User talk:Free them

http://m.chinapost.com.tw/china/2014/06/20/410580/China-declares.htm http://m.chinapost.com.tw/china/2014/06/20/410580/China-declares.htm http://en.people.cn/n/2014/1229/c98649-8828876.html

http://en.people.cn/n/2014/1231/c98649-8830091.html BRENDA JUSTICE14-CV-1843 China must agree disputes war with any US army must go to this US Court to be resolved first

appeal the fact that the Eastern District judge Brody did not identify me as the biological mother of the son they took from me  when I was

falsely arrested I was presented a warrant that did not have a judge's signature I said was no no signature 2 Richard Canasta he said they don't

need one they do this all the time

appeal the fact that the Eastern District judge Brody did not identify me  of the son they took from me  when I was falsely arrested I was

presented a warrant that did not have a judge's signature I said was no no signature 2 Richard Canasta he said they don't need one they do this

all the time meant to be my son US Marshal Gregg Homme begin dictating ok October 15th 2012 US Marshal came in to 733 Miller Avenue without a

valid warrant to remove me and my son upon my son in my removal out of the Brooklyn apartment detective Richard NFL drove into Brooklyn removing

me from US marshal and falsely arresting me using a falsified warrant that was never signed by a judge I have the exhibit with me and Im giving

it to your court as I said it this complaint also I will submit the arrest report falsely frivolously written up by detective Richard kuhnaprel.

I was falsely arrested in Brooklyn when captive Richard Canasta remove me out of the US Marshals vehicle my son was left with the US Marshal in

Brooklyn is I was driven out of Brooklyn into Manhattan ok a criminal charge of kidnapping custodial interference fugitive extradition was

written up by Richard Cano fell on a fraudulent and frivolous NYPD arrest report the case against it was dismissed November 14th by Judge Judy

Brody I was never informed of no criminal charges during a October 15th 2012 hearing in Manhattan Criminal Court on the charge of kidnapping

custodial interference US Marshal Gregg Homme told me to state of Michigan would take my son out of the state without a court order when I asked

ride home if he had a court order to remove me and my child he said he didn't need a court order he said he does this all the time as if this is

normal behavior federal marshals no under federal law to take a child or US citizen out of their home without lawful excuse constitutes

kidnapping Greg on another Marshalls had the NYPD detective Richard can Apple cover up the crime of kidnapping by falsifying a police report in

the state of Michigan then came into the state of New York and took my son without a judge's order leader did the US marshal New York or the

Richardson Apple detective from 88 10th Avenue report to the Criminal Court during my false arrest and during my son in my unlawful search and

seizure failed to report to the criminal court at the state of Michigan was taking my son and field report that my son was even involved in an

unlawful search and seizure please see my exhibit attached to this complaint I have the arrest report attached as you see on their arrest report

you will see that Richard canasa falsified that the relationship to the victim was a non and none when in fact this is my biological son they

took from me and they sell reported to the Criminal Court during me and my sons on my phone search and seizure Richardson apple also stated that

the arrest was made to 500 Pearl Street which is also a frivolous claim my son and I were never a 500 pro street Wii worth 733 Miller Avenue in

Brooklyn the day of our unlawful search and seizure and I have witnesses Dennis Rodriguez an apartment 1 F and also witnesses an apartment 1 R

which is our roommate we were living with the time in apartment what are at the 733 Miller Avenue address is the courtroom to get my son's

disappearance of the kidnapping by fraud case as no court order as you will see in the Criminal Court never existed the US Marshals never

providedJudge Brody at the Eastern District is that this case be investigated as a kidnapping by fraud to my sons been missing for two years now

I was maliciously prosecuted when Judge Armstrong signed a waiver put her name at the bottom of a weaver of a warrant of extradition as if she

hadn't for me of charges I was never informed charges legal aid lawyer lizbel forged my name at the top of the waiver of an issuance of a warrant

forging my name at the top lesbian legal aid lawyer admitted to me lesbian legal aid will my name at the top of a document as if I was informed

of the nature and cause of the charge in the court of law by a judge I was never informed of no charges in the court of law I was detained on a

warrant that was never signed by a judge see exhibit to attach to this document Richardson NFL Michigan is in violation of the Lindbergh act by

taking my son out of the state of New York without a court order across state lines from the State of New York in the state of Michigan violates

a Lindbergh law The Lindbergh axis violated federal law by Michigan taking my son out of the state of New York kidnapping is a crime 42 stature 781 no court

order ever existed as you will see in criminal court file it was never presented no court order whatsoever to take my son out of state of New

York during or unlawful search and seizure the Lindbergh act the Lindbergh law is a federal kidnapping crime is a law that prohibits the physical

movement of a child across state lines

http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/BRENDA_JUSTICE_v_GUOLI_TIAN,_Chairman_of_the_Board,_Executive_Director,_Bank_of_China_Limited,_New_York,

Commoditys In Disputed Seas in Court From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from BRENDA JUSTICE v GUOLI TIAN, Chairman of the Board, Executive Director, Bank of China Limited, New York,)

Commodity's In Disputed Seas in Court

China unilaterally launched an air defense identification zone late last year. Plaintiff, BRENDA JUSTICE, 14-CV-1843 Claimed the actions of what appears to be Chinese authorities alleged have caused the "reckless endangerment of her life ... and all human life." Plaintiff alleges that these actions have been taken "so as to take titles to lands[,] waters[,] and airs for the purpose of profiteering [and] piracy." Plaintiff further describes these actions as "racketeering."

Plaintiff states that the basis of jurisdiction for her action is that: this Court has constitutional jurisdiction over treaties so as that force by the United States can not be started even for the right of navigation where Chinese patrol vessels ... block and board foreign ships passing through Chinese-claimed waters and the United States can't use force for the occupation of South China Sea islands without a warrant of this Court. The United States[] may not start the use of force without a warrant of this Court. Bank of A China, has laundered money and used "bank money to finance and exploit fishing, oil and any other commodity in the disputed seas that have not been agreed to by the United Nations." Plaintiff alleges that the actions of Defendant T and the actions of what appears to be Chinese authorities alleged above have caused the "reckless endangerment of her life ... and all human life." Plaintiff alleges that these actions have been taken "so as to take titles to lands, waters[,] and airs for the purpose of profiteering and piracy." Plaintiff further describes these actions as "racketeering."

Plaintiff seeks relief from this Court that would "stop Defendant Bank of A China, from using bank money to finance and exploit fishing, oil or any other commodity in the disputed seas and islands that are not agreed to by the United Nations. " Plaintiff also seeks relief from this

Court that would compel Defendant Bank of A China to "show patriotic support for the United States so that it may run a United States bank." Plaintiff also requests as relief that, "by taking part in this Court, the Republic of China agrees not to shoot at... United States forces on or in any land[,] sea[,] or air and for any dispute of potential shooting war ... to come before this Court to be resolved."

http://www.bigmaybe.com/source?s=Justice_v._Tian Get the details on the topic of Justice v. Tian below.

Details Videos

Justice v. Tian From Wikisource BRENDA JUSTICE, Plaintiff, -against- GUOLI TIAN, Chairman of the Board, Executive Director, Bank of China Limited, New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BRENDA JUSTICE, Plaintiff, -against- GUOLI TIAN, Chairman of the Board, Executive Director, Bank of China Limited, New York, - Defendant? *~

14-CV-1843 (LAP) ORDER OF DISMISSAL

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who appears pro se, brings this action under the Court's federal question subject matter jurisdiction. By order dated April 18, 2014, Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. The Court dismisses the complaint for the reasons set forth below. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is "obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally," Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the "strongest [claims] that they suggest," Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

BACKGROUND Plaintiff states that the basis of jurisdiction for her action is that: [t]his [C]ourt has constitutional jurisdiction oyer treaties so as that force by the United States can not be started even for the right of navigation w[h]ere Chinese patrol vessels ... block and board foreign ships passing through Chinese-claimed waters and [the] United States can't use force for the occupation of South China Sea islands with[out] a warrant of this [C]ourt. The United States[] may not start the use of force without a warrant of this [C]ourt. Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to her claims included an event where "three Chinese government ships ... briefly entered what Japan sees as its territorial waters near the disputed islands[] controlled by Japan[] but also claimed by China. This was] the latest in such occasional entries by Chinese ships." Plaintiff states that on "Sunday, Japan's Defen[s]e Minister Itsunori Onodera said the fishing rules approved by China's southern Hainan province and which came into effect on January 1, had left the international community jittery, coming so soon after China unilaterally launched an air defen[s]e identification zone late last year." Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Guoli Tian, the Chairman of the Board and Executive Director of the Bank of China Limited in New York, has laundered money and used "bank money to finance [and] exploit fishing, oil [and] any other commodity in [the] d[is]puted seas that [have] not [been] agreed to by the United Nations[.] [sic]" Plaintiff alleges that the actions of Defendant Tian and the actions of what appears to be Chinese authorities alleged above have caused the "reckless endangerment of [her] life ... [and] all human life." Plaintiff alleges that these actions have been taken "so as to take titles to lands[,] waters[,] and airs for the purpose of profiteering [and] piracy." Plaintiff further describes these actions as "racketeering." Plaintiff seeks relief from this Court that would "stop [Defendant Tian] from using bank money to finance [and] exploit fishing, oil or any other commodity in [the] d[is]puted seas and islands that are not agreed to by the United Nations[.] [sic]" Plaintiff also seeks relief from this

Court that would compel Defendant Tian to "show patriotic support for [the] United States so that he may run a United States bank." Plaintiff also requests as relief that, "[b]y taking part in this [C]ourt[,] the Republic of China agrees not [to] sho[o]t at... United States forces on or in any land[,] sea[,] or air and for any dispute of potential shooting war ... to come before this [C]ourt to be resolved." DISCUSSION A. Plaintiffs claims Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed as frivolous. Under .the in forma pauperis statute, a court must dismiss a case if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious. See § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A claim is "frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In addition, a court has "no obligation to entertain pure speculation and conjecture." Gallop v. Cheney, 642 F.3d 364, 368 (2d Cir. 2011) (finding as frivolous and baseless allegations that set forth a fantastical alternative history of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks). The Court, after reviewing Plaintiffs claims, finds that they Jack any arguable basis in law or in fact. SepMeitzkev. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325,0:989). Plaintiff's factual allegations rise to the level of the irrational and there is no legal theory on which she may rely. See Livingston, 141 F.3dat437. Plaintiff s claims are therefore dismissed as frivolous. See § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In deference to Plaintiffs pro se status, the Court would normally direct her to submit an amended complaint, but the Court finds that Plaintiffs claims cannot be cured with an amendment. Where an amendment would be futile, leave to amend is not required. Hill v.

Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). B. Possible filing bar By order dated June 27, 2013, Plaintiff was warned by the Court "that further duplicative or frivolous litigation in this Court may result in an order barring Plaintiff from filing new actions in forma pauperis without prior permission." Justice v. City of New York, No. 13-CV-3319 (JPO), at 8 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2013). Despite that warning, Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing the present action, which has been dismissed as frivolous. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause by affirmation why she should not be barred from filing any future civil action in this Court in forma pauperis without first obtaining permission from this Court to file her complaint. See Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998) ("The unequivocal rule in this circuit is that the district court may not impose a filing injunction on a litigant sua sponte without providing the litigant with notice and an opportunity to be heard."). Plaintiff shall submit to this Court, within thirty days of the date of this order, a written affirmation setting forth good cause why such an injunction should not be imposed upon her by this Court. Should Plaintiff fail to submit her affirmation within the time directed, or should Plaintiffs affirmation fail to set forth good cause why this injunction should not be entered, she/ shall be barred from filing any future civil action in former pauperis in-this Court without first obtaining permission from this Court to do so. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this action to my docket and to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, noting service on the docket. This action is dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Plaintiff is directed to, within thirty days, show cause by written affirmation why an order should not be entered barring her from filing any future civil action in forma pauperis in this Court without prior permission of the Court. An Affirmation Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 form is attached to this order, which Plaintiff should complete as specified. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: April 28, 2014 ^ LORETTA A. PRESKA Chief United States District Judge

Commodity's In Disputed Seas in Court

China unilaterally launched an air defense identification zone late last year. Plaintiff, BRENDA JUSTICE, 14-CV-1843 Claimed the actions of what appears to be Chinese authorities alleged have caused the "reckless endangerment of her life ... and all human life." Plaintiff alleges that these actions have been taken "so as to take titles to lands[,] waters[,] and airs for the purpose of profiteering [and] piracy." Plaintiff further describes these actions as "racketeering."

Plaintiff states that the basis of jurisdiction for her action is that: this Court has constitutional jurisdiction over treaties so as that force by the United States can not be started even for the right of navigation where Chinese patrol vessels ... block and board foreign ships passing through Chinese-claimed waters and the United States can't use force for the occupation of South China Sea islands without a warrant of this Court. The United States[] may not start the use of force without a warrant of this Court. Bank of A China, has laundered money and used "bank money to finance and exploit fishing, oil and any other commodity in the disputed seas that have not been agreed to by the United Nations." Plaintiff alleges that the actions of Defendant T and the actions of what appears to be Chinese authorities alleged above have caused the "reckless endangerment of her life ... and all human life." Plaintiff alleges that these actions have been taken "so as to take titles to lands, waters[,] and airs for the purpose of profiteering and piracy." Plaintiff further describes these actions as "racketeering."

Plaintiff seeks relief from this Court that would "stop Defendant Bank of A China, from using bank money to finance and exploit fishing, oil or any other commodity in the disputed seas and islands that are not agreed to by the United Nations. " Plaintiff also seeks relief from this

Court that would compel Defendant Bank of A China to "show patriotic support for the United States so that it may run a United States bank." Plaintiff also requests as relief that, "by taking part in this Court, the Republic of China agrees not to shoot at... United States forces on or in any land[,] sea[,] or air and for any dispute of potential shooting war ... to come before this Court to be resolved."

http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/BRENDA_JUSTICE_v_GUOLI_TIAN,_Chairman_of_the_Board,_Executive_Director,_Bank_of_China_Limited,_New_York,

Commoditys In Disputed Seas in Court From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from BRENDA JUSTICE v GUOLI TIAN, Chairman of the Board, Executive Director, Bank of China Limited, New York,)

Commodity's In Disputed Seas in Court

China unilaterally launched an air defense identification zone late last year. Plaintiff, BRENDA JUSTICE, 14-CV-1843 Claimed the actions of what appears to be Chinese authorities alleged have caused the "reckless endangerment of her life ... and all human life." Plaintiff alleges that these actions have been taken "so as to take titles to lands[,] waters[,] and airs for the purpose of profiteering [and] piracy." Plaintiff further describes these actions as "racketeering."

Plaintiff states that the basis of jurisdiction for her action is that: this Court has constitutional jurisdiction over treaties so as that force by the United States can not be started even for the right of navigation where Chinese patrol vessels ... block and board foreign ships passing through Chinese-claimed waters and the United States can't use force for the occupation of South China Sea islands without a warrant of this Court. The United States[] may not start the use of force without a warrant of this Court. Bank of A China, has laundered money and used "bank money to finance and exploit fishing, oil and any other commodity in the disputed seas that have not been agreed to by the United Nations." Plaintiff alleges that the actions of Defendant T and the actions of what appears to be Chinese authorities alleged above have caused the "reckless endangerment of her life ... and all human life." Plaintiff alleges that these actions have been taken "so as to take titles to lands, waters[,] and airs for the purpose of profiteering and piracy." Plaintiff further describes these actions as "racketeering."

Plaintiff seeks relief from this Court that would "stop Defendant Bank of A China, from using bank money to finance and exploit fishing, oil or any other commodity in the disputed seas and islands that are not agreed to by the United Nations. " Plaintiff also seeks relief from this

Court that would compel Defendant Bank of A China to "show patriotic support for the United States so that it may run a United States bank." Plaintiff also requests as relief that, "by taking part in this Court, the Republic of China agrees not to shoot at... United States forces on or in any land[,] sea[,] or air and for any dispute of potential shooting war ... to come before this Court to be resolved."

Haiyang Shiyou 981 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiyang_Shiyou_981 A crewman from the Vietnamese coastguard ship 8003 looks out at sea as Chinese coastguard vessels give chase to Vietnamese ships that came close to the Haiyang Shiyou 981, known in Vietnam as HD-981, oil rig in the South China Sea, on July 15, 2014. (Photo: Reuters)

The rig is owned by state-run China National Offshore Oil Company Group (CNOOC Group), parent of flagship unit CNOOC Ltd.

A crewman from the Vietnamese coastguard ship 8003 looks out at sea as Chinese coastguard vessels give chase to Vietnamese ships that came close to the Haiyang Shiyou 981, known in Vietnam as HD-981, oil rig in the South China Sea, on July 15, 2014. (Photo: Reuters)

The rig is owned by state-run China National Offshore Oil Company Group (CNOOC Group), parent of flagship unit CNOOC Ltd.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?capId=5478877

http://www.boc.cn/en/bocinfo/bi1/201403/t20140326_3099942.html The Bank’s global service network further improved. In 2013, the Bank established 11 new overseas institutions in 9 countries and regions in North America, Europe and Asia. The Bank had a total of 620 overseas institutions, covering Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and 37 countries. Traditional edges including international settlement, international clearing, syndicated loan grew robustly, maintaining leading position in the market. The Bank successfully supported WH Group Limited’s acquisition of Smithfield Foods, and sponsored China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s acquisition of NEXEN Energy UCL and other important projects, which significantly enhanced the Bank’s influence in domestic and overseas markets.

Mr. Tian Guoli, Chairman of the Bank, said, “The year 2014 is a year of reform and expectation. The Bank will integrate its own development more consciously into the overall trend of economic transformation and social progress, deepen reform to promote development, strengthen innovation for more market shares, accelerate transformation for efficiency, manage risks to reduce cost and strive to shoulder social responsibilities in a bid to be an excellent bank and reward the trust and support of shareholders and public with more outstanding performance.”