A Cross-libel construction for my brother in New Hampshire... Sadly he himself does not know enough to bring it and believes an attorney is his best chance to be reuinted with his family - yet he still sits in jail 6 months later [present day]... _______________________________________ El Hotepsekhemwy Pero - with freedom of patent... _____________________________________________ CROSS-LIBEL: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Cross-Libel Case # 1595789332-KL-81966 In the Admiralty Jurisdiction Our court of inherent jurisdiction All assumptions waived STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE I State of New Hampshire District Court Plaintiff I For ________________________ County I I Private Family Court docket numbers; vs. I I _______________________________ MICHAEL LEE WILLIAMS I (Williams: Michael-Lee:, Sui juris I _______________________________ In propria persona) I I __________________________________________________________________________________________ DEMAND TO DISMISS; CROSS LIBEL AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF (Complaint / claim in Admiralty) Controlling throughout; mistakes are forgiven... Rule of law is substance and not form... To best help sustain the States budget, there are a sum of two cases combined in this cross-libel of which both cross-libels are for the two cases brought by the above mentioned wrongdoers, named as "Plaintiff", in the same capacities in both cases... Cross-libel claims to both cases being as near as may be to identical in nature and cause and thus further reason to combine said cases... This serves as notice to all parties named and anonymous - notice to principal is notice to agent; notice to agent is notice to principal... This is notice of intent to amend when appropriate to chapter 15 bankruptcy, for purposes of further corrections to be made, as a matter of national importance and full settlement and closure of all appropriate accounts... Keith-Orland: Little:, without recourse, does files this DEMAND TO SETTLE AND NOTICE OF CROSS LIBEL on behalf of my ecclesiastical brother and next friend, Michael, and does grant the use thereof to Michael for the and command that the New Hampshire District Court For ______________________ County settle the case initially brought in the ________________________ Court by; Wrong-doer Ainta... The Cross-Libel brought forward by; Keith-Orland: Little:, sui juris, for grant to Michael and as first-hand-witness my-self to events, facts and knowledge, in the supposed court order as ancillary action in the ________________________ Court, case numbers ____________________ and ____________________ is a proper action as is evidenced by the following: 1. PROPER FORUM OF CROSS LIBEL In an action titled Cross Libel, the proper court to bring forward the cross libel is the court in which the original action was initiated. 1.1 CROSS-ACTION. An action brought by one who is defendant in a suit against the party who is plaintiff in such suit, upon a cause of action growing out of the same transaction which is there in controversy, whether it be a contract or a tort. An independent suit brought by defendant against plaintiff., Tex. Civ. App., 39 SW 2d 907. 908. As found in Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition. National Stock Yards Nat Bank 1.2 Only if a claim arises out of the same contract or cause of action for which the original libel was filed may it be consolidated by cross-libel with the original claim. U.S. v. Isthmian S.S. Co., 359 US 314, 1959 AMC 1332; Solomon v. The Honorable Bruchhausen, 1963 AMC-, 305 F2d 941 CA2. 2. "SAVING TO SUITORS" CLAUSE 2.1 The "saving to suitors" clause was designed to permit a damaged party to bring a federal action (in conjunction with a state action), into a state court. The "saving to suitors" clause also enables the cross-libelant/plaintiff to chose the remedy. The liability of the defendant remains in admiralty. 2.2 "Savings to suitors" clause of 28 USC 1331(1) enables maritime litigants to pursue available common law remedies, if they prefer them to those supplied in admiralty; it affords litigants choice of remedies, not forums. Pacific Far East Line, Inc v. Ogden Corp., (1977, ND Cal) 425 F Supp 1239. 2.3 A state court trying maritime causes of action under the "saving" clause does not sit as an admiralty court. Istre v. Diamond M. Drilling Co. (1969, La App 3d Cir) 226 So 2d 779. cert den 254 La 929, 228 So 2d 485, and cert dismd 225 La 1089, 234 So. 2d 191. 2.4 ... jurisdictional act leaves state court competent to adjudicate maritime causes of action in proceedings "in personam", that is, where defendant is a person, not a ship or some other instrument of navigation. Madruga v. Superior Court of California (1954) 346 US 55s, 98 L Ed 290, 74 S Ct 31. 2.5 28 USC 1333 is broad enough to allow appending of state tort claim to maritime claim since statute is respective to exercise of jurisdiction over claims against closely related parties. Wood v Standard Products Co. (1978. EDVa) 456 F Supp 1098... 2.6 ...suitor who holds in personam claim which might be enforced by suit in personam under admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts may also bring suit at his election, in state court. Lavergne v. Western Co. of North America. Inc. (1979, La) 371 So 2d 801 3. CONSIDERATION OF NONMARITIME CLAIMS 3.1 Where issue of fraud arises incidental to exercise of its judicial power, court of admiralty may deal with question of fraud though intrinsically nonmaritime. Putnam v. Lower (1956, CA9 Wash) 236 F 2d 561. 3.2 ...in case of piratical taking, court could have jurisdiction, though retaking was on land. Davison v. Sealskins (1835, CC Conn) F. Cas No 3361. 3.3 Court of admiralty jurisdiction, could not, as court of equity, dispose of nonmaritime subjects for purpose of doing complete justice. The Ciano(1945, DC Pa) 63 F Supp 892. 4. GENERALLY 4.1 Trial in admiralty cases is ordinarily by judge without a jury. The Margaret (1824) 22 US 421, 6 L Ed 125; The Sarah (1823) 21 US 391, 1 L Ed 644, U.S. v La Vengence (1796) 3 US 297; 1 L Ed 610 4.2 Suit was not limited to rights recognized by maritime law when savings clause was first adopted in 1789. Panama R. Co. v. Vasquez (1926) 271 US 557; 70 L Ed 1085, 46 S Ct 596. 4.3 Saving provision forbade any interference by federal courts with suit in state court, when whole subject matter and all rights of both parties could be preserved and adjudicated in common-law suit. The Rosa (1892, DC NY) 53 F 132. 4.4 "Saving to Suitors" clause in 28 USC 1333 has long been construed to afford litigant choice of remedies, not forums. Crispin Co. v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co. (1955, DC Tex) 134 F Supp 704. 5. COMBINING FEDERAL AND STATE CLAIMS 5.1 The federal courts have developed the theory of "ancillary jurisdiction" or "pendent jurisdiction", under which the federal court sometimes may exercise jurisdiction over a non federal claim. In such cases, the court's jurisdiction over the state law is said to be an "ancillary" to the federal claim. 5.2 The majority of the courts which have faced the issue have held that "ancillary" or "pendent" jurisdiction applies to a state claim joined with a matter brought as an admiralty claim. ADMIRALTY IN A NUTSHELL, Ch. 19, Section G., p. 352, 353 (1981), Frank L. Maraist, West Pub. 6. DEFENDANT'S LIABILITY IS IN ADMIRALTY 6.1 Clause saving common-law remedy to suitors did not mean that defendant's liability should be measured by common law instead of maritime law standards. Chelentis v. Luckenbach S.S. Co. (1918) 247 US 372, 62 L. Ed 1171, 38 S Ct 501. 6.2 Defendant's Liability was measured by maritime law, and not common law, regardless of the remedy chosen by plaintiff. Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger (1922) 259 US 255, 66 L Ed 927, 42 S Ct 475; Philadelphia & R.R. Co. v. Berg (1921, CA3 Pa) 274 F 534, cert den 257 US 638, 66 L. Ed 410, 42 S Ct 50. 7. SUBSTANTIVE LAW IN STATE COURT, GENERALLY 7.1 State court is not free to apply its own substantive law to maritime cause of action simply because state court has subject matter jurisdiction. Blevens V Sfetku (1968 2d Dist) 259 Cal App 2d 527, 66 Cal ptr 486. 7.2 Prevailing rule under "saving to suitors" clause of 28 USC 1333 is that regardless of forum, federal substantive law applies. Baptiste v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1980, 2d Dist) 106 Cal App 3d 87, 164 Cal Rptr 789, cert den 449 US 1124, 67 L Ed 2d 110, 101 S Ct 940. 7.3 State court hearing admiralty case under "saving to suitors" clause of 28 USC 1333 must employ substantive law which federal courts would apply were they to entertain case. Alton & S.R. Co. v. Alton Transp Co. (1979) 79 Ill App 3d 591, 35 Ill Dec 339, 339 NE 2d 173. 7.4 If action in tort is cognizable in admiralty, maritime law governs with respect to rights and liabilities of parties even though suit is brought in state court by virtue of "saving to suitors" clause. Pfeiffer v. Weiland (1975, Iowa) 226 NW 2d 218. 7.5 .... generally the "savings to suitors" clause means that a suitor asserting an in personam admiralty claim may elect to sue in a "common law " state court through an ordinary civil action; however the state courts must apply the same substantive law as would be applied had the suit been instituted in admiralty in a federal court. Shannon v. Anchorage (1970, Alaska) 478 P 2d 815. 7.6 Regardless of in which Court action is brought under saving to suitors clause of 28 USC 1333, federal substantive admiralty or maritime law applies if claim is cognizable in admiralty. Lavergne v. Western Co. of North America, Inc. (1979, La) 56 2d 807. 7.7 State hearing case within federal admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to "saving to suitors" clause of 28 USC 1333 is required to apply federal substantive admiralty or maritime law if claim is cognizable in admiralty. Bordelon v. T. L. James and Co. (1980, La App 3d Cir) 380 2d 226. 7.8 Where action within federal maritime jurisdiction is brought in state court under "saving to suitors" clause of 28 USC 1333, state court ordinarily must apply federal maritime law. Pine Street Trading Corp. v. Farrell Lines, Inc. (1976) 278 Md 363, 364 A2d 1103. 7.9 Although the statute provides that suitors may also pursue their remedies in the state courts, the state courts are bound to apply federal law in such disputes. A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Dow Chemical Co. (1970) 25 NY 576, 307 NYS2d 660, 255 NE2d 774, cert den 398 US 939, 26 L Ed 2d 272, 90 S Ct 1844. 8. REMOVABILITY 8.1 The cross libel under the saving to suitors clause brought forward in a state court may be removed to a district court, upon motion of defendant. 8.2 Even though state court may have concurrent jurisdiction of action under that section, action originally filed in state court may, upon proper motion be removed to federal court, and it is not necessary that usually required diversity of citizenship or amount in controversy qualifications be present. Crispin Co. v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co. (1955. DC Tex) 134 F Supp 704. 8.3 Action brought in state court pursuant to "saving to suitors" clause of 28 USC 1333 can be removed to federal court on ground of diversity of citizenship. Camacho v. Cove Trader Inc. (1985, ED Pa) 612 F Supp 1190. 9. TORT ACTIONS AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTIONS 9.1 Term "tort" when used in reference to admiralty jurisdiction, was not confined to wrongs or injuries committed by direct force, but included wrongs suffered in consequence of negligence or malfeasance of others, where remedy at common law was by an action on the case. Philadelphia W. & B.R. Co. v. Philadelphia & Havre de Grace Steam Towboat Co. (1860) 64 US 209, 16 L Ed 433: Leathers v. Blessing (1860) 105 US 626, 26 L Ed 1192. 9.2 Saving to suitors clause in 28 USC 1333 preserves to plaintiff right to institute common law actions in state courts seeking in personam judgments for damages arising from maritime torts and contracts. Still v. Dixon (1976, Fla App D2) 337 So 2d 1033. 10. THE ELEMENT OF ADMIRALTY This cross libel is brought under admiralty for the following asseveration of cause: 10.1 Wrongdoers; Anita and others; in the acting with intent of seeking economic substance and taking what is not theirs to take, have provided evidence, with material misrepresentations, of claims against vessels of the United States or a citizens thereof and false claims against Michael and proving their plot to do so through an Inferior Court and thus are tortious acts of personage and kidnapping against Michael and kin; the aggrieved..: 10.2 Wrongdoers; Anita and others; with intent of seeking economic substance, with material misrepresentations, have provided evidence of false claims of neglect and abuse against Michael and kin; the aggrieved... 10.3 Wrongdoers; Anita and others; did conive and conspire and did present materailly false information that was then classified as unfounded... So... We will now bring the full record, as near as may be, for-ward!!! See: 15 U.S. Code § 1692a.Definitions; 15 U.S. Code § 1692e.False or misleading representations; 15 U.S. Code § 1692g.Validation of debts; 15 U.S. Code § 1692j.Furnishing certain deceptive forms... 10.4 The wrongdoers; Anita and others did make claims of interest in real and personal effects; produced by Michael and his companion; by and through supposed medical and financial obligations and concerns of neglect and abuse defined with legal, political or other grammar styles withoutstanding... 10.5 This is failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as well as a fatality to convey any jurisdiction by not following proper diplomatic channels in notice of suit... See: 22 CFR 93.1 and 22 CFR 93.2... 10.6 These material representations do harm, injure and damage Michael and companion and kin and their persons... 10.7 Anita, without representaive powers, Did cooperate with the ________________________ Court; and vice versa, the ________________________ Court Did cooperate with Anita, in a claim of assistance; and Both Did enjoin other wrong-doers in efforts of threats, duress, coercion, harm, injury, loss, damage, detriment, defamation, hunting, capture, impoundment and more;... ( *Impoundment is defined here; impoundment is defined as "[a]ny action or inaction by an officer or employee of the United States Government that precludes the obligation or expenditure of budget authority provided by Congress by, through or with the "issue" of certain false and deceptive forms; i.e. those without current and valid OMB(Office of Management and Budget) numbering... false statements, false seals, no seals etc., extrajudicial procedures are of like element and not valid for same falsity and decception ) ... a trespass of the Highest against Michael, of right of best interests of his legacy under our father which art in heaven by claiming right of best interests; as loco parentis without findings of incompetence of Michael; by and through commercial and political means and resources seeking economic substance for societal gains... *Final Rule: Title IV-D of the Social Security Act: Child Support Enforcement Program; Title 45---Public Welfare CHAPTER II--SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICE (ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS), DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM General Administration § 232.12 Cooperation in obtaining support. The State plan must provide that: (a) As a condition of eligibility for assistance, each applicant for or recipient of AFDC will be required to cooperate with the State in: (1) Identifying and locating the parent of a child with respect to whom aid is claimed; (2) Establishing the paternity of a child born out of wedlock with respect to whom aid is claimed; (3) Obtaining support payments for such applicant or recipient and for a child with respect to whom aid is claimed; and (4) Obtaining any other payments or property due such applicant or recipient of such child. (b) "Cooperate" includes the following: (1) Appearing at the offices of the State or local agency or the child support agency as necessary to provide verbal or written information, or documentary evidence, known to, possessed by, or reasonably obtainable by him, that is relevant to achieving the objectives of paragraph (a) of this section; (2) Appearing as a witness at court or other hearings or proceedings necessary to achieving the objectives of paragraph (a) of this section; (3) Providing information, or attesting to the lack of information, under penalty of perjury; and (4) After an assignment under § 232.11 has been made, paying to the child support agency any child support payments receivedfrom the absent parent which are covered by such assignment. (c) If the child support agency notifies the State or local agency of evidence of failure to cooperate, the State or local agency shall act upon such information in order to enforce the eligibility requirements of this section. (d) If the relative with whom a child is living fails to comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, such relative shall be denied eligibility without regard to other eligibility factors. (e) If the relative with whom a child is living is found to be ineligible for assistance because of failure to comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, any aid for which such child is eligible (determined without regard to the needs of the caretaker relative) will be provided in the form of protective payments as described in § 234.60 of this chapter. 10.8 Michael does have evidence that the New Hampshire State Attorney General, whom he believes at the time of these agregious acts against Americans, was contacted and delegated his authority as a trustee confirmed at; Title 31 of the United States Code, section (73) Estates of Decedents, Department of State, Trust Fund; In doing so he superceded any and all authority to do so by both process in neglect to follow assurances of being proper before a court and form in neglect for certain deceptive forms presumed to be held in custody of wrong-doers; and did in fact allow wrong-doers to commit High crimes against American nationals: a ) Other material information regarding his assignment by State Governor here... Request for forensic audit etc... b ) Other material information regarding his pay(emoluments) here... Request for forensic audit etc... 10.9) Michael does have a non-interested first-hand-witness to certain events and details of these matters: This witness is too a neighbor and a brother in Christ with peaceful intent as a next friend of this profession of truth: This brother was given the christian calling of Keith-Orland and hails from the kin Konrardy-Little; having been adopted and carrying a new name: Keith expresses deep love in truth of His absolute word by and through good works of his own hand to perfect the law of love and kind-ness: Keith was granted providence of grace to speak And author His word to this court in all matters relevent to all real and personal effects of Michael and his kin; as author of this document; to make whole, or as near as may be, so that Michael and his kin to the effect of communing once again in Christ with his own and not political or societal foreigners without Christ:: It is the inherent will of Keith and Michael that this document functions as an absolute superior writ of habeas corpus, absolute superior writ of certiorari and any element ascertained substantial; to the effect of relinquishing Michael to commune and counsel with his family of living heirs under Christ once again, in natural supreme love and kindness: Keith and Michael do hereby profess truth and require the wrong-doers to relinquish Michael and his kin back to the soil of the land of mother earth as Michael is entrusted with in His dominion:: Post haste! Without public disclosure! 11. 18 USC § 371.Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States... "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor." 12. 18 U.S. Code § 1341.Frauds and swindles... "Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. 13. 28 USC 2461.Mode of recovery... (b) "in cases of seizures on land the forfeiture may be enforced by a proceeding by libel which shall conform as near as may be to proceedings in admiralty." 14. 28 USC 1333 ADMIRALTY, MARITIME AND PRIZE CASES The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled, (2) Any Prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize. 15. "PRIZE" DEFINED 15.1 Prize was generally used as technical term to express legal capture. Miller v. The Ship Resolution (1781, F CC Pa) 2 US 1, 1 L Ed 263, later op (F CC Pa) 2 US 19, 1 L Ed 271.Words "prize and capture" referred to property taken on land, as well as water, by civil process. Union Ins. Co. v. United States (1868) 73 US 759, 18 L Ed 879. 15.2 Question of prize or no prize must be determined by courts of Admiralty, belonging to the power whose subjects make the capture. Ling v. 1689 Tons of Coal (1942, CC Wash) 78 F SUPP 57. 15.3 Questions of prize were exclusively of admiralty jurisdiction. Bingham v. Cabbot (1795) 3 US 19, 1 L Ed 491. 16. APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW 16.1 Rule 13. Counterclaim and Cross-Claim (g) Cross-Claim Against Co-Party. A pleading may state as a cross-claim any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein or relating to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. Such cross claim may include a claim that the party against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant. (h) Joinder of Additional Parties. Persons other than those made parties to the original action may be made parties to a counterclaim or cross claim in accordance with the provisions of Rules 19 and 20. 17. 28 USC 1332 Diversity of citizenship; amount of controversy; costs (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of or value of $50,000, exclusive of the interest and costs, and is between - (1) Citizens of different States; (2) Citizens of a State and citizens or Subjects of a foreign state; (3) Citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; 18. OTHER APPLICABLE LAW AND POINTS 18.1 Federal rules of civil procedure allow four months to complete process of service... 28 USC RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 4(j) Summons Time Limit for Service. If a service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint and the party on whose behalf such service was required cannot show good cause why such service was not made within that period, the action shall be dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice upon the court's own initiative with notice to such party or upon motion. 19. SUMMATION Cross Libelant has brought a civil action for criminal acts committed against him by commercial actors (in their private capacity). Dismissal of cross-libel by this court would deny a remedy for full settlement of all accounts by the Cross Libelant, and would result in discharge of all charges against him in the original libel (alleged complaint)... 19.1 The charges and accusations made in the ________________________ Court actions by Anita and other wrong-doers will not be dismissed or "discharged" but rather; settled absolute in fulfillment of the law... 19.2 This is most certainly a declaratory judgement... 20. TRUE NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS - CREATION OF REMEDY - FURTHER RELIEF Be it enacted; As this court must be moving under the rules of Admiralty, this draft of order to settle is issued and substantiated on the following grounds: 1. There is no evidence of an original contract to substantiate a breach of contract for the original plaintiff to bring original action; 2. There is no verified complaint supported by affidavit to substantiate a tort action by any original plaintiff; WHEREFORE, for the foregoing, Michael, free under God, with no attachments to government, respectfully commands that the original complaint be settled, and the cross-libel timely proceed against these "criminal elements in commerce". Michael does seek all damages and any and all additional and just action in equity that this court deems appropriate... WHEREAS, these proceedings will likely bring to light other mistakes of national importance that will need to be corrected, and will prove to be a further declaratory judgement, we seek additional relief through chapter 15 of US Code Title 11 and chapter 151 of US Code Title 28 while following international model bankruptcy standards through the Bank for International Settlements per Foreign-Country Money Judgement Recognition Act... SEE: US CODE 11... FURTHER RELIEF SAUGHT: TO INCLUDE CHAPTER 15 BANKRUPTCY REMEDY HERE (BRING FORTH THE RECORD IN PATENT CORRECTNESS)... COMMON LAW REMEDY OF BANKRUTCY TO CORRECT RECORD - INTERNATIONAL MODEL BANKRUPTCY... YET TO BE CONSTRUCTED... YET TO CONFIRM PLAN TO REORGANIZE AS PRIVATE MERCHANT WITH FREEDOM OF ENTREPOT AND PATENT... FOREIGN RECOGNITION... MERGE ANCILLARY CROSS-BORDER CASES... CERTIFICATE OF RECEIVERSHIP... COOPERATION OF THE UNITED STATES... FORENSIC ACCOUNTING (AS NEAR AS MAY BE) ASSIGNMENT OF UNITED STATES AND STATE AS CO/TRUSTEES IN RECEIVERSHIP... TRUSTEES UNDER FULL FAITH AND CREDIT (BOTH; STATES (ALL STATES) AND UNITED STATES)... _________________________ ALSO SEE: 28 US CODE... FOR FURTHER RELIEF - CREATION OF REMEDY - MERGER OF CASES... _________________________ Michael says nothing more:: Respectfully submitted, By; ______________________________________ Keith-Orland: Konrardy-Little: Ecclesiastical brethren; next friend... C/O - Joyce Near; 1334 Meadow Lane, Apartment D Waterlo, Iowa [50701-9998] Without the United States State of New Hampshire _____________________________ County Michael-Lee: Williams:, the cross-libelant/aggrieved, being with providence of grace, says: “I have read the foregoing DEMAND TO SETTLE AND CROSS LIBEL AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF (Cross-libel / claim in Admiralty) and do hereby asseverate that the contents thereof are true. The use of a notary on this document does not constitute any adhesion, nor does it alter my status in any manner.” Done in good faith, given with freedom of patent... Expressly; ____________________ Michael: menage Williams: Day; ______________________________________________________________ad. I; verify; Michael; did present him-self before my-self and; did knowingly; willingly; intentionally; put forth through his hand the mark above named Autograph... use of notary is testimonial only and not a grant of any jurisdictional transfer - claim remains in Admiralty... Notary ______________________________________________________________________ First hand witness; ____________________________________________________________________________ Profession; ____________________ First hand witness; ____________________________________________________________________________ Profession; ____________________ First hand witness; ____________________________________________________________________________ Profession; ____________________ ABSOLUTE:

Posted by El Hotepsekhemwy Pero at 2020-11-30 06:17:24 UTC