This document is a motion requesting permission to travel outside the United States to seek medical treatment. It summarizes the plaintiff's various medical conditions including Hepatitis C, liver cirrhosis, and diabetes. It details recent medical treatment received in Europe and describes a new treatment program in Ukraine. The motion requests the court's permission to travel abroad for this medical care, as the proposed treatment has not been approved by the FDA and is therefore not available in the US.
Movant was incarcerated at FDC Miami with various medical conditions including Hepatitis C, diabetes, and chronic fatigue syndrome. While imprisoned, Movant's conditions limited his ability to engage in physical activity and work duties. Movant provided over 1,000 pages of medical records from various healthcare providers to prison officials documenting his conditions. Defendant was aware of Movant's medical conditions but denied him reasonable accommodations.
This document is Plaintiff Trai Buduveanu's brief response opposing Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's motions to compel supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from Plaintiff. It argues that:
1. Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's motions on October 12, 2011.
2. Defendants have not fully answered written interrogatories or produced requested documents, invoking vague reasons without a protective order. Plaintiff argues Defendants should be compelled to fully respond.
3. The motion does not violate scheduling orders and deadlines as Defendants claim, and discovery disputes should adhere to the discovery procedures in the court's orders.
The plaintiff filed a motion to compel the production of documents and electronically stored information from the defendants. The defendants had failed to produce any documents in response to the plaintiff's requests. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' claim that the documents are prohibited from disclosure by the Federal Bureau of Prisons is an exaggeration and that the documents requested are relevant to the case. The motion discusses the broad scope of permissible discovery under the rules and argues that the defendants must demonstrate specifically which documents are prohibited from disclosure.
1. The plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu, filed a motion for summary judgment in a civil case against Dimas Charteris House and employees Derek Thomas, Lashanda Adams, and Ana Gipert.
2. The plaintiff alleges that while residing at Dimas Charteris House halfway house, a residential reentry center, he was constantly harassed, intimidated, and humiliated without regard to his medical conditions or religious beliefs in violation of his civil rights.
3. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that he was denied religious accommodations, discriminated against due to his religion and national origin, and that his requests for medical documentation were ignored constituting mistreatment.
This document is a motion filed in a federal district court case. The plaintiff argues that the defendants have failed to adequately respond to requests for documents and interrogatories. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the defendants' responses lack details and documentation to support their claims that the plaintiff violated his halfway house rules. The plaintiff requests that the court strike portions of the defendants' response brief for failing to provide evidence or documentation to back up their statements.
This document is the plaintiff's response to the defendant's statement of disputed facts in a civil case. It provides 3 key points:
1. The defendants' motions contain statements intended to mislead the court about the plaintiff's lack of legal experience and understanding.
2. The court needs to carefully examine all documents in the case to see how the defendants have structured false statements.
3. The defendant continues to make false statements and has not addressed issues raised by the plaintiff, showing intent to undermine the court.
This inventory and receipt form documents personal belongings given to an inmate named Jose Rodriguez upon intake at Dismas Charities, including clothing, shoes, hygiene items, address book, and legal documents. The inmate signed acknowledging receipt of the listed items and the reason for inventory was noted as intake.
Devoloping marketing strategies and plans by mku.chmiankaleemullah
This document contains information about marketing strategies and plans. It discusses key concepts like understanding customer value, developing a value chain to identify how to create more customer value. It also discusses the importance of strategic planning, defining a corporate mission, establishing strategic business units (SBUs), and allocating resources to SBUs. The document provides examples of corporate missions and outlines the typical contents of a marketing plan, including performing a SWOT analysis, setting goals, developing strategies, and creating financial projections.
Movant was incarcerated at FDC Miami with various medical conditions including Hepatitis C, diabetes, and chronic fatigue syndrome. While imprisoned, Movant's conditions limited his ability to engage in physical activity and work duties. Movant provided over 1,000 pages of medical records from various healthcare providers to prison officials documenting his conditions. Defendant was aware of Movant's medical conditions but denied him reasonable accommodations.
This document is Plaintiff Trai Buduveanu's brief response opposing Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's motions to compel supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from Plaintiff. It argues that:
1. Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's motions on October 12, 2011.
2. Defendants have not fully answered written interrogatories or produced requested documents, invoking vague reasons without a protective order. Plaintiff argues Defendants should be compelled to fully respond.
3. The motion does not violate scheduling orders and deadlines as Defendants claim, and discovery disputes should adhere to the discovery procedures in the court's orders.
The plaintiff filed a motion to compel the production of documents and electronically stored information from the defendants. The defendants had failed to produce any documents in response to the plaintiff's requests. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' claim that the documents are prohibited from disclosure by the Federal Bureau of Prisons is an exaggeration and that the documents requested are relevant to the case. The motion discusses the broad scope of permissible discovery under the rules and argues that the defendants must demonstrate specifically which documents are prohibited from disclosure.
1. The plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu, filed a motion for summary judgment in a civil case against Dimas Charteris House and employees Derek Thomas, Lashanda Adams, and Ana Gipert.
2. The plaintiff alleges that while residing at Dimas Charteris House halfway house, a residential reentry center, he was constantly harassed, intimidated, and humiliated without regard to his medical conditions or religious beliefs in violation of his civil rights.
3. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that he was denied religious accommodations, discriminated against due to his religion and national origin, and that his requests for medical documentation were ignored constituting mistreatment.
This document is a motion filed in a federal district court case. The plaintiff argues that the defendants have failed to adequately respond to requests for documents and interrogatories. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the defendants' responses lack details and documentation to support their claims that the plaintiff violated his halfway house rules. The plaintiff requests that the court strike portions of the defendants' response brief for failing to provide evidence or documentation to back up their statements.
This document is the plaintiff's response to the defendant's statement of disputed facts in a civil case. It provides 3 key points:
1. The defendants' motions contain statements intended to mislead the court about the plaintiff's lack of legal experience and understanding.
2. The court needs to carefully examine all documents in the case to see how the defendants have structured false statements.
3. The defendant continues to make false statements and has not addressed issues raised by the plaintiff, showing intent to undermine the court.
This inventory and receipt form documents personal belongings given to an inmate named Jose Rodriguez upon intake at Dismas Charities, including clothing, shoes, hygiene items, address book, and legal documents. The inmate signed acknowledging receipt of the listed items and the reason for inventory was noted as intake.
Devoloping marketing strategies and plans by mku.chmiankaleemullah
This document contains information about marketing strategies and plans. It discusses key concepts like understanding customer value, developing a value chain to identify how to create more customer value. It also discusses the importance of strategic planning, defining a corporate mission, establishing strategic business units (SBUs), and allocating resources to SBUs. The document provides examples of corporate missions and outlines the typical contents of a marketing plan, including performing a SWOT analysis, setting goals, developing strategies, and creating financial projections.
Memorandum of points and authorities in support of plaintiff's motion for sum...Cocoselul Inaripat
This memorandum supports a motion for summary judgment in a civil case. It argues that the defendant violated the plaintiff's 1st, 5th and 8th Amendment rights by unlawfully imprisoning him without due process and denying him adequate medical care. It asserts that no genuine issues of material fact exist and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The memorandum contends the defendant's actions were willful, malicious and in violation of federal criminal statutes.
Movant was incarcerated at FDC Miami with various medical conditions including Hepatitis C, diabetes, and chronic fatigue syndrome. While imprisoned, Movant's conditions limited his ability to engage in physical activity and work duties. Movant provided over 1,000 pages of medical records from various healthcare providers to prison officials documenting his medical history and conditions. Defendant was aware of Movant's medical conditions and records but denied him proper medical treatment and caused him to remain imprisoned without consideration for his medical needs.
Memorandum of points and authorities in support of plaintiff's motion for sum...Cocoselul Inaripat
Movant was incarcerated at FDC Miami and diagnosed with several medical conditions including Hepatitis C. Despite his medical issues limiting physical activity, he was required to perform difficult work duties. Movant provided over 1,000 pages of medical records from various hospitals and medical facilities to prison officials documenting his conditions, but defendant disregarded his medical needs.
Traian Buduvanu, the plaintiff, filed a motion requesting additional time to respond to the defendants' supplemental motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff recently passed away and had undergone surgery, making a timely response difficult. Due to the plaintiff's poor health, an extension until June 30, 2012 was requested to allow time to find a new representative.
Traian Buduvanu, the plaintiff, filed a motion requesting additional time to respond to the defendants' supplemental motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff recently passed away and had undergone surgery, making a timely response difficult. Due to the plaintiff's poor health, an extension until June 30, 2012 was requested to allow time to find a new representative.
Traian Buduvanu, the plaintiff, filed a motion requesting additional time to respond to the defendants' supplemental motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff recently passed away and had undergone surgery, making a timely response difficult. Due to the plaintiff's poor health, an extension until June 30, 2012 was requested to allow time to find a new representative.
1) The document is a certificate of death for Maria Buduveanu, who passed away on March 4, 2022 in Broward County, Florida.
2) The immediate cause of death was listed as heart failure due to hypertension.
3) Traian Buduveanu is listed as the informant on the certificate.
Mtion to compel production of documents and electronically stored informationsCocoselul Inaripat
The plaintiff filed a motion to compel the production of documents and electronically stored information from the defendants. The defendants had failed to produce any documents in response to the plaintiff's requests. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' claim that the documents are prohibited from disclosure by the Federal Bureau of Prisons is an exaggeration and that the documents requested are relevant to the case. The motion discusses the broad scope of permissible discovery under the rules and argues that the defendants must demonstrate specifically which documents are prohibited from disclosure.
Mtion to compel production of documents and electronically stored informationsCocoselul Inaripat
1. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel the defendant to produce documents and electronically stored information in response to discovery requests.
2. The defendant refused to produce any documents, claiming that their release would be prohibited by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
3. The plaintiff argues that the defendant's refusal to produce documents in response to lawful discovery requests is an attempt to cover up criminal acts and liability for abuse at the detention center.
This document is Plaintiff Trai Buduveanu's brief response opposing Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's motions to compel supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from Plaintiff.
The brief argues that Defendants have not fully answered written interrogatories or produced requested documents, invoking vague reasons without a protective order. It asks the court to compel Defendants to respond fully to all written discovery requests and produce all requested documents.
The brief also argues that the motion to compel was timely filed and does not violate the court's scheduling order. It states the motion seeks discovery essential for Plaintiff to investigate Defendants, with short available time.
This document is Plaintiff Trai Buduveanu's brief response to Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's motions to compel supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants have not fully answered written interrogatories or produced requested documents, invoking various reasons without obtaining a protective order. The Plaintiff requests that the court compel the Defendants to respond to all written interrogatories and document requests.
The Plaintiff also argues that the motion to compel was timely filed and does not violate the court's scheduling order. The purpose of the motion is to obtain necessary discovery for the litigation in a timely manner.
Plaintifff traian bujduveanu's brief in response to defendants dismas chariti...Cocoselul Inaripat
1. The plaintiff filed a brief in response to the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's motions to compel supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from the plaintiff.
2. The defendants have not fully answered the plaintiff's written interrogatories and did not produce certain requested documents, invoking various reasons for which they have not received a protective order from the court.
3. The plaintiff argues that under the Federal Rules, the defendants must either fully respond to all written interrogatories and document requests or obtain a protective order from the court.
This document is Plaintiff Trai Buduveanu's brief response to Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's motions to compel supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from Plaintiff. It argues the following key points:
1. Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's motions to compel and motion to stay discovery.
2. Defendants have not fully answered written interrogatories or produced requested documents, invoking vague reasons without a protective order. Plaintiff argues Defendants should be compelled to fully respond.
3. The motion does not violate scheduling orders. Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to fully participate in discovery procedures.
Plaintifff traian bujduveanu's brief in response to defendants dismas chariti...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is Plaintiff Trai Buduveanu's brief response opposing Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's motions to compel supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants have not fully answered written interrogatories or produced requested documents, invoking vague reasons without a protective order. The Plaintiff requests the court compel the Defendants to respond fully to all written interrogatories and document requests.
The Plaintiff also argues that the motion to stay discovery is without merit as the Plaintiff aims to obtain relevant discovery for litigation against the Defendants, and that justice requires the Defendants to fully participate in discovery procedures ordered by the court.
This document is Plaintiff Trai Buduveanu's brief response opposing Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's motions to compel supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from Plaintiff.
The brief argues that Defendants have not fully answered written interrogatories or produced requested documents, invoking vague reasons without a protective order. It asks the court to compel Defendants to respond fully to all written interrogatories and document requests.
The brief also argues that the motion to compel was timely filed and does not violate the court's scheduling order. It states the motion seeks discovery essential for Plaintiff to investigate Defendants, with short available time.
1. The plaintiff filed a motion to supplement their previous motion to compel document production from the defendants.
2. The plaintiff argues that the defendants have withheld important documents and provided vague responses to interrogatories.
3. The plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to fully respond to discovery requests regarding restrictions on the plaintiff's religious activities while incarcerated at Dania Charters.
Plaintiff's m otio n to supplem en t m otion to com pel second reouest for pr...Cocoselul Inaripat
1. The plaintiff filed a motion to supplement their previous motion to compel production of documents from the defendants.
2. The plaintiff argues that key documents provided by the defendants were incomplete or altered.
3. The plaintiff seeks to compel full disclosure of documents and names of individuals related to the case from the defendants.
1. The plaintiff filed a motion to supplement their previous motion to compel production of documents from the defendants.
2. The plaintiff argues that key documents provided by the defendants were incomplete or altered.
3. The plaintiff seeks to compel full disclosure of documents and names of individuals related to the case from the defendants.
Plaintiff's m otio n to supplem en t m otion to com pel second reouest for pr...Cocoselul Inaripat
1. The plaintiff filed a motion to supplement their previous motion to compel document production from the defendants.
2. The plaintiff argues that the defendants have withheld important documents and provided vague responses to interrogatories.
3. The plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to fully respond to discovery requests regarding restrictions on the plaintiff's religious activities while incarcerated at Dania Charters facility.
This document is Plaintiff Truman Bujduveanu's response to the Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's pocket entries 114 and 115. The Plaintiff argues that his documents were filed properly under the local rules and provide a response to the Defendants' reply brief and supplemental motion. The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants have made false statements to the court about being unaware of the incident until notified by the Plaintiff in January 2011. The Plaintiff provides facts from government documents showing that the US Probation Office was aware of the incident prior to being notified by the Plaintiff.
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Memorandum of points and authorities in support of plaintiff's motion for sum...Cocoselul Inaripat
This memorandum supports a motion for summary judgment in a civil case. It argues that the defendant violated the plaintiff's 1st, 5th and 8th Amendment rights by unlawfully imprisoning him without due process and denying him adequate medical care. It asserts that no genuine issues of material fact exist and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The memorandum contends the defendant's actions were willful, malicious and in violation of federal criminal statutes.
Movant was incarcerated at FDC Miami with various medical conditions including Hepatitis C, diabetes, and chronic fatigue syndrome. While imprisoned, Movant's conditions limited his ability to engage in physical activity and work duties. Movant provided over 1,000 pages of medical records from various healthcare providers to prison officials documenting his medical history and conditions. Defendant was aware of Movant's medical conditions and records but denied him proper medical treatment and caused him to remain imprisoned without consideration for his medical needs.
Memorandum of points and authorities in support of plaintiff's motion for sum...Cocoselul Inaripat
Movant was incarcerated at FDC Miami and diagnosed with several medical conditions including Hepatitis C. Despite his medical issues limiting physical activity, he was required to perform difficult work duties. Movant provided over 1,000 pages of medical records from various hospitals and medical facilities to prison officials documenting his conditions, but defendant disregarded his medical needs.
Traian Buduvanu, the plaintiff, filed a motion requesting additional time to respond to the defendants' supplemental motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff recently passed away and had undergone surgery, making a timely response difficult. Due to the plaintiff's poor health, an extension until June 30, 2012 was requested to allow time to find a new representative.
Traian Buduvanu, the plaintiff, filed a motion requesting additional time to respond to the defendants' supplemental motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff recently passed away and had undergone surgery, making a timely response difficult. Due to the plaintiff's poor health, an extension until June 30, 2012 was requested to allow time to find a new representative.
Traian Buduvanu, the plaintiff, filed a motion requesting additional time to respond to the defendants' supplemental motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff recently passed away and had undergone surgery, making a timely response difficult. Due to the plaintiff's poor health, an extension until June 30, 2012 was requested to allow time to find a new representative.
1) The document is a certificate of death for Maria Buduveanu, who passed away on March 4, 2022 in Broward County, Florida.
2) The immediate cause of death was listed as heart failure due to hypertension.
3) Traian Buduveanu is listed as the informant on the certificate.
Mtion to compel production of documents and electronically stored informationsCocoselul Inaripat
The plaintiff filed a motion to compel the production of documents and electronically stored information from the defendants. The defendants had failed to produce any documents in response to the plaintiff's requests. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' claim that the documents are prohibited from disclosure by the Federal Bureau of Prisons is an exaggeration and that the documents requested are relevant to the case. The motion discusses the broad scope of permissible discovery under the rules and argues that the defendants must demonstrate specifically which documents are prohibited from disclosure.
Mtion to compel production of documents and electronically stored informationsCocoselul Inaripat
1. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel the defendant to produce documents and electronically stored information in response to discovery requests.
2. The defendant refused to produce any documents, claiming that their release would be prohibited by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
3. The plaintiff argues that the defendant's refusal to produce documents in response to lawful discovery requests is an attempt to cover up criminal acts and liability for abuse at the detention center.
This document is Plaintiff Trai Buduveanu's brief response opposing Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's motions to compel supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from Plaintiff.
The brief argues that Defendants have not fully answered written interrogatories or produced requested documents, invoking vague reasons without a protective order. It asks the court to compel Defendants to respond fully to all written discovery requests and produce all requested documents.
The brief also argues that the motion to compel was timely filed and does not violate the court's scheduling order. It states the motion seeks discovery essential for Plaintiff to investigate Defendants, with short available time.
This document is Plaintiff Trai Buduveanu's brief response to Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's motions to compel supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants have not fully answered written interrogatories or produced requested documents, invoking various reasons without obtaining a protective order. The Plaintiff requests that the court compel the Defendants to respond to all written interrogatories and document requests.
The Plaintiff also argues that the motion to compel was timely filed and does not violate the court's scheduling order. The purpose of the motion is to obtain necessary discovery for the litigation in a timely manner.
Plaintifff traian bujduveanu's brief in response to defendants dismas chariti...Cocoselul Inaripat
1. The plaintiff filed a brief in response to the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's motions to compel supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from the plaintiff.
2. The defendants have not fully answered the plaintiff's written interrogatories and did not produce certain requested documents, invoking various reasons for which they have not received a protective order from the court.
3. The plaintiff argues that under the Federal Rules, the defendants must either fully respond to all written interrogatories and document requests or obtain a protective order from the court.
This document is Plaintiff Trai Buduveanu's brief response to Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's motions to compel supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from Plaintiff. It argues the following key points:
1. Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's motions to compel and motion to stay discovery.
2. Defendants have not fully answered written interrogatories or produced requested documents, invoking vague reasons without a protective order. Plaintiff argues Defendants should be compelled to fully respond.
3. The motion does not violate scheduling orders. Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to fully participate in discovery procedures.
Plaintifff traian bujduveanu's brief in response to defendants dismas chariti...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is Plaintiff Trai Buduveanu's brief response opposing Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's motions to compel supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants have not fully answered written interrogatories or produced requested documents, invoking vague reasons without a protective order. The Plaintiff requests the court compel the Defendants to respond fully to all written interrogatories and document requests.
The Plaintiff also argues that the motion to stay discovery is without merit as the Plaintiff aims to obtain relevant discovery for litigation against the Defendants, and that justice requires the Defendants to fully participate in discovery procedures ordered by the court.
This document is Plaintiff Trai Buduveanu's brief response opposing Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's motions to compel supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from Plaintiff.
The brief argues that Defendants have not fully answered written interrogatories or produced requested documents, invoking vague reasons without a protective order. It asks the court to compel Defendants to respond fully to all written interrogatories and document requests.
The brief also argues that the motion to compel was timely filed and does not violate the court's scheduling order. It states the motion seeks discovery essential for Plaintiff to investigate Defendants, with short available time.
1. The plaintiff filed a motion to supplement their previous motion to compel document production from the defendants.
2. The plaintiff argues that the defendants have withheld important documents and provided vague responses to interrogatories.
3. The plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to fully respond to discovery requests regarding restrictions on the plaintiff's religious activities while incarcerated at Dania Charters.
Plaintiff's m otio n to supplem en t m otion to com pel second reouest for pr...Cocoselul Inaripat
1. The plaintiff filed a motion to supplement their previous motion to compel production of documents from the defendants.
2. The plaintiff argues that key documents provided by the defendants were incomplete or altered.
3. The plaintiff seeks to compel full disclosure of documents and names of individuals related to the case from the defendants.
1. The plaintiff filed a motion to supplement their previous motion to compel production of documents from the defendants.
2. The plaintiff argues that key documents provided by the defendants were incomplete or altered.
3. The plaintiff seeks to compel full disclosure of documents and names of individuals related to the case from the defendants.
Plaintiff's m otio n to supplem en t m otion to com pel second reouest for pr...Cocoselul Inaripat
1. The plaintiff filed a motion to supplement their previous motion to compel document production from the defendants.
2. The plaintiff argues that the defendants have withheld important documents and provided vague responses to interrogatories.
3. The plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to fully respond to discovery requests regarding restrictions on the plaintiff's religious activities while incarcerated at Dania Charters facility.
This document is Plaintiff Truman Bujduveanu's response to the Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's pocket entries 114 and 115. The Plaintiff argues that his documents were filed properly under the local rules and provide a response to the Defendants' reply brief and supplemental motion. The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants have made false statements to the court about being unaware of the incident until notified by the Plaintiff in January 2011. The Plaintiff provides facts from government documents showing that the US Probation Office was aware of the incident prior to being notified by the Plaintiff.
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
The document discusses the results of a study on the effects of exercise on memory and thinking abilities in older adults. The study found that regular exercise can help reduce the decline in thinking abilities that often occurs with age. Older adults who exercised regularly performed better on cognitive tests and brain scans showed they had greater activity in important areas for memory and learning compared to less active peers.
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Just...Cocoselul Inaripat
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Crominals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World
The United States government conducted a large raid involving over 30 agents from numerous agencies on Traian Bujduveanu's residence to seize assets. The lead prosecutors claimed in court that the assets were worth over $100,000, but they ended up being less than $10,000 in value, consisting of antique aircraft parts. The massive raid was unnecessary and terrorized Bujduveanu's 84-year-old blind mother, who was sent to the hospital. Witnesses state that Bujduveanu had been under surveillance for over a year before the raid. The government's actions seem aimed at justifying the expenses of the investigation rather than appropriately addressing the matter.
This document lists the names of various government agencies and individuals, including Jeb Bush, the Department of Justice, ICE agents, US Attorneys, Assistant Attorney Generals, FBI agents, and others. It also references concepts like government conspiracies, revolutions in Romania and Iran, corruption in government, and crimes against humanity.
1. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2012 Page 1 of 9
FI b '
LED y- D.
C.
UNITED STATES DISTRI COURT
CT
xL '
SOUTHERN DISTRI OF FLORI
CT DA 02T 1 2 1
22
sTEvEN M U RI RE
e
CASE NO .11 201 CI SI ONTO N
- 20. V- M CLR u i rs m'
E K ; kr .
l
s. eié.- 1
o.ft M*
TR AIAN BU JDU VEA N U ,
Pl i if
a ntf ,
D I A S CH A RI ES,I . AN A G I
SM TI NC , SPERT,
D EREK TH OM A S,and LA SH AN D A AD AM S,
D efendants.
M OTI FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND TI E TO RESPOND TO THE
ON M
COURT' ORDER FOR SECOND M OTI FOR SUM M ARY I
S ON UDGM ENT
COMES N0W TM I BUJ
AN DUVEAN, ai itPr se a Movest sHonor bl
Pl ntf o- , nd hi ae
Cour f l t e e t deadlnet 5l ar spons t t Deendant '
t or eave o xt nd he i o e e e o he f s
SupplmentlMoton ForS
e a i ummar J
y udgme ,r Ocoberl 2012t Oc ober31,
ntfom t g, o t
2012, s t r t .
or oon he eafer Good c e exit f e endi t deadlne t fl t
aus s s or xt ng he i o ie he
r ponse ass f t beow :
es , et orh l
1
2. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2012 Page 2 of 9
1. 0nAugus 29,
t 2012 Pl ntf equesedpe m ison fom t sCour t tavel o
ai ifr t r s i r hi to r t
Eur f ongoi me c tea me f hepattsC i eci lvercrhoss
ope or ng dial r t nt or ii nf ton.i ir i,
di t s t om boss and o herm e ca c tonsa soca e w iht s
abe e , hr i, t di l ondii s it d t he e
di eas s.
s e
2. 0n Se ember12,2012,udg Pari aA. t i ued a Or Gr i
pt J e t ci Seiz ss n der antng
Plitf R le t Trv l(x bi1 DE#2 , 93
an i eifo a e.E hi t ,
f 92 2 )
3. Att s mom entPl ntf si Eur r ei ng m edialt ea ment
hi ai ifi n ope ec vi c r t .
Pl ntf i e r el il needsadequa e t e m entcut det Unied A at .
ai if s xt em y l and t r at si he t es
W HEREFORE,Pl ntf r
ai if eque t t t Coul ent ran Or t gr ntt Pl ntf
s s hat he ' e
t der o a he ai if
l vet fl t sr spons t OCTOBER 31,
ea o ie hi e eo 2012, soon t ea .
or her her
Re tulys it t s10t da ofOcober 2012.
specf l ubm ted, hi h y t ,
....v
. . p '
,
j y .j, y y.zs z y
j x.
ïz zyo,
-o
jp
TM I BUJ VE , r -e
AN DU AM P os
5601 W . ow a d Bl
Br r vd.
Pl nt i FL 33317
a aton,
2
3. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2012 Page 3 of 9
CERTI M TE OF SERVI
FI CE
Ihee c riyt to ora tOCTOBER l 201 atu a c rc c oft
rby e tf ha n bou 0, 2 r e nd ore t opy he
f r goi docu e wass v d upon t e f l ng v a t Unie Stt Pos Se v c
o e ng m nt er e h olowi i he t d a es ll r i e,
Fis Cl s M ai:
rt as l
AnaGiper Di s
s t sma
Chartesl .
ii ,nc
141 N. . St Av
W 1 . enue
Dani ,FL 33004--
a - 2835
Der Thom as
ek
Di
smas Chart e ync
ii s l .
141 N. . S . enue
W 1 tAv
Dani ,FL 33004-
a -2835
LashandaAdam s
Dim asChar te ,nc
s ii s l .
141 N. . S . nue
W 1 t Ave
Dani , 33004-
a FL -2835
Davi S Chai tEsqui e
d . e r
4000 Holyw ood Bo e dSuie265
l ulvar t
Sout Holyw ood,FL33021
h l
4. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2012 Page 4 of 9
EXECUTED 0N THI 10 DAY 0F OCTOBER,2012
S
-''- '
'
/ft/f z'v ., zzo ,?
î t? h y yz ,z
z z ;,
- '
J
,
TM I B DUVE
AN UJ ANU, R0 S
P E
5601 W .BROW ARD BLVD.
,
PLANTATI FL 33317
ON,
6. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2012 Page 6 of 9
Case 1: cr20612-
08- - PAS Docum ent292 Ent edon FLSD Docket08/ 2012 Page 1of3
er 29/
UM TED STATES DISTRI COURT
CT
SO UTH ERN DISTRI OF FLORI
CT DA
M I IDI SI
AM VI ON
UM TED STATES O F AM ERI
CA
CASE NO :08- 61 CR
20 2-
TRM AN BUJDUVEANU,
De enda .
f nt
/
SECOND M OTI F0R RELI TO TM VEL T0 SEEK M ED I
ON EF - CAL TREA TM EN T
OUTSI TH E UNI
DE TED STATES
COMES NOW , Dee d n, Tr in Budu e n (een he rfre t a
fn a t aa j v a u h ria r eerd o s
GTRAI
ANN,by a tr gh hi undesg cou e.rs cf lyr uesst tt sHon a e
nd h ou s rined ns l e pe tul eq t ha hi orbl
Co r g a taMo inl rRei oS e Me ia T e t n o tiel eUntdS a e .Asg o n
u t rn t ' le e k dc l r ame t usd / i t ts
o o ft l e rud
t er f e,
h e or TRAI woul s a e a f l :
AN d t t s olows
TRM AN ha a ex e i e m e c lr c d s f rng fom anum b rofmedi li s s
s n t ns v di a e or uf e i r e ca s ue
i udi butnotlmie t Hepaai C,Li r Ciross a Dibee .Du t t
ncl ng i td o tts ve rh i, nd a ts e o he
c bi tonofa1 hi me c is s TRAI h sbe n i a outofm e c viis
om nai l s dial sue , AN a e n nd dial st
prort durng a pos hi r l a eoft Fed a Bu e u ofPrs ns
i o, i nd t s e e s he er l r a io .
Al r or ar a ia e t t Cour i r quie t be p o ed i udi t e
l ec ds e va lbl o he t f e rd o r duc ncl ng hos
co t whieTRAI wasi Bur a ofPrs ns a d t e co ct s e nt
nduc ed l AN n eu i o n hos ndu ed ubs que
atNova Soutea t Uni riy m e c lca
h sem vest dia mpus I l e wihi tes rporsae
. ncud d t n h e e t r
i c i t tTRAI hasha e e i f tgu i t l s tve mont a d a l s
ndi atons ha AN d xt nsve a i e n he a t i hs n o s
ofa ctt TRAI ha s f e fom e r m ewei ls durng t s sme tm e
pp ie. AN s uferd r xte ght o s i hi a i
pe i
rod.
Pagelof3
7. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2012 Page 7 of 9
Case 1: cr20612-
08- - PAS Document292 Ener on FLSD Dock 08/ 2012 Page 2 of3
t ed et 29/
3. Subs que t hi v st a Nova Sou he t m Uni e st TRAI ha f
e nt o s i i t t ase v r iy, AN s ound a new
medi lte m e c itn ofse c l.Thi new mediaton i b ng c uce i
ca rat nt onssig tm el s c i s ei ond td n
Ki Ukr ne.TRM AN i s eki t s Ho a e Cour' r i f t s e m e ca
ev, ai s e ng hi nor bl ts ele o e k di l
te m e outi t Unied St t f rt sf c .
r at nt s de he t a es o hi a t
4. St m c l te t t a e n cu r nty beng c
e el r a men s r ot r e l i ondu t d i t Unied St t .Th
c e n he t aes ey
ha notbe n a ov byt FDA a ass ch,te t nts h a t ones ghtby
ve e ppr ed he nd u ame uc s he ou
TR M A N ar not p o de i t Unied Stt . TRM AN ha b n i
e r vi d n he t a es s ee n
c m u c tonswih t Em cel ci ci Kiv,Ukr i a t ha be n ope t
om niai t he l lni n e ane nd hey ve e no
co tng me c tea me son TRM A N.
nduc i dial r t nt
5. The Em celc i c i r i t e wih t Unie St t sbutc nn c ctismedial
l lni s eg ser d t he td a e a ot ondu t c
tea me s i i t c nt y du t t e r gul i w ih t e FDA whi h be n
r t nt nsde he ou r e o h e atons t h ch ave e
underr ew f s tm e.
evi or ome i
6. De ng TRM AN t opp t t t s ek m e c te t e t of hi c c i
nyi he oruniy o e dial r a m n s hoie s
t mnountt r s rctng hi a lt t lve.
ant o e ti i s biiy o i
7. TRM AN h alea c men d tea i wih t e Em c l cl c i K iv,Uk ane
as r dy om ce r tng t h el i n e
ni ri
a i c r nty n di ta f t e d t ofSep e b 1 ,2 2 t Rom a awhe e
nd s ur e l ee ng r vel or h a e t m er 8 01 o ni r
he has be n pl c d by t Die t of t He t o Dep t e of Fu ni
e ae he r c or he pa ol gy arm nt nde
Hos t ,i Buc r t by Pr .Conf Fl i Ca t i a c i c t i .
pial n ha es, of . orn nm u, n lni al ral
8 Def e Couns ha no s enw ihA USA Ka e Gib ti rgadst t sM oton
. ens el s t pok t r n ler n e r o hi i
b tap irmoin rg r ig tesmeis ewa n to jce a d teGo emn n
u ro to e adn h a su s o be td n h v r e t
s a e t s l a TRAI ta l d f M edi lTr t ntpu p e t ey woul
t t d hat o ong s AN r ve e or ca ea me r os s h d
n t b e t o In a a i n rr wa p o ie t p o ai n
o o j c s o g s n t ea y s r v d d o r b to .
i
Def ns Couns lha s en w ih Pr ba i n Ofi e M s Bo t Hol s on Aug t
e e e s pok t o to fc r . nia me us
2 2 2a dPo aind e NOT ojc frTRAI t ta e frme c l u ss
9, 01 n rb t o s
o bet o AN o rv lo dia p po e
Page2 of3
8. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2012 Page 8 of 9
*
case 1: cr20612-
08- - PAS Docùment292 Ent edon FLSD Docket08/ 2012 Page 3of3
er 29/
a he ha idiat t the i vey sck a n ds a qu e te t touti t
s s n c ed ha s r i nd ee de at r amen sde he
Unie Stts
td ae .
W HEREFO RE, TRAI s e t t s Honorbl Co t grnt te Dee e'
AN e ks hat hi a e ur a h fns s
M oton f Reift Tr ve t Se k M e c Tram e o sdet Unied Sttsi ti
i or le o a l o e dial e t nt uti he t ae f hs
Ho oa eCo rd e ta sc in c saya dj s.
n rbl ut e msh t u h s ee sr n ut
CERTI CATE OF SERVI
FI CE
IHEREBY CERTI t tatu a cor c co oft f e ngwa ee tonial
FY ha r e nd re t py he orgoi s lcr c ly
notce tr ght CM / s tm t AUSA Kae Gibeta t USAto n y' Ofieont s
i d h ou he ECF yse o rn l r t he tr e s fc hi
29bda ofAugus,201 .
t y t 2
Res c f l s it d,
pe t uly ubm te
IINa b H as an
s yi s
Nayi Hasan, qoFl BarN0. 9
b s Es a 2094
Ator y f De e
t ne or f ndant
LAW OFFI CES O F NAYI HASSAN,P.
B A.
61 NW 1 St , t 221
75 53 . Suie
M i iLake ,Fl da 3301
am s ori 4
Te.No.305.03. 3
l : 4 732
FaxNo. 305. 3.522
: 40 1
Pa 3of3
ge
9. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2012 Page 9 of 9
*
Cas 1: cr20612-
e 08- - PAS Document293 Ent ed on FLSD Dock 09/ 2012 Page 1of1
er et 12/
UNI STATES DI
TED STRI COURT
CT
SOUTHERN DI CT OF FLORI
STRI DA
CASENO . - 2- SEI
082061 CR- TZ
UNI
TED STATES OF AM ERI
CA,
Pl ntf.
ai if
VS.
TRAI BUJ
AN DUVEANU,
Defnda .
e nt
/
ORDER G M NTI SECOND M OTI N FO R RELI TO TR W EL
NG O EF
Ths t r a b frteCo ro Dee d n Bud v a u'Moint Trv lose me ia
imat cme eoeh u tn fn a t j u e n s t o a et ek dc l
e o
teamentI 2 .TheCour ha c ierdteM oinan bei oter s f l advs ii
rt DE 921 t s onsd e h to d ng h wie uly ied,ts
ORDERED ta Def an' Moton i GRANTED.I i f te
h t end ts i s t s urh r
ORDERED t ttedee n s lpr det Unie Sut Pr ai Om cewihac yof
ha h fnda t hal ovi he td es ob ton t op
hi iie ays nghi d tnai an dae ofrve. eDefnd nti c r tyonanon-e tn
s tn r r howi s esi ton d ts ta lTh e a s urenl rporig
s a u wihpr ton, nd wil ontnu wiht ssa u whi o ta el l t eDe en nti g l e
t t s t oba i a l c i e t hi t t s l n r v . f h f da s one ong r
e
t nsxt 6o da hss er sdr e s wil s p nde Whe h rtr hewil eu alte
ha i yt l ys i up vie ela e lbe us e d. n e eu ns lmak p lh
tm eh wa g ove t 60- ypei
i e s one r he da rod.
D ANDOR R DiMimiFoiati / dyo Spe e.0 2
ONE DE E n a , lr ,hs / a f etmbr2 l.
d
e * o
PATRI I A.S TZ
A
UNITED STATES DI
STRI J
UDGE
Copi f nihe t
es ur s d o:
Co elofRe or pr Se Pa te
uns c d/ o ri s