Challenge to State of Maine’ s Political or Contractual Jurisdiction (Legal Form)

DISTRICT COURT AND SUPERIOR COURT

UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET IN FRANKLIN COUNTYSTATE OF MAINE

129 Main Street, Suite 1, Farmington, ME 04938

STATE OF MAINE Executive and Judicial Branches

VS. Case # Docket No.FRACD-CR-2014-00950

Carol Murphy Wrongly Accused Belligerent Litigants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Carol Murphy , do hereby certify that I have on this ______ day of May, 2015, by hand delivering a copy to his office in the County of Franklin. Maine 124 Main Street, Farmington, ME 04938

Served Plaintiff’s attorney Andrew S. Robinson prosecuting attorney and assistant prosecuting attorney district attorney James Andrews STATE OF MAINE.

And I likewise certify that I have on this _____ day of May , 2015, SERVED The DISTRICT COURT AND SUPERIOR COURT UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET IN FRANKLIN COUNTY STATE OF MAINE

A true and correct copy of the two documents indicated herein below,

on behalf of the above named Wrongly Accused.

All concerned will please take note that this is a SERVICE of Process

on this Court, causing this COURT, to be an Inactive and non- Participating Party to this Jurisdictional Challenge to the Executive Branch of the Government of STATE OF MAINE

This Court did not lodge the underlying charges and this Court is required to maintain its NEUTRAL Position with no authority to act in any manner of judicial activity unless and until STATE OF MAINE meets its burden to prove its jurisdiction over these Wrongly Accused!

NOTICE (In Lieu of Motion)

OF CHALLENGE TO STATE OF MAINE‘S POLITICAL OR CONTRACTUAL JURISDICTION OVER THIS WRONGLY ACCUSED

and

DEMAND THAT STATE OF MAINE PRESENT PROOF OF ITS JURISDICTION

CHALLENGE TO STATE OF MAINE’ S POLITICAL OR CONTRACTUAL JURISDICTION Page 1 of 85

1

23

4

5

6

7

89

10

1112

13

14

1516

1718

192021

22

23

24

2526

272829

30

31

3233

34

35

STATE OF MAINE’S INHERENT FAILURE TO PRESENT SUCH PROOF SHALL CONSTITUTE ITS AVERMENT THAT ALL CHARGES AGAINST THIS WRONGLY ACCUSED WERE AND ARE INVALID AB INITIO

EXHIBIT “A”

DISTRICT COURT AND SUPERIOR COURTUNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET IN FRANKLIN COUNTY

STATE OF MAINE Executive and Judicial Branches

VS. Case # Docket No.FRACD-CR-2014-00950

Carol Murphy Wrongly Accused Belligerent Litigants

EXHIBIT “A”

to NOTICE (In Lieu of Motion) OF CHALLENGE TO STATE OF MAINE’ S POLITICAL OR

CONTRACTUAL JURISDICTION OVER THIS WRONGLY ACCUSED and DEMAND THAT

STATE OF MAINE PRESENT PROOF OF ITS JURISDICTION STATE OF MAINE’S INHERENT

FAILURE TO PRESENT SUCH PROOF SHALL CONSTITUTE ITS AVERMENT THAT ALL

CHARGES AGAINST THIS WRONGLY ACCUSED WERE AND ARE INVALID AB INITIO

Introduction Let STATE OF MAINE and this Honorable Court be advised;

The presentation herein and references to the forty-five (45) appellate court cases pertaining to and

establishing proper protocols in regard to procedures once jurisdiction has been challenged are not

offered herein by this Wrongly Accused as any basis for his Challenge to the jurisdiction of STATE of

MAINE over this Wrongly Accused.

The purpose of such presentment is to guide STATE OF MAINE and this Honorable Court as to the

fact that once such jurisdictional Challenge is entered on the record, any and all previous jurisdiction,

of any and every imaginable style or basis is suspended by this Basic Fundamental Jurisdictional

Challenge 45 Case Citations re: JURISDICTION

1. "A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties." Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353


363738

39

40

41424344

45

4647

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

6768

S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)

2. A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Thus, if a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void. The lack of statutory authority to make particular order or a judgment is akin to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and is subject to collateral attack. 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments Â§ 25, pp. 388-89.

3. A void judgment is to be distinguished from an erroneous one, in that the latter is subject only to direct attack. A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect. Lubben v. Selective Service System, 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir. 1972).

4. A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).

5. "Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination.” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

6. "A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It

is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court", OLD WAYNE

MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

7. "The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal", VALLEY v.

NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., 254 u.s. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ( 1920 )

8. "Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If

they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are

regarded as nullities ; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal."

WILLIAMSON v. BERRY, 8 HOW. 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 ( 1850 ).

9. "Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court

lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action." Melo

v. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026.

10. "There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

11. "The burden shifts to the court [or charging entity] to prove jurisdiction. " Rosemond v. Lambert,

469 F 2d 416.

12. "Court [or charging entity] must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction

asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150.


69

70717273747576

777879

80818283

8485

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

13. "The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven

[by the charging entity]." 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

14. "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.

15. "Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal."

Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985).

16. "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act,

its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.

17. "Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical

Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389. 18. "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must

be decided." Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.

19. "The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all

administrative proceedings." Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533. 20. A judgment obtained without

jurisdiction over the defendant is void. Overby v. Overby , 457 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1970). Volume

20: Corpus Juris Sec. Â§ 1785.

21. Challenge to court's jurisdiction is raised by motion to dismiss, Criterion Co. v. State, 458 So. 2d.

22 (Fla 1st DCA 1984.22. Since jurisdiction is fundamental, and it is jurisdiction alone that gives a

court power to hear, determine, and pronounce judgment on the issues before it, jurisdiction must be

continuing in the court throughout the proceedings [meaning at the time charges were lodged], Re.

Cavitt, 254 P.599

23. Since jurisdiction is fundamental to any valid judicial proceeding, the first question that must be

determined by a trial court in any case is that of jurisdiction [of he charging entity], Dillon v. Dillon,

187 P,27.

24. "A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court [or the charging entity]

without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property."

Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732. 25. "Jurisdiction is fundamental and a

judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear [due to lack of jurisdiction of

charging entity] is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

26. "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a

tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first


103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67

S.Ct. 1409.

27. "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close

apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a

constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 93 4, 937.

28. "Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is

deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.

29. "The fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an

arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there

was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.

30. A motion to set aside a judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction is not subject to the time

limitations of Rule 60(b). See Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288 (Utah 1986).

31. A judgment is void, and therefore subject to relief under Rule 60(b)(4), only if the court that

rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction or in circumstances in which the court's action amounts to a

plain usurpation of power constituting a violation of due process. United States v. Boch Oldsmobile,

Inc., 909 F.2d 657, 661 (1st Cir. 1990)

32. Where Rule 60(b)(4) is properly invoked on the basis that the underlying judgment is void, "'relief

is not a discretionary matter; it is mandatory.'" Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, 1310 (10th Cir. 1994)

(quoting V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 597 F.2d 220, 224 n.8 (10th Cir. 1979)).

33. In order for a judgment to be void, there must be some jurisdictional defect in the court's authority

to enter the judgment, either because the court lacks personal jurisdiction or because it lacks

jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. Puphal v. Puphal, 105 Idaho 302, 306, 669 P.2d 191, 195

(1983); Dragotoiu, 133 Idaho at 647, 991 P.2d at 379.

34. A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court

that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties. Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353

S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)

35. "Though not specifically alleged, defendant's challenge to subject matter jurisdiction implicitly

raised claim that default judgment against him was void and relief should be granted under FRCP Rule

60(b)(4)." Honneus v. Donovan, Page 6 of 993 F.R.D. 433, 436-37 (1982), aff'd, 691 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.


132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

1982).

36. "A judgment is void if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. A void judgment

is a nullity and may be vacated at any time." 261 Kan. at 862.

37. Although Rule 60(b)(4) is ostensibly subject to the "reasonable" time limit of Rule 60(b), at least

one court has held that no time limit applies to a motion under the Rule 60(b)(4) because a void

judgment can never acquire validity through laches. See Crosby v. Bradstreet Co., 312 F.2d 483 (2nd

Cir.) cert. denied, 373 U.S. 911, 83 S.Ct. 1300, 10 L.Ed.2d 412 (1963) where the court vacated a

judgment as void 30 years after entry. See also Marquette Corp. v. Priester, 234 F.Supp. 799

(E.D.S.C.1964) where the court expressly held that FRCP Rule 60(b)(4) carries no real time limit.

38. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to

the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause." Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514

(1869). "On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first,

of this court, and then of the court from which the record comes. This question the court is bound to ask

and answer for itself, even when not otherwise suggested, and without respect to the relation of the

parties to it." Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, supra, at 453. The requirement that

jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter "spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial

power of the United States" and is "inflexible and without exception." Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v.

Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382 (1884).Cited in Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 US 83 -

Supreme Court 1998.

39. "Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or for

summary judgment," Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

40. "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a

witness". (Trinsey v. Pagliaro D. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647).

41. “Factual statements or documents appearing only in briefs shall not be deemed to be a part of the

record in the case, unless specifically permitted by the Court" - Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedure,

Federal local rule 7.1(h).

42, "Manifestly, [such statements] cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition of [a] case."

United States v. Lovasco (06/09/77) 431 U.S. 783, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2d 752,

43. “Under no possible view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held to constitute

a compliance with the statute, since they merely embody conflicting statements of counsel concerning


161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

the facts as they suppose them to be and their appreciation of the law which they deem applicable, there

being, therefore, no attempt whatever to state the ultimate facts by a consideration of which we would

be able to conclude whether or not the judgment was warranted." Gonzales v. Buist. (04/01/12) 224

U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693, 32 S. Ct.

44, "No instruction was asked, but, as we have said, the judge told the jury that they were to regard

only the evidence admitted by him, not statements of counsel", Holt v. United States, (10/31/10) 218

U.S. 245, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2, "The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be permitted

to add to the record either by subtle or gross improprieties. Those who have experienced the full thrust

of the power of government when leveled against them know that the only protection the citizen has is

in the requirement for a fair trial." Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 1974.SCT.41709 ¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637

(1974) Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting.

45. "Care has been taken, however, in summoning witnesses to testify, to call no man whose character

or whose word could be successfully impeached by any methods known to the law. And it is

remarkable, we submit, that in a case of this magnitude, with every means and resource at their

command, the complainants, after years of effort and search in near and in the most remote paths, and

in every collateral by-way, now rest the charges of conspiracy and of gullibility against these witnesses,

only upon the bare statements of counsel. The lives of all the witnesses are clean, their characters for

truth and veracity un-assailed, and the evidence of any attempt to influence the memory or the

impressions of any man called, cannot be successfully pointed out in this record." Telephone Cases.

Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Company, Molecular Telephone Company v. American Bell

Telephone Company. American Bell Telephone Company v.. Molecular Telephone Company, Clay

Commercial Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, People's Telephone Company

v. American Bell Telephone Company, Overland Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone

Company,. (PART TWO OF THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1, 31 L. Ed. 863, 8 S. Ct. 778.

Proceeding at all times under Threat, Duress and Coercion

____________________________

Carol Murphy Dated: May ___, 2015

c/o 248 Lane Road New Sharon, Maine


191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

Hi Group Special Member, 1. Please read my disclaimer here as you are bound by it. 2. Please understand that there is no Paytri-Idiot content as that crap is irrelevant and does not work and will cause the letters to fail. 3. There is only ONE issue, the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, When did you volunteer? That is he ONE and ONLY single issue, they have to prove it - NOT YOU!!! Keep the burden of proof on THEM!!! 4. You may have to copy and paste these letters into your word processor and adjust the format. Please understand that I am very busy, I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone

5. Here is my disclaimer that you must agree to before using my IRS letters of my Notice and Demand: 6. By my acceptance of these three generic letters, I thereby proclaim under penalty of perjury, under the laws of he United States, that I am not an agent of the United States government or any sub agency thereof, including (but not limited to), the IRS, FBI, DHS, DEA or any other government agency of any manner or description, for any purpose what-so-ever. 7. Additionally, I likewise agree and stipulate, that any information provided to me by Eric Williams, is for information purposes only, and do not constitute and are not considered by me to be any manner or form of legal advice, no matter what might be written or how it might be presented by Eric Williams. 8. That if I choose to use any of the information presented by Eric Williams, I do so on my own responsibility, and not


221222223224225

226

227228229

230

231

232

233234235

236237238239240241

242

243244245

246

247

248

249

250

251252253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

on any responsibility of Eric Williams. 9. Additionally, Eric Williams has not charged me any fee for this information, nor have I paid or offered to pay any fee or any other manner of remuneration to Eric Williams.I acknowledge that the information created by Eric 10. Williams is owned by him under common law copy right and is not subject to any manner of editing or modification what-so-ever, other than obvious editing of name, gender, state, address, state abandoned property statute, number of page reference, reference to date of mailing or other dates, or reference to IRS publication as reasonably appropriate.

11. No Pay-Tri-Idiot text or word changes permitted other than deletions of inapplicable information.

Instructions for editing Generic Notice and Demand: 1. You may edit the font and type size and first page format to suit local style, but NOT to insert any manner of Paytri-Idiocy 2. This N&D has been double spaced to conform to what most courts want to see. Certain parts of the text are not double spaced because that is common practice for case cites and other similar items. 3. If you change the font or eliminate bold type, such change will cause the paging to change so then you will need to go through and check for the hash mark slashes /// that you will see at the bottom of some pages. After font changes you may find hash marks /// up on the pages, if so, then delete those hash marks ///. 4. The “rule” for formatting paragraphs is that there should never be just one line of a paragraph at the bottom


261262263

264

265

266267268

269

270

271

272

273

274275

276

277

278

279

280281282

283

284285286

287

288

289290291

292

293

294

295

296297298

299

of a page. If the font change or other formatting changes cause one line of a paragraph at the bottom of a page, then push that one line down to the next page and enter, probably, two lines of hash mark slashes /// . Never put more than three hash mark slashes on one line and never put more than three lines of hash marks on one page. 5. If there is a centered heading at the bottom of a page with one line or less of text under it, then push that centered heading down to the next page and enter three lines of three hash mark slashes at the bottom of the page it was pushed down from. 6. Be sure all pages are numbered at the bottom center of each page. 7. Be sure all intermediate text headings are centered. 8. Be sure to do a search and replace of the name of the state and the name entered on the generic N&D, to replace them with the name of your state and your name. Do NOT enter the word “the” in front of the state name, STATE OF ARKANSAS. 9. When you enter your name enter it the regular way, with no Paytri-Idiot format, and with no punctuation after your first or middle name. None of that has any validity. 10. In order to understand what the truth is about all this Patrri-Idiocy you might need to read United States Supreme Court cite 46 on Exhibit “A”. 11. Together with the lengthy explanation of the truth about how the name is used by the state, as I have explained it in IRS letter #2, beginning at about paragraph #25. 12. This explanation dove tails in with the United States Supreme Court writing in the case cite in paragraph 46 of


300

301

302

303

304

305306307

308

309

310

311312313

314315316317318

319

320

321

322323324

325

326327328

329

330331332

333

334

335336337338339

340

Exhibit “A”, and the Federal Thirteenth Amendment. 13. None of the all caps name info of the Paytri-Idiots has any validity what-so-ever! And neither does the entry of ZIP codes on your mail or address, and neither are birth certificates bundled and sold and when filed do not assign ownership of the child to the state and the gold fringe on a flag has no affect on your political status! And neither does the fact that all associations of human beings, including PTA meetings, are “corporate”. “Corporate” is a word that is greatly misunderstood. 14. Every meeting of Tea Party groups is “corporate”. “Corporate” simply describes the association of humans for a common purpose. Some of these associations are for profit corporations, but many are not. Every municipality in this country is a corporate entity. That does not cause them to be evil and does not mean they have a distribution of tax payer money to some owner group! This is all stupid non-think of Paytri-Idiots!!! 15. I am 81 years old. I have been in this Freedom Movement since 1964. I do not have time to explain all the underlying nonsense so prevalent among the Paytri-Idiot clan. That has taken me years to sort out. 16. My IRS letters and N&D have never failed to rid those who properly use them, of government interference in their lives. 17. Too many Group Members have taken my work and changed it, or gone to court after serving my N&D, or filed motions after serving my N&D, enabling the court to ignore the N&D or dismiss it as a motion. 18. You need to carefully read paragraph 21 of my N&D and edit it appropriately to properly refer to the police or other entity as needed. 19. Check paragraph 9 for the word “himself”. If you are


341342343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351352353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360361362

363

364

365366367

368

369370371

372

373

374375376

377

378379380

not a “him” edit that as appropriate, likewise paragraph 29 for the word “he”.

20. Also, read the instructions I entered above paragraph 29. There are two paragraphs 29. One addresses the issue of returning of bail money, if appropriate. If you have not posted bail then you need to delete that version of 29. If you did post bail then you need to delete the short version of 29. In both cases you delete the instruction paragraph I put there, and then check the subsequent pages for any format adjustments that might have been affected by the deletions relative to paragraph 29.

What are the Hazards of Using Notice and Demand?

1. To immediately put your mind at ease, the way we are using the N&D Utility, here, in this Challenge to The Political Jurisdiction of State Governments, and using the same basis in the same Challenge to the Federal Government in these Letters to the IRS Letters, there are no hazards other than those addressed in the explanatory documents I have provided, caused by inappropriate Paytri-Idiot editing.

2. The Foundation of my N&D and my IRS letters is Natural Law, but NOT based on Paytri-Idiot Imaginations and wishful thinking. My Basis is the Federal Thirteenth Amendment, powerfully supported by the United State Supreme Court’s writings in the 1795 Case Citation included in Exhibit “A”, as item # 46, set forth herein down on page 8 hereof.

3. The reason I am addressing this issue is because “Notice and Demand”, the words, have been


381

382383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412413

414

415

wrongly or erroneously used many times for different purposes, by persons in the Paytri-Idiot community.

4. To the best of my knowledge none of these prior Paytri-Idiot applications of N&Ds have been successful. Some have even caused those who used them some very serious legal problems. These were instances where the N&D was used to demand money based on some ill-founded Paytri-Idiot nonsensical scheme.5. The reason my application is so effective is because it is so simple, it requires very little study to learn, and it is all based on simple common sense, backed up by the Federal Thirteenth Amendment and at least 46 appellate court case citations, the most significant being my newly discovered SCOTUS writing in 1795, included as Case Citation #46 in my Exhibit “A” to my Notice and Demand.

6. Understanding how things work, not just legal things, but everything, requires us humans to use what we call “words”. These words are sounds we have made up to refer to about every item and manner of situation of interest to us. We put these words together in strings called “sentences”.

7. Many of the words we use have many different meanings depending on the other words they are combined with; some words even have an opposite meaning. Sometimes it is actually impossible to determine what a certain word actually means in some written applications.

8. My best example of this is the word “sanction”. Sanction can mean approval or punishment, and oftentimes the meaning can only be


416

417418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433434

435

436

437

438

439

440441

442

443

444

445

446

447448

449

450

451

determined by the tone of voice, facial expression and body language of the speaking person. How can it be possible to determine the “tone of voice”, facial expression or body language when those words are written on paper?//////9. My point here is that the words, “Notice and Demand”, and “challenge to jurisdiction” have been wrongly used so often by those in the Freedom Movement, with very negative results, that many persons are immediately dissuaded from using my N&D simply because it is designated as being a “Notice and Demand”.

10. The courts in this country are well schooled on the false arguments offered by “Sovereign Citizens”, “Free Men on The Land”, “State Citizens”, and those coming into court and immediately arguing the issue of who they are and their name being written in all capital letters in the documents filed with the court by the prosecutor. And the often used totally erroneous argument that because there was no victim, there could be no crime.

11. Not to overlook the unfounded silly argument that because the governments are corporate they are unconstitutional and that the dejure Organic Constitution has been replaced (which it has NOT).

12. All of these arguments and many more, are totally, one-hundred percent frivolous! And do nothing other than insuring that the “defendant” is going to be convicted by “a corrupt court that is in violation of the Constitution”, when in fact, those courts are following the CONstitution.


452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475476

477

478

479

480481

482

483

484

485

486

487

13. Those courts are adhering to Article One Section Ten, which prohibits any laws from being made that would impair the obligation of contracts, and the courts are also properly applying the Federal Fourteenth Amendment to those defendants the Courts perceives and assume are citizens of the United States, because they have volunteered themselves to be, not because of their birth in the United States or because of anything in the Fourteenth Amendment. Please pay very careful attention to the wording of the Thirteenth Amendment and the SCOTUS writing in the 1795 case presented as item 46 in Exhibit “A” to my N&D.

14. I could go on writing here for many pages explaining how all the Paytri-Idiocy is fallacious and counter productive, however I have more and better things to do.

15. As a response to my messages that I was pulling my N&D and IRS letters from my open access Yahoo Group, a message was posted on that Group by Bob Hurt, one of the most egregious of the Paytri-Idiot “Leaders”. In his rather lengthy post Bob, in advising me to mend my ways, included this:

“If you want to promote something [Eric], promote this:

“1. MEMORIZE the Federal Rules of Evidence and your states differences - this is the most important thing to know about litigation.”

16. My comment, the most important thing to know about litigation is how to avoid it while maintaining your Freedom, which we easily accomplish by serving


488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501502

503

504

505

506507

508

509

510

511

512

513514

515

516517

518

519

520521

522

523

524

my N&D and using my IRS letters; but back to Bob Hurt’s “well thought out” gibberish:

Bob Hurt Continues:

“2. Memorize, or learn well, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the State counterpart.

“3. Study litigation practice - nature of the courts, difference between common and statutory law and regulations, how to write a complaint, answers, motions, petitions, judicial notices, notices of discovery, petitions (especially for great writs), motions for sanctions, motions to compel, motions to vacate void judgments, objections, motions to dismiss, motions to strike, motions in limine (to suppress evidence), etc., how to communicate in and out of court with attorneys, judges, opponents, how to examine and cross examine witnesses, how to depose witnesses, how to ask for hearings on motions, how to disqualify judges, how to file interlocutory and other appeals.”

17. Gee, Members, I think I have accomplished everything Bob Hurt recommends in his lengthy presentation and all we have to do to accomplish the same outcome, without all that legal mumbo-jumbo, is serve my Notice and Demand on the State and on the Court, or mail its letter version to the IRS. Thank you Bob Hurt!!!

18. The sorry problem is that we often have considerable difficulty understanding that the failures caused by the erroneous misuse of words can put us off of using something very good, such as my N&D.

19. I found it difficult to merely read Bob Hurt’s long


525

526527

528529

530

531532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554555

556

557

558

559560

561

recommendation that we spend all that time and effort doing all that totally un-necessary legal study and memorization, that Bob Hurt recommends and offers, while asking for a monetary “donation”.

20. Why should we do any of that when we can avoid going to court by simply editing my Generic N&D appropriately, to change the state, the name of the court and/or county, the case number and the name of the Wrongly accused and one or two other minor changes that are explained in the document. And then serve the N&D and Exhibit “A” on the State prosecutor (or other appropriate opposition), and likewise SERVING the Court, causing the Court to be an inactive agent of the Plaintiff. The plaintiff being the entire Government of the STATE, which includes its courts.

21. The reason I decided to include the Court as an inactive Party to the action is because of what I mentioned herein above, being that the courts and the system in general, address the issue of jurisdiction so often that it has become ingrained in the minds of the judges and prosecutors, and virtually all attorneys, that the mere use of the word “jurisdiction”, or “challenge the jurisdiction” causes a synaptic presumption in the minds of all those who spend all their working days in the courts; whereupon they automatically presume, when they see or hear the words, “challenge the jurisdiction” to be a reference to a challenge of the court’s jurisdiction. Which is NOT the case in my N&D!

22. This is true even when the context presented includes the word “political”, because the word “political”, is not a word commonly annexed to a


562

563

564

565566

567

568

569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576

577

578579

580

581

582

583

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591

592

593594

595

596

597

challenge of jurisdiction, because there is truly, nothing political about the judiciary, in so far as it relates to trying cases brought before it.

23. So, in order to bring it forcefully before the mind of the judge of the court that their judicial authority has been placed on hold, I determined that SERVING the Court as an “inactive and non-participating party” to this jurisdictional challenge, to the political jurisdiction of the STATE, would be a good and legitimate way to accomplish this need.

24. I contend that this will cause the court clerk, who is to be orally informed by you that the court is being SERVED as a party to the Notice and Demand, to quickly bring the serving of this N&D to the attention of the judge, and will cause the judge to pay some significant attention to what is stated in the N&D and Exhibit “A”, especially Case Citation 46.

25. Citation 46 is very powerful! I can hear the opposing argument, that this cite is two hundred and twenty years old, and cannot possibly be relevant to us here in 2015.

26. This might very well be true in some areas of our system of government, but before anyone throws out the baby with the bath water they would be well advised to take a closer look at the baby.

27. There are some things that will never change, no matter how many eons of time have elapsed.

28. One of those never changing principles is set forth in the SCOTUS writing in that 1795 citation, and it is reiterated in the Thirteenth Amendment, as part of the Federal Constitution.


598

599

600601

602

603

604

605

606

607

608609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616617

618

619

620

621622

623

624

625

626627

628

629630

631

632

633

634

29. So that it will be clear, here it is for your immediate and ready consideration; where is there any part of this writing that is out of date?:

Government Is Foreclosed fromParity with Real People.

Supreme Court of the United States 1795

(Exhibit “A” Case cite 46) "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them." S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), Supreme Court of the United States 1795.

30. Does not the Federal Thirteenth Amendment dove tail succinctly with the SCOTUS citation above?

31. And does not the Federal Thirteenth Amendment incorporate that SCOTUS reasoning solidly into the Federal CONstitution?:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

32. And is not true that our argument that the purpose of all of the Fifty Several States requiring a driver license applicant to present a birth certificate before any State can have standing to require or to


635

636

637

638639640

641

642

643

644

645

646

647

648

649

650

651

652

653

654

655656

657

658659

660

661

662663664

665

666

667668

669

670

671

672

issue a driver license to a human being, is supported by both the SCOTUS citation above, and the Federal Thirteenth Amendment?

33. Due to the recognition of Natural Law in the two references herein above; it is clearly established that the State, as an artificial entity, is never ever going to be able to achieve standing to require or to even issue a driver license directly to a willing human applicant.

34. Due to its artificial NATURE, the State is always going to have limited standing, to issue driver licenses only to a contract franchisee of the state. Such person being a human being who has been fraudulently indoctrinated by the state to proceed, to act unknowingly and unwittingly as an “artificial person”, as mentioned by SCOTUS in Case Citation 46, presented herein above. Where the person, having been deceitfully manipulated into servitude in the government’s indoctrination centers, known as public schools has been fraudulently indoctrinated to believe he was born into United States citizenship and that he is REQUIRED to present “his” birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license so he can drive his own motor vehicle.

35. Please take note as to how flagrantly I intentionally and knowingly use all those words abhorred by the Paytri-Idiots!

36. So how much studying is anyone required to do in order to successfully benefit from their use of my very simple Notice and Demand, styled on Basic Fundamental Natural Principles recognized by SCOTUS and embodied into the Federal CONstitution in its Thirteenth Amendment?


673

674

675676

677

678

679

680

681682

683

684

685

686

687

688

689

690

691

692

693

694

695

696

697698

699

700

701702

703

704

705

706

707

708

37. Well it would be a good idea for you to understand that when someone makes a DEMAND, such action implies and must be based on an unquestionably solid foundation. This N&D’s fundamental foundation is NOT in that SCOTUS Citation or in the Federal Thirteenth Amendment. NO!

38. First, what is the reasonable basis of SCOTUS and the Federal Thirteenth Amendment? They are both founded on the solid concrete bedrock of Natural Law!

39. Why else would SCOTUS write what it did in Citation 46? What would be the likelihood that SCOTUS would write something like that in 2015? And why would the CONgress and the States ratify the Thirteenth Amendment if there was any reasonable argument that could be brought against it?

40. Why? Because no single individual has any Naturally imbued authority to command the subservience of any other individual. This is self evident. No matter the circumstances conjured up by any humans, there has never ever been a single human being that was properly born into slavery. This is nothing but a recognition of Natural Law. Any claim or assertion otherwise is nothing but a self-serving delusion of the criminal minds of those who desire to control others.

41. When you properly understand the literal truth that you were born politically free, and that the governments (plural) of the United States have criminally indoctrinated the entire population of this country into believing the lie that they were born into


709

710

711

712

713

714

715716

717

718

719

720721

722

723

724

725

726

727728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

736

737

738739

740

741

742

743

744

citizenship and when you get that straight in your head, and when you are actually able to overcome the criminal indoctrination that you were and are continuing to be subjected to, into total subservience, then you will KNOW that there is no need to waste your life studying and memorizing all that legal crap Bob Hurt, and his ilk, promote, and ask you to donate money to him for his teaching of his nonsensical crap!

42. There is no doubt in my mind that what I present is worth a lot of money, but my Freedom is far more important to me that any amount of money.

43. I cannot be free unless you are free. The only way we can become truly free is to understand what Freedom is, and to understand, that True Freedom has never ever existed anywhere when a formal government has been established; supported by the levying of taxes.

44. We do truly need a strong government but when it is financially supported by the government’s gun, then how can we claim to be free?

45. We need to change the Federal Reserve to a Central Bank owned by the People of the United States, with all levels of our government funded by all the interest collected on loans to private sector borrowers.

46. Control of the People’s Central Bank must be taken away from CONgress; and the ability of CONgress to borrow money on the credit of the United States must be removed from the CONstitution!

47. I have devised a detailed plan for the operation of the People’s Central Bank that I have otherwise


745

746

747

748

749

750

751

752753

754

755

756757

758

759

760

761

762

763764

765

766

767768

769

770

771

772

773774

775

776

777

778779

780

781

presented so it is not necessary to do so here, but there is a definite connection because virtually all of the micro-management of our lives has been prompted by the governments’ need for money to fund that which government has no proper authority to be involved in.

48. Our implementation of these Notices, Demanding that government conform to Natural Law as set forth by SCOTUS in Case Citation 46, and in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, will have a profound effect on our ability to gain control over our government.

49. When you truly understand the strength of the content of this N&D, and my IRS letters, based on the exact same Natural Foundation, you will promote them to everyone you know, and we will put the government back where it belongs, under our control, operating on money which we freely provide through interest paid on mortgages, business loans and credit cards.

50. In closing, please be advised, there is nothing inherently evil in Factional Reserve Lending, and when properly understood, interest on borrowed money is no different than the profit a baker adds to the bread he sells.

51. In TRUTH, our monetary problems are caused by CONgress’s misuse of the Fed, intentionally enabled in the CONstitution by the Founding Fathers. Pay attention to the words in the CONstitution, not to those words written outside of it by a bunch of used car salesmen!

Cheers,


782

783

784

785

786

787788

789

790

791

792

793

794795

796

797

798

799

800

801

802803

804

805

806

807

808809

810

811

812

813

814

815816

817818

I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight

Modified Additional Comments on the implementation of my

Notice And Demand

Hi Group,

1. This is a modification to my previous Additional Comments

posted on my public access Yahoo WhoRU Group, regarding the

implementation of my Notice and Demand challenging the

Executive Branch to present its proof that it has properly gained

any manner of jurisdiction over the Wrongly Accused.

2. Please read this very carefully as I have made many

explanatory changes. Most significantly in including the Court as

an “inactive” party to the litigation. Equally significant is the

addition of and references in the N&D of the very relevant case

citations now included in Exhibit “A”, in items 39-46 thereof, most

especially #46!


819

820

821

822

823

824

825

826

827

828

829

830

831

832

833

834

835

836

837

838

839

840

841

842

843

844

845

846

847

848

849

850

851

3. For those of you emailing me requesting access to Exhibit “A”

with the 46 appellate court cases: Due to technical difficulties

seemingly inherent in Yahoo’s programming, Exhibit “A” is now

posted on my PAWHORU Yahoo Group in the files folder, not in

the conversations folder.

4. I received a question asking, " by what authority do they

associate a person with the names they use?" I have explained

the name game in some detail herein further below but to directly

respond to this question, the names commonly used by everyone

is a name they acknowledge was derived from a birth certificate.

Everyone nonthinkingly assumes this name is their property, if

they bother to think of it at all. If they were to actually think

about it, they would come to understand that such name cannot

possibly legally or lawfully belong to them because they had

absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the name or its


852

853

854

855

856

857

858

859

860

861

862

863

864

865

866

867

868

869

870

871

872

873

874

875

876

877

878

879

880

881

882

883

884

application to them or its entry on a birth certificate or the filing

of the BC with the government.

5. As all those names were, most likely, conjured up by the

THE NAME GAME

Page 1 of 1

parents of the person using that name as their personal identifier,

it is self-evident that the parents (or whomever), would have had

(past tense), first claim of ownership of those names, if the

parents (or whomever), had entered any claim of such ownership

on the birth certificates or used some other manner of entering

such ownership claim.

6. However, I am not aware of even one instance where any

parent (or whomever), entered any manner of claim of ownership

of any of those names.


885

886

887

888

889

890

891

892

893

894

895

896

897

898

899

900

901

902

903

904

905

906

907

908

909

910

911

912

913

914

915

916

917

7. It is self-evident and generally recognized that names are

property capable of being owned and that names have the

potential of becoming very valuable. It is also well known that

whomever came up with the name caused those names to be

entered on birth certificates which are recorded with the state.

Again, such person would have had (past tense), priority position

to claim ownership of the name.

8. As names are recognized as being property, it is self-evident

that names will be owned by some entity. Every state has

enacted statutes for the state's disposition of abandoned

property. If the creator of the name (please take care to notice

that the information entered on a birth certificate does NOT

indicate who came up with the name entered thereon. It may be

implied and presumed, but it is NOT clearly set forth), does not

make himself known, then the state, “quite reasonably”,


918

919

920

921

922

923

924

925

926

927

928

929

930

931

932

933

934

935

936

937

938

939

940

941

942

943

944

945

946

947

948

949

950

determines that the names are abandoned property, where it is

“reasonable” that the ownership thereof will be assumed by the

state, for the benefit of everyone in the state. (Fines assessed

for traffic violations paid by users of state owned names go to

help the state provide benefits to everyone - everyone then

benefits from the individual's franchised use of state owned

property, the name).

///

///

///

THE BEGINNING OF THE

BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Page 2 of 1

DRIVER LICENSE

TRUE LEGAL NAME

ENSLAVEMENT SCAM

9. When a person presents a birth certificate to be issued a


951

952

953

954

955

956

957

958

959

960

961

962

963

964

965

966

967

968

969

970

971

972

973

974

975

976

977

978

979

980

981

982

983

driver license, the state presumes the DL applicant is aware that

the state does not have standing to issue or require anyone to

have a driver license unless and until the applicant has entered

himself into a subservient contractual relationship to the state.

(Were you not educated in the public schools in regard to the

prohibition of involuntary servitude recognized and established in

the Federal Thirteenth Amendment? Were you sleeping in class

when the government paid "teacher" explained this in detail? Or

did your teachers "forget" to teach this to you? IF any of them

were themselves aware of it)

10. So then, the state presumes the DL applicant is intending to

apply to the state requesting the state to issue a franchise license

to the applicant to enable the state owned name on the birth

certificate presented, to be used by the applicant as the

applicant's "True Legal Name"'.

11. Once this franchise license "ceremony" has been completed


984

985

986

987

988

989

990

991

992

993

994

995

996

997

998

999

1000

1001

1002

1003

1004

1005

1006

1007

1008

1009

1010

1011

1012

1013

1014

1015

1016

the state then has standing to require the new franchisee to

conform to all rules established by the state for any activity the

new franchisee engages in under the auspices of that state owned

name.

12. The authority of the state to associate anyone with the name

is accomplished by the "voluntary" application of the applicant to

be issued a franchise license to use that state owned name as the

applicant's "True Legal Name". And such authority is further

established, CONstitutionally, in the Federal Fourteenth

Amendment, in the words: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

13. However, under Arkansas' abandoned property statute, any

abandoned property can be reclaimed by the original owner, or

such owner's heirs, anytime, with no time limit. Check the

abandoned property statute of your state to determine this

possibility in the state where you live.

Page 3 of 1


1017

1018

1019

1020

1021

1022

1023

1024

1025

1026

1027

1028

1029

1030

1031

1032

1033

1034

1035

1036

1037

1038

1039

1040

1041

1042

1043

1044

1045

1046

1047

1048

1049

14. I have established the validity of the foregoing line of state

ownership of names through Admit or Deny documents served on

the Arkansas State Governor, the state Attorney General, a state

senator and a state representative. More information in regard to

the Admit or Deny that I had served on Arkansas Governor Mike

Beebe is included herein below, and has been posted by me on

my public access Yahoo Group as message #377. Please read

on:

THE NOTICE & DEMAND NEUTRALIZES

ANY PROMISE TO APPEAR

15. I received another email pointing out to me that when issued

a traffic citation the cited person signs a promise to appear in

court, and if he does not appear an arrest warrant will be issued,

What should the person do?


1050

1051

1052

1053

1054

1055

1056

1057

1058

1059

1060

1061

1062

1063

1064

1065

1066

1067

1068

1069

1070

1071

1072

1073

1074

1075

1076

1077

1078

1079

1080

1081

1082

16. Please folks, what I have presented in my Notice and

Demand, and explained in this instant essay, addresses every

possible condition where the charged Wrongly Accused is either

alone or with someone.

17. Additionally, in the new version of my N&D (posted

concurrently with this item), I have specifically addressed this

citation created promise to appear issue.

18. In any event, the information on the N&D negates any

promise entered on any citation because, under the 46 appellate

court case citations annexed thereto as Exhibit “A”, it is clearly

establish that neither the state or court have authority to proceed

in any manner against the Wrongly Accused unless and until the

charging entity restores or establishes its jurisdictional authority

by presenting the required proof of jurisdiction in writing, on the

record, with an assertion that the purported proof will be testified

to in court by a living breathing eye witness. See case citations


1083

1084

1085

1086

1087

1088

1089

1090

1091

1092

1093

1094

1095

1096

1097

1098

1099

1100

1101

1102

1103

1104

1105

1106

1107

1108

1109

1110

1111

1112

1113

1114

1115

#39-45 in Exhibit “A”!

WHAT TO DO IF ARRESTED

AFTER SERVING MY N&D

19. It is quite common for traffic court judges to order arrest

warrants issued, to save face in open court, but then not actually

Page 4 of 1

issue them, because they know the State cannot overcome the

Demand presented in the N&D. If an arrest warrant is issued,

and you are arrested, if you stand your ground on the N&D you

had served on BOTH the State and the Court, they will have to

release you. But you must not in any manner cave, or you will

lose! Please read my essay on how to proceed if arrested after

serving my N&D.

20. In regard to my Notice & Demand, previously posted on my

old WHORU Yahoo Group, please disregard that version and any


1116

1117

1118

1119

1120

1121

1122

1123

1124

1125

1126

1127

1128

1129

1130

1131

1132

1133

1134

1135

1136

1137

1138

1139

1140

1141

1142

1143

1144

1145

1146

1147

1148

previous versions that may still be posted on my Group and use

only the NEW version posted concurrently with this new revised

Additional Comments presented here below:

21. First, everyone who has been served with any manner of

summons advising them that a court action has been filed against

them, could and should serve the Prosecutor (or private party

plaintiff), and ALSO SERVE UPON the Court, a Notice Demanding

the charging entity (no matter who the charging entity might be),

to present its proof that the charged individual has voluntarily

agreed to be subject to the jurisdiction of the State, AND, that

the charging entity will present a living, breathing eyewitness to

personally testify in court, under oath, that such witness

personally observed the Wrongly Accused being officially advised

by a State Official, that the Wrongly Accused had the option to

choose to opt out of whatever “ceremony” was being considered

and this witness will further testify that the Wrongly Accused was


1149

1150

1151

1152

1153

1154

1155

1156

1157

1158

1159

1160

1161

1162

1163

1164

1165

1166

1167

1168

1169

1170

1171

1172

1173

1174

1175

1176

1177

1178

1179

1180

1181

informed by the State Official that the Wrongly Accused had a

Naturally acquired right to live in this society without volunteering

into a subservient relationship to the state, including (but not

limited to), the Wrongly Accused’s right to drive any manner of

vehicle without having possession of a driver license, and that

this Wrongly Accused choose to enter himself voluntarily into a

subservient relationship to the State!!! Please see Case Citations

# 39 - 45 of Exhibit “A”.

22. This is appropriate even if the State is not the charging

entity, as all litigation proceeds under the authority of the state.

However that is true only IF it can be properly proved that the

Page 5 of 1

state has properly established some manner of jurisdiction over

the Wrongly Accused, acquired, in full conformance with the

Federal Thirteenth Amendment and Case Citation #46, which is

highly doubtful. Actually, impossible!


1182

1183

1184

1185

1186

1187

1188

1189

1190

1191

1192

1193

1194

1195

1196

1197

1198

1199

1200

1201

1202

1203

1204

1205

1206

1207

1208

1209

1210

1211

1212

1213

1214

THIS IS A NOTICE

A MOTION

23. Next, this is a NOTICE NOT a motion. A motion is a request

that the court grant a favor to the party filing the motion. The

filing of a motion constitutes an automatic acknowledgment that

the court has jurisdiction over the accused person filing any

motion, even a motion challenging jurisdiction.

24. You do NOT file a motion. You SERVE the charging entity

and you ALSO SERVE the court, a NOTICE, DEMANDING the state

prove it has more sovereignty than you do. And, you do NOT

include what you just read in the N&D!!!

25. This SERVING on the Court is a new ploy, initiated for the

very first time here in this N&D, its Exhibit “A”, and Certificate of

Service.

THE FALLACY OF SPECIAL APPEARANCE

26. Next, there are those who think that if they make a "Special


1215

1216

1217

1218

1219

1220

1221

1222

1223

1224

1225

1226

1227

1228

1229

1230

1231

1232

1233

1234

1235

1236

1237

1238

1239

1240

1241

1242

1243

1244

1245

1246

1247

Appearance" that they are protected. In order for a Special

Appearance to be accorded the person purporting to make the

Special Appearance is presumed to recognize the court's authority

to allow such appearance and that the court is willing to listen to

the arguments, and, for the court to then make a determination

as to the validity of the claims presented.

///

///

27. This is clearly a recognition of the jurisdiction of the State

over the person, with the State acting through the court. Using

this ploy will most certainly negate any Notice and Demand

previously served. NOT a good idea!

28. I know there are rules that establish that when the purpose

Page 6 of 1

of the Special Appearance is to challenge jurisdiction, that such

appearance does not constitute a recognition of jurisdiction.


1248

1249

1250

1251

1252

1253

1254

1255

1256

1257

1258

1259

1260

1261

1262

1263

1264

1265

1266

1267

1268

1269

1270

1271

1272

1273

1274

1275

1276

1277

1278

1279

1280

However, that rule is in regard to a challenge of the jurisdiction of

the court, not relevant to our challenge to the political jurisdiction

of the STATE!

29. Additionally, those making the Special Appearance will have

had to have filed a motion, and they will be required to state their

True Legal Name, for the record. As I wrote above, this is NOT a

good idea! It is known as, “Shooting yourself in the foot”.

30. As explained by SCOTUS in Exhibit “A”, paragraph 46, and as

Constitutionally established in the Federal Thirteenth

Amendment, the court, as an entity of the state, can only

converse and interact with those who are operating as an artificial

entity, under a “True Legal Name” franchise owned by the state,

so how can there possibly be any such thing as a "special

appearance" by a real live flesh and blood human not presumed

to be "appearing" under a True Legal Name?

31. Additionally, still on the issue of “Special Appearance”, why

would there be any need to make any manner of personal


1281

1282

1283

1284

1285

1286

1287

1288

1289

1290

1291

1292

1293

1294

1295

1296

1297

1298

1299

1300

1301

1302

1303

1304

1305

1306

1307

1308

1309

1310

1311

1312

1313

presentation of yourself to an entity that has absolutely no

manner or degree of authority over you? As a politically

sovereign individual do you need to plead with the court? To

grant you W-H-A-T???

THE COURT MUST BE INFORMED

OF HAVING NO STANDING

32. Next, when this Notice is served on the Charging Entity AND

SERVED on the Court (not merely filed with the court), those on

the receiving end (most especially the Court), are immediately

informed - NOTIFIED!! By the word "Notice", that they

(especially the Court), are not being requested to consider or

make a determination.

33. They are being presented with a Notice, from a politically

equal or politically superior entity, DEMANDING that the Charging

Entity present its proof that it has some manner of superior

Page 7 of 1


1314

1315

1316

1317

1318

1319

1320

1321

1322

1323

1324

1325

1326

1327

1328

1329

1330

1331

1332

1333

1334

1335

1336

1337

1338

1339

1340

1341

1342

1343

1344

1345

1346

commanding jurisdiction over the person serving the Demand,

acquired by the Wrongly Accused having willingly given up the

political independence the Wrongly Accused was born with.

34. And, as is clearly established in my N&D, the charging entity

must have available, not merely certified documents from the

government’s files, but a real live living eyewitness who will

testify in a court of law, under oath, that such eyewitness was

personally present and saw and heard you, the Wrongly Accused,

being informed by an on duty Government Official, who informed

you that you were born free and politically independent from any

manner of government intervention in your life.

35. Additionally, it is asserted by the charging entity, that this

eyewitness will testify, that such Government Official further

informed you that you were at that moment able to drive your

motor vehicle without any manner of government issued driver

license; and that you could engage in any manner of livelihood

without any manner of government issued license or permit and


1347

1348

1349

1350

1351

1352

1353

1354

1355

1356

1357

1358

1359

1360

1361

1362

1363

1364

1365

1366

1367

1368

1369

1370

1371

1372

1373

1374

1375

1376

1377

1378

1379

without any obligation to pay any manner of taxation. And, this

eyewitness will further testify, under oath, in a court of law, that

this eyewitness heard you acknowledge all the rights you had

been thereupon reminded of that you would be relinquishing, and

that you none the less eagerly agreed to give them all up in order

for you to be subservient to the government. This argument is

supported by Exhibit “A”, paragraphs # 39-45.

36. And, you do NOT present or mention your political status in

your N&D!!! If you were to make such claim then the burden of

proof could be determined to shift to you and you could be called

upon to prove it. By your not mentioning it you keep the burden

of proof on the charging entity! You have no need to present

your political status!

37. When the word "Notice" is followed by the word "Demand",

the served parties, including the Court, are thereby informed -


1380

1381

1382

1383

1384

1385

1386

1387

1388

1389

1390

1391

1392

1393

1394

1395

1396

1397

1398

1399

1400

1401

1402

1403

1404

1405

1406

1407

1408

1409

1410

1411

1412

NOTIFIED, that the person serving them is contending that he

has been Wrongly Accused because he is asserting that he is not

subject to their jurisdiction (no matter that he signed a promise

Page 8 of 1

to appear), and that if the served entities contend otherwise,

those claiming jurisdiction must present their proof that they

have properly gained such jurisdiction, through the voluntary and

fully informed intentional submission of the challenging Wrongly

Accused person, without the charging entity having violated the

Federal Thirteenth Amendment and in compliance with Exhibit

“A”, ¶46. AND, neither do you add any of this to the N&D!!!

“APPEARING” IN COURT

38. Next, "appearance". In order to understand why the word

"appear" is used in court, consider the meaning of the word,

"disappear".

39. "Disappear" means to suddenly vanish, poof, gone, to be no

longer visible, to be no longer present where it was a moment


1413

1414

1415

1416

1417

1418

1419

1420

1421

1422

1423

1424

1425

1426

1427

1428

1429

1430

1431

1432

1433

1434

1435

1436

1437

1438

1439

1440

1441

1442

1443

1444

1445

ago.

40. "Appear" means the opposite of "Disappear". "Appear"

means to suddenly materialize,. For something or someone to

suddenly be present where it did not previously exist; to have

suddenly materialized and then be visible or at least to be

recognized as being present where it previously was not.

MORE ON THE STATE’S

TRUE LEGAL NAME

ENSLAVEMENT SCAM

41. This is the State’s ploy to work around the Natural inherent

barrier preventing the artificial entity State, from directly inter

relating with real live humans, acknowledged by the United

States Supreme Court Case Citation set forth in Paragraph 46 of

Exhibit “A”, wherein the Supreme Court of the United States

presented its analysis acknowledging that it is impossible for

artificial entities such as governments, to directly interact with


1446

1447

1448

1449

1450

1451

1452

1453

1454

1455

1456

1457

1458

1459

1460

1461

1462

1463

1464

1465

1466

1467

1468

1469

1470

1471

1472

1473

1474

1475

1476

1477

1478

real live tangible human persons.

42. This Natural inherent barrier “required” those persons

wrongly managing government to devise a means whereby the

state could “legitimately” require real live Naturally politically

independent humans to somehow become subservient to the

Page 9 of 1

state.

43. What the State has done in establishing this “True Legal

Name” (“TLN”), ploy can not and does not change the fact that as

it is an artificial entity the State cannot interact directly with real

live tangible persons.

44. SO those politicians wrongly managing the State devised the

ploy of having real live persons represent an artificial persona

owned by the state, to be known as a “True Legal Name” ( “TLN”)

by having the real live person “represent himself”, by having the

TLN “appear” through the representation of the real live human.


1479

1480

1481

1482

1483

1484

1485

1486

1487

1488

1489

1490

1491

1492

1493

1494

1495

1496

1497

1498

1499

1500

1501

1502

1503

1504

1505

1506

1507

1508

1509

1510

1511

45. Consider "appear" together with "represent" and or

"represent yourself". In order for an entity to be in a condition of

"representing", there must be at least two entities involved.

46. When you “represent yourself”, the two entities involved are

your physical human entity representing and speaking for the

artificial persona “True Legal name” that gas no ability to speak

for itself, created for you by the State at your request because

you had been fraudulently indoctrinated by the State to believe

you were applying for a driver license.

47. When a defendant is represented by an attorney everyone

presumes the two entities involved are the attorney and the

defendant. In truth, however, there are four entities involved.

///

///

48. This quadrangle is comprised of the two real live flesh and

blood human beings (the attorney and the client), and the two


1512

1513

1514

1515

1516

1517

1518

1519

1520

1521

1522

1523

1524

1525

1526

1527

1528

1529

1530

1531

1532

1533

1534

1535

1536

1537

1538

1539

1540

1541

1542

1543

1544

artificial personas (being the two “True Legal Names”), assumed

by the spirits living in those two physical human beings bodies.

49. It is important here to understand that these two artificial

personas are “appearing” in the Court as franchisees using “True

Legal Names”, owned by the State, that such “names” were not

part of the physical entities as created by Nature.

Page 10 of 1

50. These artificial personas are the "True Legal Name"

franchises assigned by the State to the physical bodies when the

physical bodies had been fraudulently indoctrinated to believe

they were simply applying for a driver license. The DL applicant

was first, unknowingly, (through the presentation of the birth

certificate), “voluntarily” applying to the State, requesting that

the State grant the human bodies a franchise license to use

names entered on birth certificates, where, unknown and

unrevealed to the DL applicants, the names on the birth

certificates had previously become owned by the state under the


1545

1546

1547

1548

1549

1550

1551

1552

1553

1554

1555

1556

1557

1558

1559

1560

1561

1562

1563

1564

1565

1566

1567

1568

1569

1570

1571

1572

1573

1574

1575

1576

1577

state's abandoned property statutes.

NO PAYTRI-IDIOT

NONSCENSE HERE

51. I want it clearly understood that the foregoing explanation

has nothing what-so-ever to do with the Paytri-Idiocy claiming

that the entry of the name on BCs by parents causes the baby

referenced therein to become the property of the state. Nothing

could be further from the truth.

52. And neither is there any truth in the Paytri-Idiot contention

that birth certificates are bundled and sold to investors.

REPRESENTING YOURSELF

53. The above explanation of how names become "True Legal

Names" in conjunction with "representing yourself" comes as a

result of careful analysis of the required presentation of a BC to

the state, whereby the state acquires standing to issue or require

the possession of a driver license.


1578

1579

1580

1581

1582

1583

1584

1585

1586

1587

1588

1589

1590

1591

1592

1593

1594

1595

1596

1597

1598

1599

1600

1601

1602

1603

1604

1605

1606

1607

1608

1609

1610

54. Hollywood movie actor Richard Gere "appears" as Lancelot in

the movie, First Knight. I highly recommend everyone watch the

first five minutes of that movie, formerly posted on my Yahoo

Group as conversation #312, but apparently removed by those

who are afraid of the truth.

ABANDONED PROPERTY STATUTES

ENABLE STATE NAME OWNERSHIP

55. It is important here to understand that there is no

Page 11 of 1

information on any BC that can be used to connect any BC to any

particular person. No human ever born has the ability to have

personal knowledge as to where or when they were born or who

their own mother was. No one can properly, lawfully or legally

claim any ownership interest in the birth certificate that was

created to record their birth, and neither can they properly legally

or lawfully claim any ownership interest of the name entered


1611

1612

1613

1614

1615

1616

1617

1618

1619

1620

1621

1622

1623

1624

1625

1626

1627

1628

1629

1630

1631

1632

1633

1634

1635

1636

1637

1638

1639

1640

1641

1642

1643

thereon. (That is, unless the statutes of their state allow a

reclaiming of abandoned property and the state's procedures are

followed).

56. The child had absolutely nothing to do with the selection of

the name, or the entry thereof on any birth certificate, or of the

filing of that document with the government.

57. Every state has a statute regarding the disposition of

abandoned property. In Arkansas where I live it is under Title

18, Chapter 28, Section 202. Under Section 202 Arkansas

becomes the owner of all property deemed to have been

abandoned, not specified in previous sections, five years after

such property was last contacted by its last known (or unknown)

owner. Because of this, Arkansas becomes the owner of all

names five years after the filing of the birth certificates.

58. Every state has similar abandoned property statutes.


1644

1645

1646

1647

1648

1649

1650

1651

1652

1653

1654

1655

1656

1657

1658

1659

1660

1661

1662

1663

1664

1665

1666

1667

1668

1669

1670

1671

1672

1673

1674

1675

1676

Therefore it is impossible for anyone to properly claim ownership

of the name entered on any birth certificate (see exception noted

above in ¶ 55).

59. This is not a significant problem, however the knowledge

hereof makes it easier to understand how the states use the birth

certificate, True Legal Name driver license scam to fraudulently

gain dominion over those who unknowingly and unintentionally

volunteer themselves into this subservience scam.

60. Anyone can use a name seemingly identical to the name

entered on "their" birth certificate, without causing them to

become subservient to the state. Simply stop claiming the name

they use was derived from a birth certificate.

Page 12 of 1

61. This can reasonably be established because you did not

become attached to your name because it was written on a paper

document that you had nothing to do with and did not understand


1677

1678

1679

1680

1681

1682

1683

1684

1685

1686

1687

1688

1689

1690

1691

1692

1693

1694

1695

1696

1697

1698

1699

1700

1701

1702

1703

1704

1705

1706

1707

1708

1709

and could not read.

HOW YOU ACTUALLY

ACQUIRED YOUR NAME

62. You became attached to your name by the utterance thereof

by your mother and father. They used their human voices to

orally utter a special sound that became your name. You learned

it and it became attached to you by your hearing it through your

ears. It became your property through a Natural process that

had absolutely nothing to do with any birth certificate. So stop

claiming the birth certificate as your source!

THE LAW OF NECESSITY

63. Additionally, the Law of Necessity can allow anyone to use a

driver license for identification purposes and a Social Security

Number to maintain employment and a bank account, and still

not be operating under any franchise license issued by the state.

I determined this by applying the dicta written by the Supreme


1710

1711

1712

1713

1714

1715

1716

1717

1718

1719

1720

1721

1722

1723

1724

1725

1726

1727

1728

1729

1730

1731

1732

1733

1734

1735

1736

1737

1738

1739

1740

1741

1742

Court of the United States in a case named, Holy Trinity Church

vs, United States, 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226.

However, such DL must not be presented to a police officer

during a traffic stop, except for identification purposes. It would

be much better to convert that DL into a state issued ID card,

however that too has inherent problems with vehicle insurance

and in some states, vehicle registration. So, depending on your

individual preference and ability to talk in a friendly manner to

police officers, you determine which document would best serve

your needs.

BIRTH CERTIFICATE SCAM PROVED

BY ADMIT OR DENY DISCOVERY

64. During a no driver license prosecution of me in Arkansas in

2009, I served the state governor, attorney general, a state

senator and representative, with Admit or Deny documents (the

one served on the governor is posted on my public access Yahoo

Page 13 of 1


1743

1744

1745

1746

1747

1748

1749

1750

1751

1752

1753

1754

1755

1756

1757

1758

1759

1760

1761

1762

1763

1764

1765

1766

1767

1768

1769

1770

1771

1772

1773

1774

1775

Group as conversation #377), which the rules of court required

him to respond to within thirty days, or everything asserted

therein would be deemed admitted by him.

65. The governor did not respond until sixty days had passed,

causing everything therein to be deemed admitted as correct,

under the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.

66. (The Governor did not ever respond to deny anything

asserted. Instead he filed a motion to quash, which was granted

by a judge who was presiding over hearings conducted under two

arrest warrants that had expired three years before I was

arrested, causing her rulings to be void, due to fraudulent illegal

prosecution and, more significantly, because of the fact that the

Governor’s motion to quash was not filed timely, and was not

properly legally founded.

67. This case against me was dismissed but the dismissal was

not based on my serving a N&D, but was based on Arkansas state


1776

1777

1778

1779

1780

1781

1782

1783

1784

1785

1786

1787

1788

1789

1790

1791

1792

1793

1794

1795

1796

1797

1798

1799

1800

1801

1802

1803

1804

1805

1806

1807

1808

law that invalidates anything done under an expired arrest

warrant.)

68. The case was dismissed when I filed with the Arkansas

District Court, a Demand to be accorded a trial by jury, the first

time any such trial had ever been granted in Arkansas in regard

to a traffic citation. The case was transferred to the Arkansas

Circuit Court, and dismissed when I brought the expired arrest

warrants to the attention of the circuit court judge. But the

Admissions of Governor Beebe (and the three additional Arkansas

politicians mentioned herein above), are none-the-less, deemed

admitted and therefore, valid.

69. If you do not understand the irrefutable self-evident facts set

forth herein in regard to your inability to have any personal

knowledge as to the facts of your birth, then you need to do

some very serious thinking!!! And be ready to explain how you


1809

1810

1811

1812

1813

1814

1815

1816

1817

1818

1819

1820

1821

1822

1823

1824

1825

1826

1827

1828

1829

1830

1831

1832

1833

1834

1835

1836

1837

1838

1839

1840

1841

came to such personal knowledge. There is a considerable

difference between strong belief and actual personal knowledge.

Personal knowledge can only be acquired when a person is an

Page 14 of 1

eyewitness to an event and has the cognitive ability to take

cognitive notice of the event as it occurs. Acquiring information

by your parents telling you, does NOT constitute personal

knowledge - it is legally known as hearsay.

BACK TO THE ISSUE OF ARTIFICIAL PERSONAS,

APPEARING AND REPRESENTATION

70. Because these artificial personas ("True Legal Names"), are

not physical entities, they are unable to speak for themselves, so

the flesh and blood entities must speak for them, must represent

them in court, enabling them to "appear".

71. This is not readily apparent or easily understood when an


1842

1843

1844

1845

1846

1847

1848

1849

1850

1851

1852

1853

1854

1855

1856

1857

1858

1859

1860

1861

1862

1863

1864

1865

1866

1867

1868

1869

1870

1871

1872

1873

1874

accused is represented by an attorney, but is more easily

understood when an accused is purported to "represent himself"

in court.

72. Because the artificial persona cannot speak for itself, the

flesh and blood must be present to speak for the artificial

persona. When the case is called, and the flesh and blood entity

comes forward and states his "True Legal Name" for the record,

such being the artificial persona, the artificial persona then

suddenly "appears" before the court, thereby causing two entities

to be present with the real live flesh and blood entity being

physically present to speak for and represent the artificial

persona that does not physically exist. (It does exist, and is NOT

fictional, but artificial).

73. Think of Walmart. You have never ever actually gone to

Walmart. You think you have but you have not. Walmart is a


1875

1876

1877

1878

1879

1880

1881

1882

1883

1884

1885

1886

1887

1888

1889

1890

1891

1892

1893

1894

1895

1896

1897

1898

1899

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

corporation. Walmart does not physically exist. Walmart exists

only in the corporate papers which created Walmart as an

artificial persona. Where you have gone many times is to stores

owned by the Walmart corporation.

THE ERROR INHERENT IN

DESIGNATION AS DEFENDANT

74. Next is "defendant". When you designate yourself as a

"defendant" in papers you serve or file, no matter what you might

Page 15 of 1

present in the body of those papers, your designation of yourself

as "defendant" constitutes your acknowledgment that your

political status is such that properly allows you to be charged by

the plaintiff, and that in order for the charges to be dismissed,

you have acknowledged that you must present mitigating

information of some manner, to be evaluated by the court, for


1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

the court to determine whether or not the trial should go forward

against you.

75. Thereby you have acknowledged the jurisdiction of the court,

which is an entity of the state, so you have thereby likewise

acknowledged the jurisdiction of the state, over you.

76. All of this is covered in my Notice and Demand as written.

Do NOT change the content or wording or present yourself in

their court after serving it because if you do, you will lose!

77. An accused who contends that he is not subject to any

manner of jurisdiction of the charging entity, must not shoot

himself in the foot by designating himself as a defendant, no

matter that the charging entity and the court designate the

accused as being a defendant.

78. When an accused contends he is not subject to any manner

of jurisdiction of the charging entity, the accused must properly


1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

designate himself as "Wrongly Accused", or even better, as

"Wrongly Accused Belligerent Litigant". Read what Federal Judge

Fee stated in United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D.

Pa. 1947):

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded

to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of

his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING

clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained

COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is

valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in

person. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or

moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than

make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He

Page 16 of 1

must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in

contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus. McAlister vs.


1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671;

Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813;

Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175"

79. Although Judge Fee's comment is specific to self-

incrimination, it applies to every instance where your rights are

an issue. Your rights belong to you, they are an integral part of

you, they cannot be asserted by anyone on your behalf.

80. Can you imagine that any attorney you hired would stand up

to the judge and insist that the government (or whomever the

plaintiff might be) does not have standing to proceed against you

until it presents proof that you agreed to submit yourself to these

proceedings? And must be attested to in court, by a living

eyewitness?

POLITICAL JURISDICTION

81. Next, Political jurisdiction, What is political jurisdiction

("PJ")? Everything that occurs under any level of government,

where the government is involved, is political.


2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

82. In conformance with Natural Law, governments only operate

over real live humans through some manner of voluntary

submission; as declared by SCOTUS in 1795, as presented in

Exhibit “A”, as Case Citation ¶46, and as embodied in the Federal

CONstitution, in the Thirteenth Amendment thereto.

THE TWO STYLES OF JURISDICTION

83. In order for the government to be able to have and exercise

controlling authority over any individual human, the government

must first entice each individual to volunteer himself into

submission, known as jurisdiction, I characterize this as political

jurisdiction or civil contract jurisdiction, depending on the

circumstances.

84. For all practical purposes the two jurisdictions are the same,

they both have the exact same effect on the individual’s degree

Page 17 of 1


2040

2041

2042

2043

2044

2045

2046

2047

2048

2049

2050

2051

2052

2053

2054

2055

2056

2057

2058

2059

2060

2061

2062

2063

2064

2065

2066

2067

2068

2069

2070

2071

2072

of submission, being total and complete. However, when dealing

with the opposition in legal matters it can be critically important

to mention the specific style of jurisdiction that is applicable and

if that is difficult to determine, then mention both!

CITIZENSHIP JURISDICTION

85. Those who volunteer themselves into political jurisdiction are

deemed to be "citizens". It took me some time to weed out all

the nonsense in regard to how United States citizenship is

acquired, but when I did I came to understand that the one and

only way a real live person born on the land area claimed by the

government of the United States to be under its political

jurisdiction, is through the voluntary claiming act of each

individual.

86. This determination is supported by both the 13th and 14th

Amendments, and in Exhibit “A” Case Cite ¶ 46.

87. "Citizenship" is clearly NOT acquired through birth, or under

the Fourteenth Amendment or through a driver license


2073

2074

2075

2076

2077

2078

2079

2080

2081

2082

2083

2084

2085

2086

2087

2088

2089

2090

2091

2092

2093

2094

2095

2096

2097

2098

2099

2100

2101

2102

2103

2104

2105

application, Social Security application, the use of Federal

Reserve Notes or any other means deemed by Paytri-Idiots to be

"adhesion contracts".

88. There is no such thing as an unrevealed adhesion contract.

In order for anyone to be held accountable to a contract, the

person must have been informed or at least given the opportunity

to become informed and consciously knowingly declined to be

informed while still agreeing to the contract.

89. According to the rules established by government, the terms

of any and all contracts must be fully disclosed or the contract is

either void or non existent.

90. The Notice and Demand that I designed requires the

charging entity to present its proof, from its files existing at the

time and date that the charges were lodged against the Wrongly


2106

2107

2108

2109

2110

2111

2112

2113

2114

2115

2116

2117

2118

2119

2120

2121

2122

2123

2124

2125

2126

2127

2128

2129

2130

2131

2132

2133

2134

2135

2136

2137

2138

Accused (when the citation was issued, NOT at the later time and

date when a complaint was filed with the court and the

Page 18 of 1

arraignment date was set or thereafter, when the N&D is served

and filed by the Wrongly Accused), that the charging entity had

gained political jurisdiction over the Wrongly Accused in full

compliance with the prohibition of involuntary servitude

recognized and established in the Federal Thirteenth Amendment.

91. AND, that any documentary evidence presented by the

opposition MUST and will be substantiated by the oral testimony

of a living eyewitness who will testify in a court of law, that the

eyewitness was present and observed a government official

inform the Wrongly Accused of what the Wrongly Accused would

be giving up and surrendering himself into, and that having been

thus informed, that the Wrongly Accused still went ahead and

volunteered himself into either political or contractual servitude to

the government.


2139

2140

2141

2142

2143

2144

2145

2146

2147

2148

2149

2150

2151

2152

2153

2154

2155

2156

2157

2158

2159

2160

2161

2162

2163

2164

2165

2166

2167

2168

2169

2170

2171

92. Which brings me to "civil contract" jurisdiction. This is

presented in considerable detail herein below, but for the

moment, "civil contract" jurisdiction is acquired by the state when

a free born person "voluntarily" presents a birth certificate to (he

thinks), be issued a driver license. However, before the state has

standing to issue or require anyone to apply for or possess a

driver license, the state must first, through some means, entice

the free born person to volunteer himself into some manner of

subservience to the state. This is self-evident due to the

prohibition of involuntary servitude of the Federal Thirteenth

Amendment, and the 1795 writing of the SCOTUS presented in

Exhibit “A”, Item # 46.

93. When the driver license applicant presents a birth certificate

( which is NOT his property), to be issued a DL, the very first


2172

2173

2174

2175

2176

2177

2178

2179

2180

2181

2182

2183

2184

2185

2186

2187

2188

2189

2190

2191

2192

2193

2194

2195

2196

2197

2198

2199

2200

2201

2202

2203

2204

unknown and unrevealed event during that "official ceremony" is

the granting of a franchise license to the applicant, for the

applicant to thereafter use that state owned name as the

applicant's "True Legal Name".

94. Thereafter, anytime the person engages in any activity under

that state owned name, the person will be required to conform to

CIVIL CONTRACT JURISDICTION

Page 19 of 1

any rules enacted by the state in regard to that activity, such as

paying income tax, getting married with a license and or

"educating" or inoculating their children, among one or two other

government regulated activities.

95. As mentioned above, the Notice and Demand that I designed

requires the charging entity to present its proof, from its files

existing at the time and date that the charges were lodged


2205

2206

2207

2208

2209

2210

2211

2212

2213

2214

2215

2216

2217

2218

2219

2220

2221

2222

2223

2224

2225

2226

2227

2228

2229

2230

2231

2232

2233

2234

2235

2236

2237

against the Wrongly Accused (when the citation was issued, NOT

at the later time and date when a complaint was filed with the

court and the arraignment date was set or thereafter, when the

N&D is served and filed by the Wrongly Accused), that the

charging entity had gained civil contract jurisdiction over the

Wrongly Accused in full compliance with the prohibition of

involuntary servitude recognized and established in the Federal

Thirteenth Amendment, with a living eyewitness to testify

thereto.

///

///

96. Next, the outcome. Please understand that the governments

of this society have a very serious problem. The citizens of this

country have demanded more and more perks to be provided by

the government, all of these are very expensive.

97. The governments (plural), must through some means raise


2238

2239

2240

2241

2242

2243

2244

2245

2246

2247

2248

2249

2250

2251

2252

2253

2254

2255

2256

2257

2258

2259

2260

2261

2262

2263

2264

2265

2266

2267

2268

2269

2270

or acquire the money to pay for all these ever increasing perks,

not to overlook the ever increasing numbers of persons receiving

these expensive perks.

98. The governments have implemented taxation on everything

realistically possible, and raised these taxes to the maximum that

will be tolerated. The Federal Government has utilized its option

of creating money out of thin air to the point that such inflation

has caused the current dollar to have less purchasing power than

S&H Green Stamps.

99. State governments do not have that option and have devised

the fraudulent birth certificate driver license True Legal Name

THE OUTCOME

Page 20 of 1

scam to bring all those who have been too busy to pay attention,

under the political and or civil contract jurisdiction of the state


2271

2272

2273

2274

2275

2276

2277

2278

2279

2280

2281

2282

2283

2284

2285

2286

2287

2288

2289

2290

2291

2292

2293

2294

2295

2296

2297

2298

2299

2300

2301

2302

2303

governments.

100. There is no doubt or question that what these governments

have been and are doing is totally fraudulent, but the

governments have been doing this for so long that their scam has

been incorporated into our society to such an extent that we can't

hardly function without claiming a birth certificate in order to be

issued a driver license for identification purposes, and Social

Security Numbers in order to be employed and or open bank

accounts (not to overlook, paying income taxes).

101. If any significant percentage of our population were to

understand what I have written here, and utilize the Notice and

Demand that I have devised, the financial impact on the

government would be devastating.


2304

2305

2306

2307

2308

2309

2310

2311

2312

2313

2314

2315

2316

2317

2318

2319

2320

2321

2322

2323

2324

2325

2326

2327

2328

2329

2330

2331

2332

2333

2334

2335

2336

102. Because of the irrefutable self-evident facts that I have

presented herein, the possibility of any charging entity

responding to present any manner of proof of its jurisdiction over

any Wrongly Accused is highly unlikely. Anything the prosecution

or opposition might present will only be on the record because of

the government's fraud in inducing everyone into some manner

of subservience.

103. There is no statute of limitation in regard to fraud. And, the

requirement that the government bring forward a living

eyewitness to testify as to the voluntary act of the Wrongly

Accused, will be totally impossible as there was no such fully

informed voluntary act and there cannot possibly be a real live

eyewitness to testify thereto.

104. That is, there is no possibility what-so-ever that the

government can ever establish any manner of jurisdiction over

the Wrongly Accused. Because of this the government, the

charging entity and the court, will drop the matter, just let it die.


2337

2338

2339

2340

2341

2342

2343

2344

2345

2346

2347

2348

2349

2350

2351

2352

2353

2354

2355

2356

2357

2358

2359

2360

2361

2362

2363

2364

2365

2366

2367

2368

2369

There is no possibility that the court is going to make an official

ruling against the government in favor of the Wrongly Accused!

Page 21 of 1

105. I first applied this jurisdictional attack in Federal Court in

1970, where the IRS had charged me with criminal intent to fail

to file or pay income tax. I walked out of that court in less than

five minutes and have never ever been bothered by the IRS

since, and neither have I ever filed or paid.

106. However, that Federal Court did not give me a clear win,

the court did not enter a ruling on my behalf, not on your life!

That court informed me that it was taking the matter under

consideration and I would be notified. That was forty-five years

ago and I am still waiting.

107. If any of the Paytri-Idiot adhesion contracts or Fourteenth


2370

2371

2372

2373

2374

2375

2376

2377

2378

2379

2380

2381

2382

2383

2384

2385

2386

2387

2388

2389

2390

2391

2392

2393

2394

2395

2396

2397

2398

2399

2400

2401

2402

Amendment citizenship by birth certificate issues were actually

true, then why did the Federal Judge in the IRS prosecution of me

not apply them to me and convict me and sent me to prison for

several years, as they did my partner in the 1969 income tax

rebellion which resulted in our prosecution by the IRS.

108. My partner was convicted and spent several years in

Federal prison because he went to court represented by an

attorney.

109. I was the out front leader of that income tax rebellion. I

gave hundreds of presentations to thousands of attendants at

meetings all over Southern California and wrote many articles

against the income tax which were widely published.

110. My partner did not give even one presentation and neither

did he write even one article against the income tax. He was the

financial backer. I was the one the IRS really wanted to send to

prison, but they could not establish any manner of jurisdiction


2403

2404

2405

2406

2407

2408

2409

2410

2411

2412

2413

2414

2415

2416

2417

2418

2419

2420

2421

2422

2423

2424

2425

2426

2427

2428

2429

2430

2431

2432

2433

2434

2435

over me.

111. But, please understand, that Federal Court judge did NOT

give me a declared win over the IRS!

112. These are issues where the government cannot win and

Page 22 of 1

dares not lose. Although it is clear that I totally defeated the IRS

in that 1970 incident, no one can use that case as a case citation,

because, technically, that case is still pending.

113. There have been many members of my group who have

used the generic IRS letters, (now posted on my new Private,

member only Yahoo Group), to rid themselves of the IRS. Many

of them are drawing Social Security and other government

financial benefits, but are no longer hassled by the IRS in regard

to income tax filing or paying.


2436

2437

2438

2439

2440

2441

2442

2443

2444

2445

2446

2447

2448

2449

2450

2451

2452

2453

2454

2455

2456

2457

2458

2459

2460

2461

2462

2463

2464

2465

2466

2467

2468

114. There is a current case in Florida where Terry is being

prosecuted for filing fraudulent charges against government

officials.

///

///

115. As I understand this case, Terry had been the foreman of a

statutorily created Grand Jury where the government prosecutor

kept interfering with investigations initiated by the Grand Jury

instead of having been initiated by the government prosecutor.

Because of this prosecutor interference, Terry disbanded the

government created Grand Jury and Terry then purported to

create his own Grand Jury under the Florida Constitution which

proclaims that all power is inherent in the people.

116. This self proclaimed Grand Jury then proceeded to file

charges with the county authorities against several government


2469

2470

2471

2472

2473

2474

2475

2476

2477

2478

2479

2480

2481

2482

2483

2484

2485

2486

2487

2488

2489

2490

2491

2492

2493

2494

2495

2496

2497

2498

2499

2500

2501

officials. As the ring leader Terry was arrested and charged with

from 9 to 12 charges of making false charges, each one with a

maximum penalty of five years in prison.

117. Terry has been counseled by certain men in Florida, and

advised to file a Notice and Demand that I created especially for

Terry, in which was included the statement that Terry would not

present himself in court unless and until the State of Florida

presented facts to prove it had properly gained some manner of

jurisdiction over Terry, in full conformance with the Federal

Thirteenth Amendment.

Page 23 of 1

118. Terry has refused to file this and is insisting that he wants

to go to court, to have a trial by jury, so that he can be

exonerated of all these "phony" charges.


2502

2503

2504

2505

2506

2507

2508

2509

2510

2511

2512

2513

2514

2515

2516

2517

2518

2519

2520

2521

2522

2523

2524

2525

2526

2527

2528

2529

2530

2531

2532

2533

2534

119. This is not a trial limited to Terry, this is a trial brought

forward because of Terry's self created Common Law Grand Jury.

There was a hearing on December 12th, last, in which the judge

determined that Terry was competent to "represent himself" in a

trial that was at that time set to be held on February 9th.

120. After that his 12/12/14 hearing Terry did then serve and

filed a version of my N&D that he had modified, without

consulting with me, taking out the paragraphs informing the court

that he would not be appearing at any event set by the court

unless and until STATE OF FLORIDA presented proof of its

jurisdiction over Terry that Terry could not refute.

121. After serving and filing that now totally ineffective N&D,

Terry then filed a MOTION, requesting a 90 day continuance of

the trial date for the purpose of deposing witnesses.

122. The Florida court gleefully (I am sure), granted Terry’s 90

day continuance request, denied his N&D, characterizing it as a


2535

2536

2537

2538

2539

2540

2541

2542

2543

2544

2545

2546

2547

2548

2549

2550

2551

2552

2553

2554

2555

2556

2557

2558

2559

2560

2561

2562

2563

2564

2565

2566

2567

motion, and also denied Terry’s request to depose witnesses.

123. The last I had heard about Terry, was that he had hired an

attorney, who demanded a $10,000.00 retainer, and that it was

expected that this attorney would negotiate a plea bargain where

Terry would be placed on extended probation and ordered to pay

a substantial fine.

124. To me this prosecution of Terry has been and is a clear

move against the Common Law Grand Jury Movement now so

active throughout this country.

125. There are those who hope to work out some manner of

protocol wherein the government would support the creation of

Common Law Grand Juries by those who style themselves as

being the People of Florida. The argument of those advocating

such Grand Juries is that such is necessary to straighten out the

Page 24 of 1


2568

2569

2570

2571

2572

2573

2574

2575

2576

2577

2578

2579

2580

2581

2582

2583

2584

2585

2586

2587

2588

2589

2590

2591

2592

2593

2594

2595

2596

2597

2598

2599

2600

fraudulent system which caused and allowed Terry to be charged

when all Terry was doing was what he should have done, bring

facts indicating corruption to the attention of the Florida

authorities.

126. I consider their Grand Jury endeavor to be more than

totally hopeless. The manner in which this prosecution of Terry

has proceeded thus far: Terry being arrested in court for failing

to appear in court because, when the case was called, instead of

answering with the commonly accepted response (indicating he

was appearing there under his "True Legal Name"), Terry instead

said that he was there to respond in regard to that matter (or

some similar Paytri-Idiot words), whereupon the judge ordered

Terry arrested, for failing to appear, causing Terry to remain in

jail for twenty-one days, until he was brought back before the

court and then released on his posting of a substantial bond.


2601

2602

2603

2604

2605

2606

2607

2608

2609

2610

2611

2612

2613

2614

2615

2616

2617

2618

2619

2620

2621

2622

2623

2624

2625

2626

2627

2628

2629

2630

2631

2632

2633

127. Terry has characterized himself as (1) a defendant and (2)

is appearing and (3) is representing himself. Three strikes and

you are OUT!

128. Terry’s friends are incensed at the Florida Judge for

arresting Terry for failing to appear when Terry was in fact

physically present in the court. What his friends fail to

understand is the impossibility of the court interacting with Terry

unless Terry “appeared” in that court as an artificial persona,

“acting” under a “True Legal Name”.

129. I agree that the judge acted wrongly in having Terry

arrested and held in jail for 21 days. As Terry had not presented

himself properly under a TLN, the judge had no standing to have

Terry arrested and held in jail. It seems that this judge had not

been well schooled as most judges have, in how to handle a

Paytri-Idiot such as Terry. What the judge should have done is


2634

2635

2636

2637

2638

2639

2640

2641

2642

2643

2644

2645

2646

2647

2648

2649

2650

2651

2652

2653

2654

2655

2656

2657

2658

2659

2660

2661

2662

2663

2664

2665

2666

have Terry thrown out of the courtroom as a trespasser.

130. To expect that the authorities of Florida are going to agree

to establish any manner of protocol allowing and recognizing

indictment authority to be exercised by Grand Juries formulated

Page 25 of 1

by those who claim to be of the People of Florida, could not be

more unrealistic.

131. I strongly contend that the one and only way that any such

Grand Juries could be created in Florida, or anywhere, would be

by those concerned about the corruption who want to be able to

create Grand Juries outside of the corrupted government, where

such grand Juries will be required to be recognized by the

authorities, that these concerned People must strive to have an

initiative placed on the ballot, and voted upon by the citizens of

Florida and or other states.

///


2667

2668

2669

2670

2671

2672

2673

2674

2675

2676

2677

2678

2679

2680

2681

2682

2683

2684

2685

2686

2687

2688

2689

2690

2691

2692

2693

2694

2695

2696

2697

2698

2699

///

132. I contend that the expected conviction of Terry, that the

manner in which the charges were brought, have enabled this

issue to be widely addressed by the media in Florida and

elsewhere in this country. I contend that those citizens of

Florida, who have no inkling of what I have presented in this

instant essay, would be outraged at the way Terry has been

persecuted by the Florida authorities, and that such outrage could

be used to gain sufficient support for such an initiative to be

passed by the Florida electorate.

133. I think the weak point in the argument of those advocating

such a Grand Jury creation is in their insistence of the invocation

of the Common Law. There is no such thing as a determined

Common Law. The Common Law is unwritten. Its

"interpretation" is totally up to each individual man or woman,


2700

2701

2702

2703

2704

2705

2706

2707

2708

2709

2710

2711

2712

2713

2714

2715

2716

2717

2718

2719

2720

2721

2722

2723

2724

2725

2726

2727

2728

2729

2730

2731

2732

formed and enforced in their local communities by their

agreement as to what should be tolerated or forbidden on a

moment by moment basis.

134. This is not necessarily bad, because the views of morality in

any given community are fairly well developed in each such

community, however the moral views of what would be tolerated

in San Francisco, California and Key West Florida will be

diametrically opposed to what would be tolerated in Atlanta,

Georgia or Yellville, Arkansas.

Page 26 of 1

135. This divergence of what constitutes common law will be

used against those of Florida attempting to root out government

corruption, to root out what is considered corruption that would

not be tolerated in either San Francisco or Atlanta, but the

powers that be are not interested in where agreement might be


2733

2734

2735

2736

2737

2738

2739

2740

2741

2742

2743

2744

2745

2746

2747

2748

2749

2750

2751

2752

2753

2754

2755

2756

2757

2758

2759

2760

2761

2762

2763

2764

2765

the norm, they will only be interested in emphasizing the aspects

of the common law that will offend the common voters.

136. Common law is supposed to be applied by every jury in

every court in this country, as it was in the beginning and as it

was during the Lincoln's unconstitutional undeclared war of

aggression against the South. Where white people who were

charged with harboring escaped black slaves were exonerated by

white juries who refused to enforce the laws that had clearly been

violated by these white protectors of escaped black slaves.

137. The actions of these juries was clearly an invocation of the

common law, whether or not those populating such juries realized

it or not. Their intention was to render justice, based on the facts

presented, however that application of the common law has been

totally destroyed in this country.

138. Another issue - I have added the following paragraphs in


2766

2767

2768

2769

2770

2771

2772

2773

2774

2775

2776

2777

2778

2779

2780

2781

2782

2783

2784

2785

2786

2787

2788

2789

2790

2791

2792

2793

2794

2795

2796

2797

2798

my Notice and Demand:

139. As paragraph 35. Let STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA and this

Honorable Court be hereby further advised, I, Donald Sandburg,

freely acknowledge that the charging entity, STATE OF NORTH

DAKOTA has a serious dilemma, as there is no possible way that

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA can present proof that it has properly

gained any manner of jurisdiction over this Wrongly Accused, and

at the same time, that if STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA responds

with the information that it does purport to have, STATE OF

NORTH DAKOTA knows that I will eviscerate any such

presentation due to the self-evident fraudulent procurement

thereof by STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, thereby totally

embarrassing STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA.

140. As paragraph 36. Therefore, let it be hereby acknowledged

Page 27 of 1

by this Wrongly Accused, that as STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA is in

a situation that it cannot win and dares not lose, this Wrongly


2799

2800

2801

2802

2803

2804

2805

2806

2807

2808

2809

2810

2811

2812

2813

2814

2815

2816

2817

2818

2819

2820

2821

2822

2823

2824

2825

2826

2827

2828

2829

2830

2831

Accused agrees that this case is not to be used as a precedent by

any other person challenging the Political or civil jurisdiction of

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA. That their case must stand or fall on

its own merits.

Cheers,

I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone


2832

2833

2834

2835

2836

2837

2838

2839

2840

2841

2842

2843

2844

2845

2846

Documents

Challenge to State of Maine’ s Political or Contractual Jurisdiction (Legal Form)