Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brunet v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division

January 31, 2019

JULIO ARMANDO BRUNET, #05079-104 PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          HENRY T. WINGATE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This cause comes before the Court sua sponte for consideration of dismissal. Petitioner, an inmate incarcerated at the Madison County Detention Center, Madison, Mississippi, filed this Petition for Writ of Mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Having considered Petitioner's Petition [1] and the relevant case law, the Court has determined that Petitioner's Writ of Mandamus will be denied and this civil action dismissed.

         Background

          Petitioner files this Petition for Writ of Mandamus [1] “in connection with criminal[] cases no 14-20211-CR-UNGARO and 3.18-cr-78-CWR-FKB.”[1] Pet. [1] at 2. A review of court records reveals that Petitioner is referring to his criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, United States v. Brunet, Criminal No. 1:14-cr-20211 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 28, 2014), in which he was convicted, and his criminal case pending in this Court, United States v. Brunet, Criminal No. 3:18-cr-78-CWR-FKB (S.D.Miss. filed Apr. 4, 2018).

         Petitioner states that the Court has original jurisdiction “in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff and proceed to release” him Id. at 1. Petitioner bases his request for mandamus relief on the following:

1 - Violation of Rule 7(c)(2)
2 - Violation of First Amendment
3 - All federal documents pertaining to the case are made against Julio Armando Brunet federal trust or foreign estate know by law as a “debtor”/corporate fiction and artific[i]al person (hereafter referred as “corporate fiction”[)]
4 - Filed transfer statement, shows the secured party had possession of both corporate fiction and agent.
5 - Violation of due process of law
6 - Violation of Fifth and Fourteen[th] Amendments
7 - Stylistic English vs Proper English
8 - Filed security agreement “under 28 U.S.C. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.