Slave Negro Louis Charles Hamilton II
(USN), herein reincorporates all and files a Notice of
Motion for “Aggravated Perjury” charges against each identified Defendant David
Hittner U.S. Federal Judge herein being charged out and on file with the
“United States Attorney Office” for
the District of Texas, and made entry into the records of these proceeding Civil Action H-16-1774, Louis Charles Hamilton
II et al v. The Federal Reserve Bank, et al as stated as further:
Rule 42. Consolidation;
separate trials.
(a) Consolidation. When
actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the
court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue
in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such
orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or
delay.
(a)(1) A motion to
consolidate cases shall be heard by the judge assigned to the first case filed.
Notice of a motion to consolidate cases shall be given to all parties in each
case. The order denying or granting the motion shall be filed in each case.
(a)(2) If a motion to
consolidate is granted, the case number of the first case filed shall be used
for all subsequent papers and the case shall be heard by the judge assigned to
the first case. The presiding judge may assign the case to another judge for
good cause.
(b) Separate trials. The
court in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice may order a separate
trial of any claim, cross claim, counterclaim, or third party claim, or of any
separate issue or of any number of claims, cross claims, counterclaims, third
party claims, or issues.
Exhibit (A) Order Chief Defendant United
States District Judge “David Hittner” “Claimed”….?
having considered the motion and the
applicable law…?
Slave Negro Pro Se Plaintiff further
states factual in law and (Negro Pro Se
Plaintiff herein a forced born “Slave” of United States of America actually
having the possession of (common sense) of “White Man” only laws and
Constitution only as been express by this particular Chief Defendant United States District Judge “David
Hittner” in 2012 further making “Racial
Hate Target” of Human Rights Violations, ruler for whites supremacy of the
Knights of The Klu Klux Klansmen strong hold on the Federal Court House
As such Chief Defendant United States
District Judge “David Hittner” being Human impossible in considered the
“motion” for “consolidation” as dated on 25th day of July 2016 when
factual the (FRCP) requires first and foremost Defendant “United States of
America” et al Republican Federal Judges over bearing power to enforce “Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure,”, yet never follow the same (FRCP) Rule 26. Duty to
Disclose; Pro Se Plaintiff being Born into Slavery Servitude of United States
of America, “Initial Disclosure” of the continual (RICO) enterprise
“enslavement” of 44.5 Plus Million Negro Race since the 1865 Civil War…?
Well into 2013 non-disclosure being
made by United States Attorney office that in 2010 Hamilton v. United States of
America et al 1:2010-CV-00808 as required under
General Provisions Governing
Discovery
(a) Required Disclosures.
(1) Initial Disclosure.
(A) In General. Except as
exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the
court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other
parties:
(i) the name and, if known,
the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable
information—along with the subjects of that information—that the disclosing
party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely
for impeachment;
(ii) a copy—or a description
by category and location—of all documents, electronically stored information,
and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody,
or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would
be solely for impeachment;
(iii) a computation of each
category of damages claimed by the disclosing party—who must also make
available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other
evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which
each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent
of injuries suffered; and
(iv) for inspection and
copying as under Rule 34, any insurance agreement under which an insurance
business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the
action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.
(B) Proceedings Exempt from
Initial Disclosure. The following proceedings are exempt from initial
disclosure:
(i) an action for review on
an administrative record;
(ii) a forfeiture action in
rem arising from a federal statute;
(iii) a petition for habeas
corpus or any other proceeding to challenge a criminal conviction or sentence;
(iv) an action brought
without an attorney by a person in the custody of the United States, a state,
or a state subdivision;
(v) an action to enforce or
quash an administrative summons or subpoena;
(vi) an action by the United
States to recover benefit payments;
(vii) an action by the United
States to collect on a student loan guaranteed by the United States;
(viii) a proceeding ancillary
to a proceeding in another court; and
(ix) an action to enforce an
arbitration award.
(C) Time for Initial
Disclosures—In General. A party must make the initial disclosures at or within
14 days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference unless a different time is set
by stipulation or court order, or unless a party objects during the conference
that initial disclosures are not appropriate in this action and states the
objection in the proposed discovery plan. In ruling on the objection, the court
must determine what disclosures, if any, are to be made and must set the time
for disclosure.
(D) Time for Initial
Disclosures—For Parties Served or Joined Later. A party that is first served or
otherwise joined after the Rule 26(f) conference must make the initial
disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined, unless a different
time is set by stipulation or court order.
(E) Basis for Initial
Disclosure; Unacceptable Excuses. A party must make its initial disclosures
based on the information then reasonably available to it. A party is not
excused from making its disclosures because it has not fully investigated the
case or because it challenges the sufficiency of another party's disclosures or
because another party has not made its disclosures.
“Pro Se” Plaintiff (Hamilton) II
herein having stated after this discrepancy of United States of America et al failure
to end the 1865 Civil War, and Honor the provision of the 13th
Amendment Chief Defendant David Hittner”, conspired with Co-Chief Defendant
U.S. Federal Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore, on or about the 3rd day of
May 2016 as described in Plaintiffs Exhibit (B) attached herein (Order) of
United States Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore official
Denied “Motion to Proceed” In Forma
Pauperis stated: The Court finds that the Petitioner can make no rational
argument in law or fact to support his claim for relief…signed “Vanessa D.
Gilmore” signed 2nd day of May.
Exhibit (C) From David J. Bradley,
Clerk dated May 3rd 2016 Re: Case 4:16-MC-00956
As stated: The Court denied your
application to proceed as a pauper.
If you want to continue your
complaint, you must pay the clerk the filing fee of $400.00
The Court will do nothing with your
case until the fee has been paid
Yet Pro Se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II herein did
(Pay) and as of this undersigned Notary Seal Date
United States Judge Vanessa D.
Gilmore official Denied “Motion to Proceed” already under “aggravated perjury”
circumstances after comply with “court” on or about 6/1/2016 as stated as
follows:
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
U.S. Docket No. 4:16-MC-00956 Slave
Negro Louis Charles Hamilton II USN SS # 2712 before the Court, please find
$400.00 U.S. Dollars as required by Court Order
In The United States District Court
For The Southern District of Texas
Houston Division
Slave Negro Louis Charles Hamilton II
USN SS # 2712
Pro Se Plaintiff
“Plaintiffs Slaves et al” U.S. Docket No. 4:16-MC-00956
Further appearances
“PLANTIFFS”
Vs.
The Federal Reserve Bank et al
Defendant(s) et al
Memorandum for filing fee
Slave Negro Louis Charles Hamilton II
USN SS # 2712 before the Court, please find $400.00 U.S. Dollars as required by
Court Order requesting filing of the complaint as per rules of civil procedure
further requesting require issuance of an Summons and Complaint against said
defendant(s) collectively with, as filed
Order Freezing Assets and Other
Emergency Relief,
Order to Show Cause, on “Emergency
Application” of “PLAINTIFFS” collectively TRO “temporary restraining order” for
Asset freezing orders of (Defendant)
The Federal Reserve Bank et al, The
Federal Reserve System et al, The Federal Reserve et al,
The Fed et al Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas 2200 N. Pearl St., Dallas, Texas 75201
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1000
Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30309-4470
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco 101 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
P.O. Box 7702
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City 1 Memorial
Drive, Kansas City, Mo. 64198
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis P.O. Box 442
St. Louis, MO 63166-0442
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Post Office Box
27622, Richmond, VA 23261
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis P.O. Box
291 Minneapolis, MN 55480-0291
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland P.O. Box 6387
Cleveland, Ohio 44101-1387
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago 230 South
LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604-1413
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF PHILADELPHIA Ten
Independence Mall Philadelphia, PA 19106-1574
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston 600 Atlantic Avenue | Boston, MA 02210-2204
Federal Reserve Bank of New York 33 Liberty
Street New York, NY 10045
“Chief Defendant(s) Federal Reserve Bank et
al” herein (RICO) enterprise files with the above Honorable U.S. District
Court,
“Pro Se Plaintiff only have income of
630.00 U.S. Dollars per month, as the $400.00 is paid in full for the behalf of
44.5 Millions of abused Negro Slaves, from said (SSI) and nothing but the best
for said
44.5 Million Still Negro American
slaves, (Plaintiff) been living off next to nothing and actually living off
next to nothing in process all Slaves Freedom from all defendant since
February 2016 all Plaintiffs
Collectively being still (RICO) subjects enterprise in slave labor endeavor in
2016 (December) by Federal Reserve bank et al
“Pro Se Plaintiff requesting service
of said legal document(s) and summons being process as required by law, served
upon the defendant, as they are without a doubt in law and equity
100% Guilt as Charge, and a
direct party of continual Slavery
Servitude against the Plaintiff(s) collectively since December 23rd 1913 well
into 2016 (December)
Plaintiffs requesting all other
relief being fair, fully before the court in “Law and equity”.
On this ____ Day of ______________
2016
________________________________________
Pro Se Slave Negro Louis Charles
Hamilton II (USN),
2724 61st street Ste. I-B
Galveston, Texas. 77551
bluefinlch2@gmail.com
832-894-9465
832-344-7134
louishamilton2015@gmail.com
Posted by Louis Hamilton at 12:31 PM
Pro Se Slave Negro (Hamilton) II
herein fully Affirm and fully declare Chief Defendant United States District
Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore committed to the same circumstances Fraud Upon The
Court, “aggravated perjury”, fully to aid and abetting in cover up the
“Enslavement” of the 44.5 Million Negro Plaintiff(s) collectively appearing
before the “Court” to continue under color or law denied on the 2nd day of
May 2016 Order filed herein as exhibit (B)
stating: The Court finds that the Petitioner can make no rational argument in
law or fact to support his claim for relief…signed “Vanessa D. Gilmore” whom
Order “pro se” Plaintiff to pay $400.00 US Dollars in order the defendant
“Federal Reserve Bank” et al being process said complaint and served a summon
in accordance’s with the Court orders
The plaintiff is responsible for
having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) as
the $400.00 being paid then diverted to another ongoing (Hamilton) complaint in
2016 as the Court Clerk some almost on the phone was rude saying the money was
to pay for a different action after the “Letter” stating the purpose of the
$400.00 filing fee as required to (FRCP) Orders of Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore
Rule 4 – Summons
(a) Contents; Amendments.
(1) Contents. A summons must:
(A) name the court and the parties;
(B) be directed to the defendant;
(C) state the name and address of the
plaintiff’s attorney or–if unrepresented–of the plaintiff;
(D) state the time within which the
defendant must appear and defend;
(E) notify the defendant that a
failure to appear and defend will result in a default judgment against the
defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint;
(F) be signed by the clerk; and
(G) bear the court’s seal.
(2) Amendments. The court may permit
a summons to be amended.
(b) Issuance. On or after filing the
complaint, the plaintiff may present a summons to the clerk for signature and
seal. If the summons is properly completed, the clerk must sign, seal, and
issue it to the plaintiff for service on the defendant. A summons–or a copy of
a summons that is addressed to multiple defendants–must be issued for each
defendant to be served.
(c) Service.
(1) In General. A summons must be
served with a copy of the complaint. The plaintiff is responsible for having
the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must
furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.
(2) By Whom. Any person who is at
least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint.
(3) By a Marshal or Someone Specially
Appointed. At the plaintiff’s request, the court may order that service be made
by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed
by the court. The court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed
in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §1915 or as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. §1916.
No comments:
Post a Comment