Peabody Fires Back at Lingle Lawyers' Fraud

George Peabody, who is a Republican candidate for governor against Lingle in the Primary, said that while this move helps keep the media skeptical and refusing to publish this story of the lawsuit that exposed Lingle's bad behavior, it will ultimately make things worse for Lingle and her lawyers are now culpable.

"Here is my answer to Lingle's Motion to Dismiss the Judgment against her," said Peabody. "If our Constitution and Bill of Rights invoked in United States Court by an American Citizen doesn't stop criminal behavior by high government officials, then it is time for an American Revolution 2006 . I hope everyone reads this and learns that we must all stand together against TREASON and TYRANNY or we will be hanged separately by the Organized Crime we now call government."

UNITED STATES COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HAWAII
300 Ala Moana Blvd, Rm 328
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96850

GEORGE PEABODY EX REL SUI JURIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CLAIMANT
____CV0600431*________

VS

UNITED STATES MAIL
LINDA LINGLE ET AL, DOUGLAS H. IGE ET AL,
_____70060100000717216833__
RESPONDENTS

WRIT OF MANDAMUS, EXECUTIVE ORDER

COMES NOW, GEORGE PEABODY, United States National Citizen Sui Juris in Proper Persona representative of the United States of America and real party to the action who appears to conduct Court as a natural being in his own countenance under 28 U.S.C. � 1654 who swears, affirms and verifies as proved in accordance with 28 U.S.C. � 1746 the following WRIT OF MANDAMUS and EXECUTIVE ORDER for the prosecution of the judgment in the case of trespass on his rights and states that:
1. The entered DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION, ACTION AT LAW, CAVEAT AND PROHIBITION, MANDAMUS AND PR�CIPE, WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, NOTICE OF INJUNCTION, and MEMORANDUM BRIEF OF LAW, and SUMMONS are appended to this document and incorporated by reference to-wit: (H.I.)
2. The entered ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE and SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS are appended to this document and incorporated by reference to-wit: (H.I.)
3. The entered WRIT OF EXECUTION and HABEAS CORPUS AD SATISFACIENDUM are appended to this document and incorporated by reference to-wit: (H.I.)
4. This Action at Law being commenced under F.R.Civ.P. 3 on August 7, 2006, the time to refute the facts or to demand jury trial has lapsed.
5. Respondents Linda Lingle, Douglas H. Ige, and all others incorporated under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. � 1962 into these judicial proceedings of record including but not limited to Cody Minatodani, Russell Suzuki, and Robyn Chun have failed to appear in respect to this court either in person or by counsel and are subject to sanctions and penalties imposed under Rule 16(f) and/or 18 U.S.C. � 401.
6. The United States Marshal for the district is mandated and empowered under 28 U.S.C. � 566 and hereby duly directed to seize the persons of Linda Lingle and Douglas H. Ige to lawfully compel them to attend the special session of United States Court at Molokai District Court.for the purposes of securing the judgment pecuniary penalty under the common process in remedy at F.R.Civ.P. 64, however it will satisfy justice if parties Cody Minatodani, Russell Suzuki or and Robyn Chun attend this court on September 26, 2006, for the purposes of securing the payment of judgment and costs.
7. Should United States Marshal, Mark M. Hanohano, prove unable or incompetent to fulfill his duty then a STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY exists and Rear Admiral Townsend G. Alexander or the acting commander of Hawaii Naval Region is directed under the authority of the Constitution for the United States of America and 10 U.S.C. � 332 et seq to come to the aid of United States Court in the enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land in the name of the President of the United States pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 45. (H.I.)

[1]
MEMORANDUM BRIEF OF LAW
At this point in the judicial proceedings there is no affirmative controversy that this court has failed to meet all conditions necessary to insure justice in accordance with the Constitution for the United States of America nor that there is any bar to the prosecution to execution of the judgment so rendered in law. The respondents have been duly notified to appear to answer to the law and have failed to do so in a manner acknowledged by judicial procedure thus waiving and forfeiting any obligation of this COURT to allow any confrontation or jury determination of the offense. It is noted by this court, however, that parties Cody Minatodani, Russell Suzuki and Robyn Chun have entered the case to demurrer to the evidence and confess to their culpability, and lest they feel slighted by justice, Court will address their specious concerns in regards to the due process of justice due to the unique nature of the procedure for declaratory judgment. Russell Suzuki and Robyn Chun have alleged that they represent Linda Lingle and Douglas Ige but have not followed the procedure at Rule 17 to prove that these parties are incompetent so as to need a guardian ad litem or motioned to substitute for parties who have become incompetent as provided at Rule 25. If they have conceded Douglas Ige to be contumacious of this court then they are correct and may appear hereafter as his counsel in response to this court's order to allow an agent to arrange payment of the fines and costs provided that he no longer inflicts himself on this tribunal without permission as provided by Local Rule, to-wit: LR83.6. Attorneys; Appearances, Substitutions and Withdrawal of Attorneys.
(a) Appearances. Whenever a party has appeared by an attorney, the party may not thereafter appear or act in his or her own behalf in the action, or take any step therein, unless an order of substitution shall first have been made by the court, after notice to the attorney of such party, and to all parties; provided that the court may in its discretion hear a party in open court, notwithstanding the fact or is represented by an attorney... As far as the belated response of Russell Suzuki and Robyn Chun it will be taken as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60 and justly determined sua sponte upon the elements submitted to this court without any necessity for a formal hearing unless these tardy parties wish to appear in person on September 26, 2006, to arrange for the payment of judgment and costs. No reference of the matter is made to any master, magistrate or judge-magistrate under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. � 636 absent the consent of George Peabody to permit such attorney as Helen Gilmore to represent any parties, this court or to exercise the judicial power of the United States and their motion to do so is dismissed and held for naught. Russell Suzuki and Robyn Chun have not claimed that Linda Lingle et al were not notified and summoned in accordance with established law and rules prescribed and promulgated under the Judicial Conference for the common procedure of due process. Their allegations are not well taken and lack any substance that this court need consider. Their other contentions in gist are that:
a] Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this court lacks jurisdiction over this action.
b] Even if this court did have jurisdiction over this matter, Plaintiff's initial pleading fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted; and c] To the extent that the initial pleading can be understood at all, it appears to be frivolous and wholly without merit.
c] To the extent that the initial pleading can be understood at all, it appears to be frivolous and wholly without merit.
In regards to [a] above there is a lack of any constitutional provision or Act of Congress under its authority to support the beliefs of these two anxious litigants. Authority is NOT some ignorant dogma held sacred to the attorneys in legal practice. Neither case that this "doctrine" is based upon emasculates this court. "Under the legislation of Congress, no court of the United States other than this court could entertain a proceeding to reverse or modify the judgment for errors of that character." ROOKER v. FIDELITY TRUST CO., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) "Review of those decisions may be had only in this Court 28 U.S.C. 1257." D.C. COURT OF APPEALS v. FELDMAN, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)

Rather than render the one supreme Court impotent and thus destroy the Constitution for the United States of America and the republican form of government that it guarantees in every place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America these cases merely point out the limitations of legal practice as a fiction of law not held as a right insured by the Constitution for the United States of America. "We agree with him that there are privileges and immunities belonging to citizens of the United States, in that relation and character, and that it is these and these alone which a State is forbidden to abridge. But the right to admission to practice in the courts of a State is not one of them. This right in no sense depends on citizenship of the United States." BRADWELL v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 83 U.S. 130 (1872). The instant case is not about an attorney enfranchised by the state bar of Hawaii and obliged to engage in legal practice under the regulation of the state bar as a condition of that license or to submit " artful pleadings" to a superior attorney/administer for approval in order to assert his constitutional right to petition redress of grievance as pointed out in HAINES v. KERNER, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). For its protection the judicial power of the United States was vested in the one supreme Court and in such inferior tribunals ordained and established by the Congress of the United States of America by the Supreme Law of the Land the constitution and laws of Hawaii state NOTWITHSTANDING. The judicial power of the United States is plenary throughout the United States of America in accordance with the Constitution for the United States of America, to-wit: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...". Where the judicial power of the United States of America is rightly exercised it is done so under the Constitution for the United States of America in constitution court, whether the one supreme Court held by any Citizen as in this proceeding, or the United States Supreme Court created by the congress as an appellate assize of justicers or any other inferior court available when and where necessary for constitutional prerogative. "But, on whatever basis this right may be placed, so far as it can have any relation to citizenship at all, it would seem that, as to the courts of a State, it would relate to citizenship of the State, and as to Federal courts, it would relate to citizenship of the United States." BRADWELL v. STATE OF ILLINOIS (Supra) NO judicial power is granted to the chanceries of Hawaii by the Congress of the United States of America and Court simply takes an original action here in republican form of government under constitutional guidelines independent of the United States Supreme Court created by the congress as an appellate tribunal consisting of a quorum of justices, to-wit: " In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction." It is irrefutable that the judicial power of the United States of America governs here and that the judicial district within is the proper venue under the Constitution and the Laws of the United States of America with any aspersions to this jurisdiction being plainly fatuus. As far as the meaningless arguments connected to [b] and [c] above dilatory practice is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The former is taken as a request for summary judgment under Rule 12(b) which is already entered of record and the latter is clearly impertinence and forthwith struck under Rule 12(f). The right to speak does not extend to any attempt to obfuscate the record and it is not the privilege of presumptuous public servants to question the Acts of Congress! " The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree." SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
[3]
[Memorandum continued from page 3]

It is mandated by law that United States Marshal Mark M. Hanohano, provide for the security and to obey, execute, and enforce all orders of the United States District Courts, in the discretion of the respective courts, be required to attend special session of this court at Molokai District Court Room, Kaunakakai, Molokai, Hawaii, 96748, on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, at 9 a.m., shall execute all lawful writs, process, and orders issued under the authority of the United States, and shall command all necessary assistance to execute its duties including to summon and call to their aid the bystanders or posse comitatus of the proper county, or such portion of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as may be necessary to the performance of the duty as provided by 42 U.S.C. � 1989, provide for the personal protection of Federal jurists, court officers, witnesses, other threatened persons and petitioner George Peabody in the interests of justice where criminal intimidation impedes on the functioning of the judicial process or any other official proceeding and to arrest and bring before this court Linda Lingle, Douglas H. Ige, Rhonda Lai-Loo and any other person committing a felony cognizable under the laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. � 566 and 28 U.S.C. � 564.

Rear Admiral Townsend Alexander, as the currently top ranking officer at Pearl Harbor Naval Base, is mandated to perform the duties above when called to duty, should the United States Marshal fail in his office.

THEREFORE COURT repeats that it is considered, adjudged and decreed by this COURT that LINDA LINGLE and all those acting under color of law through her by virtue of her executive office are constrained from committing crimes prohibited by the United States of America against George Peabody Citizen/National of the United States of America. IT IS FURTHER adjudged and decreed as determined by 18 U.S.C. � 402 that the defendants pay to George Peabody, the complainant party injured, a pecuniary penalty of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) in token restitution for the injustice done to him or be held in the custody of the United States Marshals Service in contempt of this COURT until such payment is secured. Notice is made and served upon all those executive and judicial officers responsible to enforce the Laws of the Union with the enactment of this instrument.

It is so ordered this day,
September 23, 2006.

----------------------------
George Peabody, ex rel, sui juris


UNITED STATES COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HAWAII
300 Ala Moana Blvd, Rm 328
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96850


GEORGE PEABODY EX REL SUI JURIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CLAIMANT
____CV0600431*________

VS

UNITED STATES MAIL
LINDA LINGLE ET AL, DOUGLAS H. IGE ET AL,
____70060100000717216833__
RESPONDENTS

MANDATE AND ORDER
In respects to the oath duly taken to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and to the best of his Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States by George W. Bush, Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed and hereby directs Rear Admiral Townsend Alexander or the acting commander of Hawaii Naval Region to take such measures as necessary to suppress, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, that so hinders the execution of the laws of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, wherein the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws where the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution. Standby to deploy.

S/George W. Bush
------------------------------

President of the United States
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy

UNITED STATES COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HAWAII
300 Ala Moana Blvd, Rm 328
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96850

GEORGE PEABODY EX REL SUI JURIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CLAIMANT
____CV0600431*________

VS

UNITED STATES MAIL
LINDA LINGLE ET AL, DOUGLAS H. IGE ET AL,
____70060100000717216833__
RESPONDENTS

VERIFICATION, OATH OF OFFICE AND NOTICE OF SERVICE
I, George Gary Peabody, do solemnly swear and affirm upon oath that I faithfully execute the Office of Citizen of the United States, and to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution for the United States of America and further that I swear and affirm under the laws of the United States of America in accordance with 28 U.S.C. � 1746 that the foregoing WRIT OF MANDAMUS and EXECUTIVE ORDER are true and correct to my personal knowledge, information and belief agreeable to Rule 11 and that I have served, filed and recorded all documents upon the United States Court for the District of Hawaii, Honolulu by sending the originals to the office of the Court at UNITED STATES COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HAWAII, 300 Ala Moana Blvd, Rm 328 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96850, by Certified United States Mail Number _______0060100000717216833____, and, upon Linda Lingle by Certified United States Mail Number _______70060100000717216857____, upon Douglas H. Ige c/o Molokai District Court by Certified United States Mail Number ___70060100000717216840__, upon Maui Prosecutor by Certified United States Mail Number __ ______70060100000717216864___________, upon United States Attorney Ed Kubo by Certified United States Mail Number _____70060100000717216871_________, upon FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III by Certified United States Mail Number ______7700601000007172168**_________ upon Director United States Marshals Service John F. Clark by Certified United States Mail Number _70060100000717216888__, upon United States Marshal Mark M. Hanohano by Certified United States Mail Number _____70060100000717216895___, and upon Rhonda Lai-Loo by Certified United States Mail Number ______70060100000717216901_____, and upon MPD Chief Thomas Phillips by Certified United StatesMail Number ____70060100000717216918__, and upon Admiral Townsend Alexander by Certified United StatesMail Number ___70060100000717216925__. this 25th day of September, 2006. In witness thereof I hereupon put my hand and seal.