é
 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
?


 
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) Supreme Court Of The United States In re.:
Cestui Que Steven Talbert Williams v. United
 
States, et al., Docket No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY), 19-1392(2 
nd
 Cir. Ct.), 19-5405(U.S. S.Ct.)
 
4
 
iii.
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 Victim
s’ 
 Rights Act
): a.Should
 
PLAINTIFFs
’
antitrust claims have provided for immediate adjudication, under the doctrines
of plausibility, parallelism and proof of a contract for being reported as a
crime victim (under
Fed. R. Crim. P. 60(b)
and
 28 C.F.R. Part 0, Subpart K
), due PLAINTIFF providing proof of account information of the
“
Mrs. Linda Paula Streger William
s’ 
 (Decedent
s’)
 Individual Retirement Acct. (IRA) trust (Pershing, LLC & UBS Acct.#: x7439
 – 
 EIN#: x8899
 – 
 Treas. (IRS)  form SS-4#: x6766 and evidence of a W-9 form)
”
 (Comp. at 5)? 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? 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)
: a.Were
 
PLAINTIFFs
’ “
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))
”
 (Appendix J. U.S. S.Ct. Rule 14.1(i)(vi)) hidden in the filings of Doc.
“
8 
”
 of Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY) in opposition of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(4)
, and, if so, will sanctions for contempt (
18 U.S.C
§
402
) and advocacy
 
offense
(U.S. Const. Am. 1
;
 U.S. Const. Am. 13
§
3
;
18 U.S.C.
§§
2, 3
) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? i.If so, will
sanctions for contempt (
18 U.S.C
§
402
and
U.S. Const. Am. 10
) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? 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)
: a.Were
 
PLAINTIFFs
’
two documents of a
“
 Petition For Permission To Appeal To The United States Supreme Court
”
 (Appendix K) and
“
 Affidavit In Support Of Complaint, Part IV 
”
 (Appendix L) missing from the filings of 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY) in opposition of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(4)
and
 Fed. R. Crim. P. 42
, and, if so, will sanctions for contempt (
18 U.S.C
§
402
and
U.S. Const. Am. 10
) and advocacy
 
offense
(U.S. Const. Am. 1
;
 U.S. Const. Am. 13
§
3
;
18 U.S.C.
§§
2, 3
) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? 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
: a.Was PLAINTIFF denied the right to file two notices of an appeal under
Fed. R. App. P. 3(b)(2)
, where one appeal was allegedly sought for a class action remedy (see the CIVIL
DOCKET
’s
 
“
 Appeal Remark as to 8 Notice of Appeal
…
(tp) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
;
”
 Appendix M)? i.If so, will sanctions for contempt (
18 U.S.C
§
402
 and
U.S. Const. Am. 10
) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act? 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)
: a.Was PLAINTIFFs
’
 federal mail for Dock. No. 18cv12064(LLS)(SDNY) sent to
“
General Delivery Services 333 1st Avenue NY, NY 10003 
”
 (see the CIVIL DOCKET note,
“
(Entered: 12/27/2018)
,”
by
“
aea
;”
 Appendix N) (the address to a trucking company, no longer in service, however,
across the street from the community of PCV/ST) and not to the U.S.P.S.
’s
 
“
General Delivery
”
 office in a conspired discriminatory and retaliatory manner of contempt (
18 U.S.C
§
402
) and postal fraud (
U.S. Const. Art. 1
§
8 Cl. 7
) to deprive PLAINTIFF of his requested right to receive federal mail of the
court and to falsify information (under
18 U.S.C.
§
1001(a)
) in order to delay trial under
U.S. Const. Am. 1, 4
and
 6
?
i.
If so, will sanctions for contempt (
18 U.S.C
§
402
and
U.S. Const. Am. 10
) be enforced against the employees of S.D.N.Y. for such an act?


















Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking
the button above.


RELATED TOPICS

International RelationsHuman Rights LawInternational LawHuman RightsAntitrust
(Law)International Human Rights LawNanobiotechnologyDomestic
TerrorismNanoroboticsRatificationCestui Que Steven Talbert WilliamsCestui Que
Steven Talbert Willia...Post-Filing Delayed Review DoctrinePost-Filing Delayed
DismissalSherman Antitrust ActCestui Que Steven Talbert Willia...Cestui Que
Steven Talbert Willia...Domestic Housing TerrorismSlip LawCestui Que Steven
Talbert Willia...

Continue ReadingDownload PDF
 * About
 * Press
 * Blog
 * People
 * Papers
 * Topics
 * 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

of 19