1

THREE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ENGAGE IN

THE MARSHALL ISLANDS IN ORGANIZED STATE CRIME SINCE

DECADES

Neither Cadra, Kurren nor Seabright – being US government employees –

are permitted to engage in outside employment and earn an income

therefrom.

Daniel N. Cadra, Assistant Attorney General of Alaska, illegally accepted in

2003 the position of chief justice of the non-existing Marshall Islands Supreme

Court for 10 years on a monthly salary, and accepted further in 2013 the new

overthrow of the RMI Constitution that confirmed him as illegal chief justice for

another 10 years of paid illegal chief justice ship. In addition, Cadra defrauds the

RMI Government annually of funds for his “Legal Education” in “a country of

his choice” from a fund that is exclusively for the education of Marshallese

judges. He pretends to house a partial non-existing RMI Supreme Court in his

home office in Anchorage, or he runs his part of the racketeering in his office in

the Bureau of the Attorney General of Alaska.

Barry Kurren, Federal Magistrate Judge of Hawaii, illegally accepted in 2001

a “pro tem” judgeship on the non-existing RMI Supreme Court. Since more than

13 years, Kurren, without oath of office and in violation of the RMI Constitution

postures as “pro tem” judge and accepts a monthly salary for his illegal

judgeship. In 2013, Kurren accepted the new overthrow of the RMI Constitution

“confirming” him as pro tem judge until end of 2013. He pretends to house a

partial non-existing RMI Supreme Court in his home office in Hawaii, or he runs

his part of the racketeering in the Magistrate Court of Hawaii.

Michael Seabright, Federal District Judge of Hawaii, illegally accepted in

2009 a “pro tem” judgeship on the non-existing RMI Supreme Court. Since 4

years, Seabright, without oath of office and in violation of the RMI Constitution

postures as “pro tem” judge and accepts a monthly salary for his illegal

judgeship. In 2013, Seabright accepted the new overthrow of the RMI

Constitution “confirming” him as pro tem judge until end of 2013. He pretends to

house a partial non-existing RMI Supreme Court in his home office in Hawaii, or

he runs his part of the racketeering in the District Court of Hawaii.

2

Their violations of US law: 5 U.S.C. Title 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION

AND EMPLOYEES, TITLE 5 – APPENDIX, ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT

OF 1978 TITLE V - GOVERNMENT-WIDE LIMITATIONS ON OUTSIDE

EARNED INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT:

TITLE V—GOVERNMENT-WIDE LIMITATIONS ON OUTSIDE EARNED INCOME AND

EMPLOYMENT

§501. Outside earned income limitation

(a) Outside Earned Income Limitation.—

(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2), a Member or an officer or employee who is a

noncareer officer or employee and who occupies a position classified above GS–15 of the

General Schedule or, in the case of positions not under the General Schedule, for which the

rate of basic pay is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the minimum rate of basic pay

payable for GS–15 of the General Schedule, may not in any calendar year have outside earned

income attributable to such calendar year which exceeds 15 percent of the annual rate of basic

pay for level II of the Executive Schedule under section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, as

of January 1 of such calendar year.

(2) In the case of any individual who during a calendar year becomes a Member or an

officer or employee who is a noncareer officer or employee and who occupies a position

classified above GS–15 of the General Schedule or, in the case of positions not under the

General Schedule, for which the rate of basic pay is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the

minimum rate of basic pay payable for GS–15 of the General Schedule, such individual may

not have outside earned income attributable to the portion of that calendar year which occurs

after such individual becomes a Member or such an officer or employee which exceeds 15

percent of the annual rate of basic pay for level II of the Executive Schedule under section

5313 of title 5, United States Code, as of January 1 of such calendar year multiplied by a

fraction the numerator of which is the number of days such individual is a Member or such

officer or employee during such calendar year and the denominator of which is 365.

(b) Honoraria Prohibition.—An individual may not receive any honorarium while that

individual is a Member, officer or employee.

(c) Treatment of Charitable Contributions.—Any honorarium which, except for subsection (b),

might be paid to a Member, officer or employee, but which is paid instead on behalf of such

Member, officer or employee to a charitable organization, shall be deemed not to be received

by such Member, officer or employee. No such payment shall exceed $2,000 or be made to a

charitable organization from which such individual or a parent, sibling, spouse, child, or

dependent relative of such individual derives any financial benefit.

(Pub. L. 95–521, title V, §501, as added Pub. L. 101–194, title VI, §601(a), Nov. 30, 1989, 103

Stat. 1760; amended Pub. L. 101–280, §7(a), May 4, 1990, 104 Stat. 161; Pub. L. 102–378,

§4(b)(1), (2), Oct. 2, 1992, 106 Stat. 1357.)

3

One cannot but question how Cadra, Kurren and Seabright pay tax on their

illegally in the Marshall Islands “earned” monthly salaries? Do they declare

the illegal salaries? Alternatively, are they simply evading tax?

The judges Kurren und Seabright cannot claim ignorance as to the limits of their authority as judges. The

Ninth Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to send judges to the sovereign Republic of the Marshall Islands.

The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, but not over the

sovereign Republic of the Marshall Islands.

Nor does the jurisdiction of the Office of the Attorney General of Alaska extend to the sovereign

Republic of the Marshall Islands.

Therefore, the US government employees Cadra, Kurren and Seabright violate the sovereignty of the

United States by housing partially a non-existing RMI Supreme Court in either official government

offices/courts in United States or at their home offices in the United States.

Are United States government authorities aware of the moonlighting of

their employees in the Marshall Islands in violation of U.S. Code 5, tax

evasion, violation of the sovereignty of the Marshall Islands and violation

of the DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Article 8?

Chief justice Recktenwald of the Supreme Court in

Hawaii is aware since beginning of 2013 of the illegal

outside employment of the Hawaii Magistrate Judge

Kurren and District Judge Seabright.

4

Obviously, Chief Justice Recktenwald, and the Attorney General of Alaska,

Geraghty, cover up for the illegal activities, racketeering, human rights

violations, violations of sovereignty and tax evasion of their employees.

From this established fact, we may deduce that their respect for US laws as

well as respect for Human Rights in the Marshall Islands is non-existing.

Not only do the US employees Assistant Attorney General of Alaska, Daniel

N. Cadra, US Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren, and US District Judge Michael

Seabright violate US law for their own financial gain, their illegal

employment as judges of the non-existing RMI Supreme Court has a

purpose, namely the obstruction of justice. They collectively conspire for

the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing and defeating the due

course of justice with the intent to deny Marshallese litigants the equal

protection of the laws, and to injure them in their property.

Attorney General of Alaska, Michael C. Geraghty is aware

since beginning of 2013 of the illegal outside employment of

his Assistant Attorney General Daniel N. Cadra.

5

HOW IS THIS DONE?

In order to understand the role of Cadra, Kurren and Seabright in the continuous ongoing racketeering in

the Marshall Islands, one must understand the facts:

SAMPLES OF CADRA’S, SEABRIGHT’S, AND KURREN’S

ENGAGEMENT IN ORGANIZED STATE CRIME ON BEHALF OF

INGRAM AND PLASMAN

There is no RMI Supreme Court in the Marshall Islands. Litigants have to file their appeals or their

petitions for the issuance of Writs with the High Court Clerk. The High Court Clerk then in violation of

the sovereignty of the RMI and USA transmits these papers possibly to Assistant Attorney General of

Mr. Carl B. Ingram, ex Peace Corps Volunteer and illegal chief justice of

the RMI High Court runs it as a criminal enterprise where judgments can

be obtained by illegal means. In order to have these judgments confirmed

and upheld, he needed puppets on strings who would – against illegal

financial gain – confirm as pretended judges of a non-existing RMI

Supreme Court his and his illegal associate justice James A. Plasman’s

atrocities in the High Court. For this scheme, Mr. Ingram illegally arranged

in 2003 that Daniel N. Cadra became the chief justice of the non-existing

RMI Supreme Court. He further arranged that Cadra like himself and

during his usurpation of the High Court received an unconstitutional 10

years contract from the Marshall Islands Public Service, which is not

permitted to employ judges.

Mr. Ingram – according to his own statement – also is the employer (not the

Cabinet) of the illegal pro tem judges, whom he personally selects and pays,

according to his own statement.

For their financial gain, the three US government employees Cadra,

Kurren, and Seabright do Mr. Ingram’s bidding and confirm his egregious

and atrocious judgments, or protect him and his illegal associate justice

against any petitions for writs. Mr. Ingram is the puppeteer and the spiritus

rectus of the US government employees Cadra, Seabright, and Kurren and

acts as ringleader.

Needless to say, that Mr. Ingram would not employ any judges with a

vestige of integrity, since such is averse to his running criminal enterprises

in the High Court.

6

Alaska Daniel Cadra, either to his home office or to his office at the Bureau of the Attorney General

of Alaska.

It is unclear whether Magistrate Judge Kurren of Hawaii and District Judge Seabright of Hawaii

receive copies of filed matters.

It is unclear how they arrive at decisions since Assistant Attorney General of Alaska Cadra runs the

non-existing RMI Supreme Court from his home office in Anchorage while the Judges Kurren and

Seabright sit in Hawaii.

Once a year, or if in a case are many millions of dollars are involved, the so-called Supreme Court would

fly to the Marshall Islands and occupy the High Court, pretending that this is now the Supreme Court.

Decisions that have no or not enough millions of dollars to contemplate, are made – we do not know how

– and litigants are simply given by the Clerk of the High Court photocopies of decisions arrived at by the

illegal Supreme Court judges Cadra, Kurren and Seabright. No hearings take place. There a decisions by

the illegal judges of the non-existing Supreme Court, that simply curls the toes by merely reading these,

even without access to facts and evidence on record. However, we relate here a few cases only for which

we have the facts and the evidence.

Example 1 for ORGANIZED STATE CRIME:

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus directed to a Public Officer, filed on April 12, 2011.

History that leads to the Petition: On February 4, 2011, plaintiffs filed a complaint against foreign

corporations and chief justice Ingram for Abuse of Process in the High Court, CA 2011-022 in the case of

CA 2008-016 and 017 [consolidated]. In order to legally serve the non-resident defendants, plaintiffs

served in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure 4.1, and the codified law 52 MIRC, § 22 , a file

stamped copy on the Attorney General of the RMI. This copy was received and acknowledge with the

signature and stamp of the Office of the Attorney General, then also an US citizen, Frederick Canavor of

Seattle and formerly of the Office of the Attorney General of Guam.

However, because AG Canavor had arranged that his friend US District Judge John C. Coughenour of

Seattle would be the judge in the case, and this judge believed that it would be better if the corporations

claimed insufficiency of service, AG Canavor ordered a Marshallese employee to inform the plaintiffs

that he does not accept the file stamped copy in accordance with his duty under 52 MIRC § 22. Plaintiffs

protested, and received yet another inane letter from another employee of Canavor, disclaiming that the

Office of the Attorney General must receive under 52 MIRC § 22 a file stamped copy. Thereafter,

plaintiffs filed in the High Court for the Supreme Court under S.Ct. Case No. 2011-002 a Motion for

leave of court to file a petition for a Writ of Mandamus against AG Canavor, attached the Verified

Petition, affidavit and exhibits of the inane letters of the office of the AG that were in violation of 52

MIRC § 22. It was a clear case of dereliction of duty by the Attorney General to attempt to invalidate the

service upon him.

7

The “Supreme Court” did not issue an Order to the Attorney General to explain his behavior.

Instead, on July 22, 2011, Assistant Attorney General of Alaska, Cadra, Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren of

Hawaii, and District Judge Michael Seabright issued an ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

In this ORDER DENYING, Cadra, Kurren and Seabright engaged purposefully in Organized State Crime

not only to protect a compatriot but also in the attempt to deceive the plaintiff in the case CA 2011-022.

Plaintiffs did not give the “Supreme Court” jurisdiction to “review” the case CA 2011-022.

Nevertheless and in clear usurpation of jurisdiction, the three “judges” “reviewed” without authority the

H.Ct. Case 2011-022 in order to deceive plaintiffs:

They wrote:

“Review of the High Court’s file reveals that the foreign corporations sought to be served through the

Attorney General’s Office have entered special appearances and have moved to dismiss the Appellant’s

complaint on jurisdictional grounds.

The actual allegation that plaintiffs “sought” to serve the corporations through the office of the Attorney

General is false. Plaintiffs had in fact served the AG and the Office of the AG had acknowledged the

service by signature and stamp of the Office of the AG. Plaintiffs did not “seek” to serve the corporations,

they had done so.

The actual allegation that the foreign corporations had entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss

appellants’ complaint on jurisdictional grounds is false.

1. Special appearance has been abolished, see S.Ct. citation from 1991:

“Distinction Between General and Special Abolished

The provision of Rule 12(b) of the Marshall Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, that

defenses or objections are not waived by joinder with other defenses or objections,

abolished the distinction between general and special appearances. (Gushi Bros. Co. Hawaiian Flour Mills, et al., 1 MILR (Rev.) 239, 241 (1991))”

2. The corporation had not moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. There was no evidence in

form of affidavits by competent fact witnesses as to jurisdictional grounds, the record showed the

unauthorized appearance of the lawyers Strauss and Vitousek, filing unverified motions to

dismiss on jurisdictional grounds (as well as for lack of cause of action, which would have given

the court jurisdiction over the defendants if the attorneys were properly authorized, since lack of

cause of action enters into the case itself) Magistrate Judge Kurren himself stated that the S.Ct.

may not assume that an attorney acts for a client whith a bona fide claim if there is no

evidence on record of his being authorized, see Kurren’s statement:

“S. CT. CIVIL NO. 04-02 (High Ct. Civil No. 2003-213) Finally, we must add a word about the procedural posture of this case. The record indicates that the attorney, acting on his own volition,

3

sought to contest the election by filing an action on behalf of unknown persons whom he intended to

8

identify and whom he believed would be dissatisfied by defendant's refusal to count their ballots. This

exceeds the bounds of an attorney's role in the judicial system. No matter how laudable the goal, an attorney cannot file at anticipatory complaint, then seek and locate a proper plaintiff and attempt an

untimely amendment. without evidence in the record to support this hypothesis, we may not assume that

the attorney acted for a client with a bona fide claim.”

Therefore, to claim in the ORDER DENIED that the corporations had entered a special appearance and

moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds was an intentional false statement and an Organized State

Crime.

They wrote further to deceive:

“Because the unregistered foreign corporations have acknowledged the petitioners’ complaint and have

appeared challenging jurisdiction, there is no issue raised regarding the need for substituted service of

the summons and complaint upon the Attorney General’s Office.

This statement was intended to deceive plaintiffs further. Firstly, the foreign corporations had done nothing, since they had not appeared, secondly whether there is an issue regarding the service or not, the

law has to be observed re constructive service, see S.Ct. citation from 1994

“S.CT. CIVIL NO. 94-08 (High Ct. CIVIL No. 1993-075)

SERVICE OF PROCESS – Constructive Service: Service on opposing party is valid

where statutory and rule procedures are fully complied with.”

Further, they wrote the inanity:

If it is determined that the foreign corporate defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the

Republic of the Marshall Islands and if any foreign corporate defendant challenges the sufficiency of

service of summons and complaint based on any alleged failure to comply with the requirements of 52

MIRC 22 (1) (2) and/or 23, this Court may then entertain appellant’s petition. Appellants’ application for

leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is denied “without prejudice”.

1. It could not be determined whether the foreign corporate defendants were subject to the

jurisdiction of the courts of the RMI, because the foreign corporate defendants had neither

appeared nor authorized attorneys to appear for them and they were in Default Nihil Dicit. After

Default Nihil Dicit, even attorneys that are authorized cannot file any motions except a motion

with an affidavit of a competent fact witness to set aside Entry of Default for Good Cause shown.

2. Under the Civil Procedure Rule 12, the sufficiency of service has to be challenged at once. If this

is not done in the first motion, a defendant waives the challenge.

Instead of responding to plaintiffs' arguments for a Writ of Mandamus, Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright

engaged unauthorized and without jurisdiction in “review” of CA 2011-022, suppressing the facts that the

Attorney General was attempting to defraud plaintiffs and was clearly in dereliction of his duty. A writ is

either issued or not issued, based on the facts appearing before the court. Because the facts appearing

9

before Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright were damaging to the Attorney General, they ignored the matter

entirely, rely, and attempted instead to deceive plaintiffs with the purpose to hinder and obstruct justice.

Signed was this illegal piece of paper as:

Daniel N. Cadra, Chief Justice, which is a deceit. Assistant Attorney General of Alaska Daniel N.

Cadra is not the legal chief justice of a RMI Supreme Court for the simple reason that

1. There exists no RMI Supreme Court, and a Assistant Attorney General of Alaska cannot be a

chief justice of a Supreme Court of the RMI, and his home office in Anchorage is not the RMI

Supreme Court

2. A paper entitled MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, signed by a Public Service servant

is not an Instrument of Appointment of a Judge in accordance with the Constitution, Article V,

Section 11.

J. Michael Seabright, Associate Justice, which is a deceit. District Judge Michael Seabright of Hawaii

is not permitted under US law to engage in outside employment and enter into a fiduciary relationship

with a foreign country while being a Federal District Judge. Moreover, he was at no time an Associate

Justice of the non-existing RMI Supreme Court; he is since 2009 an illegal pro tem judge in violation of

the RMI Constitution, Article VI, Section 1 (10)

Barry Kurren, Associate Justice, which is a deceit. Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren of Hawaii is not

permitted under US law to engage in outside employment and enter into a fiduciary relationship with a

foreign country while being a Federal Magistrate Judge. Moreover, he was at no time an Associate Justice

of the non-existing RMI Supreme Court; he is illegally since 2011 an illegal pro tem judge in violation of

the RMI Constitution, Article VI, Section 1 (10).

Example 2 for ORGANIZED STATE CRIME:

History that led to plaintiffs Notice of Appeal in CA 2007-206, 2008-096, 2008-110 [consolidated] In

each of these cases, plaintiffs filed complaints, which were answered by a non-authorized attorney, Mr.

John Masek. From 2008 onwards, plaintiffs filed verified motions and supporting affidavits in these

cases, which were at all times denied by Mr. Ingram as the proponent of the defendants. At no time did

any defendant appear and take part in the proceedings of these cases.

In 2012, plaintiffs, although permitted under the law of MIRCP Rule 15 (a) to file amendments since

defendants had not answered, nevertheless, plaintiffs filed verified motions, supporting affidavits for their

grounds to amend, and affidavits of exhibits that justified the amendments. Again, defendants did not

appear and Mr. Ingram as their proponent denied the motions. Therefore, plaintiffs filed a Notice of

Appeal on October 8, 2012, S.Ct. Case No. 2012-003. Again, the defendants remained mute.

Nevertheless, on October 24, 2012, Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright DISMISSED APPEAL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

Their false finding why plaintiffs were denied to amend their complaints: “No final judgment has been

entered in the underlying case, which remains pending in the High Court. The orders appealed from are

10

interlocutory over which this Court lacks jurisdiction. See, e.g. Lemari v. Bank of Guam 1 MILR (Rev)

299, 300 (1992) No exception to the final judgment rule has been urged by appellants.”

The citation of Lemari v. Bank of Guam was intentionally false and calculated misrepresentations, since

this opinion was not based on a Notice of Appeal to amend, see:

“The High Court denied Appellant’s motion for a jury trial and certain oral rulings. The

Supreme Court dismissed the appeal since the orders appealed from were interlocutory and not

final and appealable.

While it can be debated that certain oral rulings are interlocutory, a denial of an amendment is at all times

final and therefore an Appeal must be granted.

Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright suppressed the S.Ct. ruling in re amendment because it did not comport

with their ORGANIZED STATE CRIME, the S.Ct. opinion that dealt with amendments:

“S.CT. CIVIL NO. 86-08

(High Ct. Civil Nos.1984-098 and 1984-102) “MIRCivP Rule 15(a) provides that a party may amend his

pleading as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served, or within 20 days if no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed on the trial calendar. Otherwise, a

party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.”

The “Supreme Court” then set forth one of their inanities: “This appeal is ORDERED DISMISSED

without prejudice to appealing from a final judgment entered by the High Court.

Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright did not explain how plaintiffs could appeal a non-permitted amendment in a

final judgment based on the non-amended complaints.

After this blatant ORGANIZED STATE CRIME, plaintiffs filed a Verified Motion and supporting

affidavit for Rehearing under S.Ct. Rule 40. Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright however ignored this motion.

Example 3 for ORGANIZED STATE CRIME:

Verified Petition and Affidavit for a Writ of Prohibition and a Writ of Mandamus, filed November

20, 2012.

History that led to the Petition for a Writ directed to illegal Associate Justice James A. Plasman of the

RMI High Court: On July 10, 2012, Plasman, without jurisdiction, protecting the criminal scheme of his

superior illegal chief justice Carl B. Ingram denied access to the courts in that he ordered the Clerks of

Court to refuse the filing of a Civil Rights Complaint by a corporation against Carl B. Ingram for Abuse

of Process and Denial of Civil Rights,

And

11

On October 18, 2012, Plasman, ordered again a Clerk of Court to void a High Court’s filing stamp on

corporation’s verified motion to intervene in a case before the High Court.

For these illegalities, plaintiffs sought a Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus direct against James A.

Plasman. The facts were stated and supported by evidence and affidavit.

The “Supreme Court” did not order James A. Plasman to respond to the allegations.

Instead, on December 26, 2012, Daniel N. Cadra, Assistant Attorney General of Alaska, Barry Kurren,

Federal Magistrate Judge of Hawaii, and Michael Seabright, Federal District Judge of Hawaii, filed

an ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS, denying it.

As grounds for their denial the stated the following:

“The relevant facts, as best as we can glean from the petition, indicate that...acting as the lay, non-

attorney representative of ...attempted to file a “Verified Civil Rights Complaint ...on October 18, 2012,

..... acting as the lay, non-attorney representative of ....filed a motion to intervene in High Court Civil

Action No. 2007-078.

There was no reason to “glean from” since the petition set forth as STATEMENT OF FACTS clearly and

concisely that:

“On June 10, 2012, the respondent ordered the Clerks of Court to refuse the filing of a Civil Rights

Complaint by..., Exhibit 3

“On October 18, 2012, the respondent forced Clerk of Court...to void the filing stamp on a ...verified

motion to intervene under MIRCP Rule 24 (a) (1) (2) in CA2007-078, Exhibit 4.

It did not matter a hood whether the petitioner was the lay, non-attorney representative of a corporation

for the simple reason that:

1. Under 52 MIRC § 15, a domestic corporation does not need to be represented by a lawyer since

such corporations are regarded as NATURAL PERSONS. Because of this fact, non-attorneys

have in the past represented corporations not only in the High Court but throughout the appellate

process.

2. The real fact, suppressed by the “Supreme Court” was the fact that illegal Associate Justice

Plasman denied a person the access to the courts which is a constitutional violation under Article

II, Section 14 (1)

The “Supreme Court” then departed from the matter all together and stated without jurisdiction: “We

have taken notice that petitioners......are the subject of a vexatious litigant order issued by the High

Court, the Honorable John C. Coughenour, on August 4, 2011, in Civil Action Nos. 20010-0207 and

2011-022.....

1. How did the “Supreme Court” arrive at this false statement? It was not part of the petition for a

writ and petitioners had not given the “Supreme Court” jurisdiction to review the cases in the

High Court. For the issuance of a Writ set forth in the petition have to be weighed and the

12

relevant facts were the denial of access to the courts. Under no circumstances is a court permitted

to “review” another case for which it lacks jurisdiction.

2. The “Supreme Court’s” statement however is evidence for their conspiracy with the illegal chief

justice of the High Court and the non-appearing corporate defendants. Otherwise and if this were

not the case, the “Supreme Court” illegally “reviewing” the cases would have found the

following:

a) In Civil Court Case 2010-207 and 2011-022, illegal District Judge John C. Coughenour signed

his fraudulent orders without jurisdiction in Seattle as JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, UNITED

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. The United States District Court Seattle has no jurisdiction over

the sovereign and independent courts of the RMI, see Compact of Free Association, § 174. For

further information in these cases, see:

http://www.academia.edu/4525119/Racketeering_in_the_Marshall_Islands_Judiciary_4

b) In CA 2011-022, no corporate defendant appeared, and they were in Default Nihil Dicit. There

was no evidence on record to support the hypothesis of the attorneys Strauss and Vitousek that

they were authorized to appear for the corporate defendants. According to Judge Barry Kurren in

another RMI case, “without evidence in the record to support this hypothesis, we may not

assume that the attorney acted for a client with a bona fide claim”. This case law applies to

all cases, and not only to selected cases where possibly no fraud was involved.

c) How could the “Supreme Court” ignore the fact on record that no defendant had appeared. How

could the “Supreme Court” ignore the fact that John C. Coughenour, District Judge of Seattle,

without jurisdiction and after entry of Default Nihil Dicit pronounced a dismissal of plaintiffs

complaint based on the unverified motions filed by non-authorized attorneys, stating the court

lacked jurisdiction over the defendants, while at the same moment fraudulently assuming

jurisdiction over the non-appearing defendants in order to grant the non-authorized attorneys

unverified motions for an Order to declare plaintiffs vexatious litigants? This record screams

ORGANIZED STATE CRIME and the Dismissal does not even need extraneous evidence to

prove the fraud upon the court, since it is summarized in the last sentence of illegal District Judge

Coughenour of Seattle, namely how can the court grant a motion for relief if it lacks

jurisdiction over the defendants?

d) Moreover, there is no Vexatious Litigation Order filed with the Clerk of the High Court. All

there exists is the fraudulent dismissal by US District Judge Coughenour who had no jurisdiction,

no oath of office and who acted solely in conspiracy with the defendants.

Not enough of these fraudulent reasoning, Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright continued with more

illegal inanities and libelous statements: “While we believe the subjects of a vexatious litigant order

(which at no time existed) cannot defeat the intent of that order by setting up a straw-man plaintiff or

otherwise filing litigation in a representative capacity ......

How did the “Supreme Court” arrive at the opinion that a straw-man plaintiff filed the petition? Did they

simply pull out the libel from thin air or did they have ex parte communication with illegal Mr. Ingram?

Do Mr. Ingram’s clients steal the “Supreme Court” of the opinion that a corporation is a straw man when

it attempts to file a complaint because Mr. Ingram dispossessed said corporation in CA 2007-078 of its

entire corporate records so that the corporation should be unable to prove the theft of approximately US

13

64,000? For more information in re CA 2007-078, see

http://www.academia.edu/4480307/Racketeering_in_the_Judiciary_2

In this ilk, Cadra, Kurren and Seabright continued with their inanities, false statements, and statements

that are so entirely legally illiterate that one wonders how they collectively. could become an Assistant

Attorney General of Alaska, a Federal District Court Judge, and a Federal Magistrate Judge.

Obviously, these three illegal usurpers of the judgeship in the non-existing RMI Supreme Court are

legally so ignorant that they ‘REMANDED’ plaintiffs petition for a Writ to the High Court, a process not

known in jurisprudence, with the “order” the Court should explain why it did not file the Civil Rights

Complaint. There was no way for illegal associate justice Plasman to “explain” why he refused plaintiff

the access to the courts to file a civil rights complaint. A judge does not “explain” by having

“explanations” floating around in court. He needs to have a file and a record into which he can file

Orders, after having assumed jurisdiction. How Cadra, Kurren and Seabright proposed that Plasman

“explain” why he had not permitted the access to the court, is unclear, since filing was prohibited and

therefore no record existed.

Again, Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright signed the Order fraudulently as chief justice, and associate justices.

Because of this obvious ORGANIZED STATE CRIME committed by Cadra, Kurren and Seabright,

plaintiffs attempted to file a verified motion under Supreme Court Rule 27, MIRCP Rule 60 (b) (3) (4) and Exceptio Doli Mali to the Order to Remand. Clerk of High Court refused to accept the filing thereof

after communication with Cadra, however sent Cadra an unfiled copy of the Motion so that he should

know the contention of plaintiffs.

Example 4 of ORGANIZED STATE CRIME

On February `4, 2013, plaintiffs filed a Verified Petition for a Writ of Prohibition against Associate

Justice James A. Plasman to prohibit him

A. To forge the Civil Docket ledger of the High Court

B. To order clerks of the court to forge and backdate the High Court’s filing stamp

C. That Associate Justice Plasman opine without jurisdiction and Order on record that petitioners

are prohibited from filing new matters because of a Pre-Filing Order

D. To prohibit Associate Judge Plasman to deny and suppress pertinent statutory laws of the RMI

E. To prohibit him to suppress RMI Supreme Court rulings

The petition was verified, supported by affidavit and affidavit of exhibits showing the forgery.

History that led to the Petition for a Writ: Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright had denied the Petition for a Writ

of Prohibition and Mandamus, directed to Associate Justice Plasman (as set forth afore) and “remanded”

the petition to the High Court (from which it did not come) ordering Plasman to “explain” why he denied

access to the High Court. Plasman, having illegally denied the access to the court for the corporation to

14

file a complaint had therefore no record. Because there was no record in which he could “explain” his

denial (which could not be explained anyway), Plasman forged the Civil Docket Ledger of the High Court

on January 11, 2013. He fraudulently pretended that the corporation had appeared on January 11, 2013

and filed a civil rights complaint. Based on this fraudulent and forged appearance, Plasman filed an

“Order Dismissing the Complaint” which in reality had not been filed. In addition to this forgery and

fraud upon the court, Plasman ordered the clerks of court to forge the High Court’s filing stamp and

backdate it to the 11 of January 2013 in case and whenever the corporation did appear and file a civil

rights complaint.

The evidence of the forged record showed that on January 17, 2013, the corporation filed indeed a civil

rights complaint, which however was already dismissed on January 11, 2013, six days before the

corporation filed its complaint. The evidence shows further that the complaint is hand dated on January

17, 2013, but carries a forged filing stamp from January 11, 2013.

Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright, having dawned on them by this date that petitioners/plaintiffs were not

hapless litigants (to which they are used) but trained in law. It had become a source of embarrassment to

them to have their inane and fraudulent opinions revealed in petitioners/plaintiffs further motions.

Therefore, and because they did not wish to risk further revelations of ORGANIZED STATE CRIME on

record, they simply denied the petition in a single sentence on May 8, 2013:

“Petitioners’ “Verified Petition for A Writ of Prohibition Against Associate Justice James Plasman” has

been considered and is DENIED.

This denial means that Plasman may forge to his heart’s content the civil docket entry and orders the

clerks of court likewise to forge the filing stamp of the High Court so long as it is useful to support the

ORGANIZED STATE CRIME in the High Court.

Example 5 of ORGANIZED STATE CRIME

On March 7, 2013, petitioners filed a Verified Petition of Prohibition and Mandamus and for a Writ of

Permanent Injunction against illegal chief justice Carl B. Ingram and his clients in CA 2007-078:

I. A Writ of Prohibition, directed to Chief Justice Ingram for Acts in the clear absence of

jurisdiction of continuing trespass to ........(corporation) chattels, continuing trespass ab initio

and continuing violations of the Constitution, Article II, Section 3 (1) and Section 4 (1)

II. A Writ of Mandamus directed to Chief Justice Ingram for dereliction of nondiscretionary

duty imposed by law

III. A Writ of Preventive Injunction directed to the clients of Mr. Ingram to preserve the

corporations property and to foreclose the destruction of the corporation’s records, granted to

them by Ingram

IV. A Writ of Reparative or Mandatory Injunction directed to the clients of Ingram, compelling

them to change the unlawful condition of their having in possession the corporation’s original

15

corporate records, obtained by illegal means, and restoring the wrongfully taken corporate

records to the corporation.

The Petition was verified, accompanied by affidavit and affidavit of Exhibits, showing Ingram’s false

FINAL ORDER OF JUDGMENT from December 5, 2007 that dispossessed the corporation in her

absence of her corporate records, giving these to his clients in order to cover up their theft of

corporate funds, telling them to make photo copies for the corporation and destroy the corporation’s

originals after 6 years.

Neither Ingram nor his clients filed objections to the Petition.

On May 8, 2013, Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright as proponent for Ingram and his clients, denied the

Petition for the Writs in a single sentence:

“Petitioners’ “Verified Petition Under S.Ct. Rule 21 (a) and (e) for a writ of prohibition and

mandamus and writ of permanent injunction has been considered hand is hereby DENIED.”

This denial means that Ingram may steal from any corporation the corporate records in order to protect his

clients from the crime of conversion/embezzlement.

Example 6 of ORGANIZED STATE CRIME

On April 5, 2013, petitioners filed a Verified Petition, S.Ct. Ca 2013-005 for a Writ of Supervisory

Control and Prohibition under S.Ct. Rule 21 in CA 2007-2-6, CA 2008-096, and CA 2008-110.

History of these cases: In each case, the plaintiffs filed complaints, affidavits, and verified motions from

2007 until 2013. The records of each case reveal that at no time did the defendants appear in these cases,

but that a non-authorized attorney filed an answer. Further to that, the records reveal that each verified

motion and supporting affidavit filed by the plaintiffs was denied sua sponte, and without hearing by

Ingram as proponent for the non-appearing defendants, who argued for them, even though he lacked

jurisdiction over the defendants entirely. These three cases show – without extrinsic evidence necessary –

the ORGANIZED STATE CRIME of Ingram for his clients over a period of seven years in which at no

time the defendants appeared.

On May 8, 2013, Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright as proponent for Ingram and his clients, denied the

Petition in a single sentence:

“Petitioners’ “Verified Petition For A Writ Of Supervisory Control and Prohibition” has been considered

and is DENIED.

The denial means that Ingram and his clients may engage in ORGANIZED STATE CRIME and racketeer

to their hearts’ content since Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright are their extended arm in successfully

depriving litigants of their civil rights and property.

16

These examples of racketeering by Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright are by far not exhaustive. They engage

in ORGANIZED STATE CRIME whenever Ingram or Plasman indicates that a denial of the due course

of law is necessary for their successful conclusion of a particular fraud upon the court.

Usually, Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright get away with their blatant ORGANIZED STATE CRIME because

Marshallese lawyers have neither the education or do not dare to oppose the most egregious false

opinions. However, it is evidenced that the Marshallese lawyers and litigants have given up seeking

redress in the non-existing Supreme Court. While there used to be between 15 and 20 appeals and

petitions per year, since Cadra, Kurren and Seabright usurped illegally office in the non-existing RMI

Supreme Court, appeals and petitions have dwindled to a mere 2 to 5 per year. This of course is an added

bonus for Cadra, Kurren, and Seabright since they now defraud the RMI Government and the COMPACT

OF FREE ASSOCIATION of their monthly salary without even working for it.

Under the DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Article 8, the Marshallese people as well as all

others dwelling in the Marshall Islands, have the unalienable property right to competent national

tribunals. In the Marshall Islands, there exists no competent national tribunal in the High Court that was

hijacked by Mr. Carl B. Ingram with his MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING signed by a non-

signatory of the Public Service. Mr. Ingram then proceeded to staff the non-existing Supreme Court with

his creatures who do his bidding in ORGANIZED STATE CRIMES and he arranged for the

unconstitutional single Associate Justice Plasman, who likewise does his bidding. As reward for their

engagement in ORGANIZED STATE CRIME, Mr. Ingram arranged through the Public Service, which is

prohibited to enter into contracts with judges, that his co-conspirators received annual salaries and other

illegal financial benefits through misappropriation of the Compact of Free Association. Whether Cadra,

Kurren, and Seabright receive further remunerations for their patently false opinions are unknown,

however the logic answer to such question would be that neither Cadra, Kurren nor Seabright would

engage in this obvious racketeering if not worth their while. It is hard to believe that these three worthies,

who have no compunction to violate their own US laws with their outside employment, would engage in

further ORGANIZED STATE CRIME if it does not pay handsomely.

For further facts in re the non-existing RMI Supreme Court and the illegal outside employment of Cadra,

Assistant Attorney General of Alaska, Kurren, Federal Magistrate Judge of Hawaii and Michael

Seabright, Federal District Judge of Hawaii, please look into:

http://www.academia.edu/4274937/MARSHALL_ISLANDS_CORRUPTION_FREE

17