Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Plaintiff Motion for Replevin and Arrest

Plaintiff Motion for Replevin and Arrest

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 1,418 |Likes:
Published by api-3848844

More info:

Published by: api-3848844 on Oct 18, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/18/2014

pdf

text

original

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Northern Division
Don Hamrick, pro se (Non-State Actor)
)
5860 Wilburn Road
)
Wilburn, Arkansas 72179
)Case No. 1:06cv0044
)
-v-
)
)
United Nations, et al
)
New York, NY 10017
)
PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION FOR
WRIT OFREPLEVIN& WRIT OFARREST ONAFFIDAVIT OFREPLEVIN
UNDERRULE 64, FEDERALRULES OFCIVILPROCEDURE
-OR-
PLAINTIFF\u2019SNOTICE OFINTENT INMAKINGCITIZEN\u2019SARREST WITH
THE ASSISTANCE OF THE U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE
IN THEINTEREST OFJUSTICE
OFJUDGEGEORGEHOWARD AND THECOURTCLERK FORFELONY
EXTORTION, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 872 OF THE COURT\u2019S $350 FILING FEE
FROM A U.S. SEAMEN AS CIVIL PLAINTIFF IN VIOLATION OF THE
SEAMEN\u2019S SUIT LAW, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1916,
A STAND-ALONE STATUTORY RIGHT OF EXEMPTION
FREE OF THEARBITRARYCONDITION OF
INFORMAPAUPERISAPPLICATION

A Writ of Replevin is a prejudgment process ordering the seizure or attachment of alleged illegally taken or wrongfully withheld property to be held in the U.S. Marshal\u2019s custody or that of another designated official, under order and supervision of the court, until the court determines otherwise. This type of writ is commonly used to take property from an individual wrongfully in possession of it and return it to its rightful owner.

1
PROCLAMATION & DECLARATION OF
AN ACT OF REPOSSESSION OF FREEDOM AND
A REPOSSESSION OF A TENTH AMENDMENT POWER
RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE AS DETERMINED BY NEW CASE LAW
\u201cFED UP!\u201d \u201cPLAINTIFF IS NOW DEMANDING JUSTICE!

Having endured 4 years, 8 months of obstruction of justice by the federal judiciary and by the U.S. Department of Justice by every dirty trick of the federal bench and bar to deny my Second Amendment case from proceeding to trial when the subject matter and the merits of my case demand a jury trial, in an act of Constitutional self-defense and in defiance of the United States Government\u2019s attempt to take Tenth Amendment powers Reserved to the People by unjust and abusive means of the political, legislative, and regulatory process, and by belligerently denying all available statutory, regulatory, and judicial remedies guaranteed to me under the right to petition clause of the First Amendment, and by the consequences of Government Action and Inaction, having rendered me a citizen without effective rights, relegating me to the status equivalent to that of a slave in violation of Abraham Lincoln\u2019s Emancipation Proclamation, and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment, though I be a white male of age 51, and having been harassed by the U.S. Government with criminal investigations for acting in defense of my rights under the Bill of Rights, and by authority of the U.S. Supreme Court case law inMassachusetts andGoldstei n, I, being a Citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, and as a Member of \u201cthe People\u201d under the Tenth Amendment, and acting as a \u201cPrivate Attorney General\u201d with a Civil RICO Act case for the Second Amendment as established in my previous pleadings, do hereby proclaim that I now reclaim, and take back my status as a free citizen of the United States, and further taking back certain powers reserved to The People under the Tenth Amendment.

I, under the aforesaid status as a free citizen of the United States, do proclaim and declare that I now have a GREATER STANDING to\u201c FORCE federal agencies of the United States Government [NOT by armed or physical force but by Force of their Oath of Office, demanding

compulsive obedience to their allegiance to defending the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic under threat of Citizen\u2019s Arrest for offenses against my constitutional rights, duties, and powers with attending assistance of any federal law enforcement agent as is appropriate and affirmed by a federal judge through a Warrant of Citizen\u2019s Arrest as the procedures may or may not require, as a means of last resort when all available remedies of criminal procedure have been exhausted and/or denied by federal law enforcement agencies to the neglect, degradation, or obstruction of justice.] the U.S. Marshals Service, the BATFE, the U.S.

Coast Guard, the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the TSA, and 40 other federal agencies through this civil litigation to develop policies and procedures and to force said federal agencies to adequately train and supervise their subordinates to fulfill their constitutional obligations in regard to \u201cThe People\u2019s\u201d Second Amendment rights underParker, andEmerson, and under the U.S. Department of Justice August 24, 2004

MEMORANDUMOPINION finding that the Second Amendment is an individual right regardless of
membership in a militia.
This Proclamation extends to the Federal Court issuing a Court Order, if necessary,
compelling such obedience to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the interest of justice.
2
AFFIDAVIT OF REPLEVIN
TO
JUDGE GEORGE HOWARD
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CASE LAW ON CIVIL RICO:
The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to
turn them into prosecutors, "private attorneys general," dedicated
to eliminating racketeering activity.1Id., at 187 (citingMalley-Duff ,
483 U. S., at 151 ) (civil RICO specifically has a "further purpose [of]

encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate"). The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better.Rottellav. Wood 528 U.S. 549 (2000),

147 F.3d 438.
PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
Citing Pamela S. Karlan, DISARMING THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, University of Illinois
Law Review, [Vol. 2003, No. 1, pp. 183-209] introduction and conclusion:

In Disarming the Private Attorney General, Professor Karlan describes how the Supreme Court has created a significant regulationremedy gap by critically undercutting one of the primary mechanisms Congress has used for enforcing civil rights: the private attorney general. Professor Karlan identifies a series of techniques the Court has used to strip private individuals of their ability to enforce civil rights laws. On the one hand, the Court has expanded the scope of sovereign immunity under a new \u201cEleventeenth\u201d Amendment jurisprudence and the scope of compelled arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. On the other hand, the Court has contracted the availability of implied rights of action and attorney\u2019s fees. The overall effect of the Court\u2019s decisions is to severely restrict enforcement of basic antidiscrimination requirements.

Conclusion

The overriding theme that links together the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions on a range of issues\u2014from the scope of Eleventh Amendment immunity to the scope of congressional power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and from when to find implied rights of action to when to award attorney\u2019s fees\u2014can be stated quite simply: The current Court is creating an ever-greater regulation-remedy gap. It has left Congress free to regulate a wide range of subjects, but it is engaged in a form of

1 This objective of encouraging prompt litigation to combat racketeering is the most obvious answer to

Rotella's argument that the injury and pattern discovery rule should be adopted because "RICO is to be read broadly" and " `liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes,' " Sedima, S. P. R. L.v. Imrex Co., 473 U. S. 479, 497-498 (1985) (quoting Pub. L. 91-452, \u00a7904(a), 84 Stat. 947).

3

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Ren liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->