Not a trademark case - 4.20.2024
- charitycolleencrouse
- Apr 20, 2024
- 6 min read
I do not believe the references in the context of the alleged justification for denying my case based on precedents alleged to be presented in this:
were accurate or legitimate.
I contend rather that this:
was the appropriate context.
The Kurnatovskiy was a Ukrainian ship but working with a line that was owned by Russia. The events occur shortly after Perestroika and the Ukrainian Constitutional convention, but come into bear under terms wherein the transition from former State ownership to “private” ownership was a factor. More than that, the company of concern existed as a Russian company prior to the Russian Revolution and in the context of political struggle in Ukraine regarding relationship to or as a “Russian” “fealty.” That the case was cited in a template “form” of “Order” in the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court, ie., “Dallas,” and was issued via a Magistrate Judge without adhering to the formal rules of procedure – including both official federal rules but also the local rules – is the matter at hand. The case that followed as the justification for the context within which to consider the denial:
compels a justifiable concern of in what interest the court was acting in denying the case and also presenting the alleged justifications for relegating it to a “lesser standard” based on it being a pro se filing.
For context, at the time that Azov was originally engaged in its shipping operations in and via Russia, the United States had its own relationship with Russia diplomatically. This had an impact on matters that were ongoing prior to and during the Civil War. This was also a time of political resistance in Ukraine and relative to the self-determination of Ukraine.
The facts that resulted from the manner in which the case was denied and referred to the above two cases shows direct correlations with crimes that go back to the Civil War specific to Texas that directly intersect with contemporary events involving “Russia” and “Ukraine” including following Perestroika. This is no coincidence. That it is occurring in Dallas, however, is the major factor. Iran and Ukraine are also a factor relative to “Russia” specifically in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and have been since before the time of the Soviet Union. To consider the Menendez case, I contend, is the major context for evaluating the ACTIONS OF THE COURT in whether or not they engaged in good faith or abused their position on the bench for ulterior political motives that are unconstitutional on their face.
The alleged “Order” denying the case did not meet the most basic standard for consideration of the charges as presented for consideration or even accord with the specific requested proceeding which required an acknowledgement of a “Leave to File.” Consent was NEVER granted and in fact the case was denied before even the context within which to consider the request for Magistrate Judge had been provided. Evidence has come to light that numerous other cases in the NDTX have used the same “template” as a “form” for “Orders” in cases that have no similarity to the specific proceeding and that in all of the evidence acquired the same Magistrate Judge [second of two] is associated with the case. Some of this evidence predates the original alleged “Order” [presented by Magistrate Judge one] but the rest occurs after the second “Order” using the same “template” [by Magistrate Judge two]. In all cases in regards to filing efforts by Crouse, the “Presiding Judge” has “backed” the “Order” by the Magistrate Judge ALSO using a “template” form “Order” and without addressing the merits of the case or the appeal, including insofar as the appeal regards specific requests for consideration of procedural errors that require a granting of appeal under the federal procedure.
The “in rem” implications of the Kurnatovskiy case are obvious and I contend an abuse of the bench. The implications of a comparison with what resulted, however, per an evaluation of the Menendez case is instructive at this time. Since the third time that the same Magistrate Judge [two] intervened herself in efforts to file before the federal court, the material conditions in both Ukraine and Russia have changed substantially. The manners in which the changes have occurred not only correlate directly with timelines and filing dates in the cases before the federal court, but also involve events that correlate with other events that have happened in the last two and a half years that are themselves a pattern that convened in connection with the fraudulent “local court” proceeding. That proceeding was engaged in the course of obstructing the original case before the federal court requesting federal intervention regarding violations of the State of Texas by government officials of the State of Texas.
The implication is that the “property” was acquired during one time in which the political jurisdiction was legally characterized in one manner, but someone later claimed they had a “stake” or “property right” based on an earlier political jurisdiction, wherein not only was the national origin and/or relationship with the national jurisdiction of concern involved, but the laws of the time were different. In this case, the manners in which the abuse of the local court proceeding in the federal proceeding occurred in context of the “law” at the time involved the LEGALITY of SLAVERY in the STATE OF TEXAS and efforts to subvert Constitutional processes AFTER the Civil War when Texas by virtue of its relationship to the Confederate States of America was to bear out the losses from the war. It is an ILLEGAL attempt to enforce a SLAVE CLAIM and exercise other illegal actions connected to SLAVE CLAIMS, including in actions that correlated with illegal slave claims that targeted jewish persons, libeled them, and then “bonded” the libel to future obligations.
Insofar as nominations for judicial appointment come from the President and are confirmed by the Senate, the implications of the abuse of office is significant. That the attempted enforcement of claims comes from time periods and under Presidencies that were subject to different considerations and political requirements is not to be used to obscure or obstruct exposure and redress for abuse of office by later Presidents or others in abuse of their office. Of concern here are the Administrations of Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln, but ALSO Grant by virtue of his service in the Civil War; involvement in setting up the material conditions for the means by which to attempt to enforce later unconstitutional obligations; the actions taken by Grant without authorization from President Lincoln prior to Lincoln’s assassination; and the scandals that occurred during Grant’s Presidency and thereafter. These matters persisted into the twentieth century and are being attempted for continued promulgation despite the severity of the consequences being known from past events AS WELL as the fact that whatever material goals may have attempted to justify their promulgation now have NOT been assured and not been secured.
Slavery is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Using the State in order to illegally acquire a person as property and then to make that person available as “private property” of another is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. If it involves assault, abduction, or some other crime involving harm to the person himself or herself or by virtue of denying her or him access to his or her own capacity to use property that is legally available to her or him for his or her own protection it is an abuse of the Fourth Amendment. Engaging libel and deceit under the pretense of serving some form of “secret” or “confidential” “order” on behalf of the State or an alleged representative of the State is a Fifth Amendment concern. All of these Constitutional matters need to be addressed forthwith in connection with the ACTUAL CHARGES from the original cases and in consideration of the implications of what has been allowed to transpire in the time SINCE they were filed and were subject to libel and abuse by the court.
Did you believe you had a “land patent” on someone’s body?
That is slavery.
It is a just cause for war.
YOU would have declared war with NO JUST CAUSE.
That IS a fatal defect for which YOU bear full responsibility.
11:09 am CST
April 20, 2024
Co-President Charity Colleen “Lovejoy” Crouse
Attorney General of Texas Charity Colleen Crouse
Again…what did you do with the Senator?
If the items of concern are supposed to be in zher’s office then WHY IS ZHE NOT IN ZHER OFFICE?
Comments