10 au a u 15 16 7 B 2» 20 2 suvart Soha-chestes fst 21000 Phosnix, Arizona state Pro Par SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA STATE OF ARIZONA, Plaintict, eee ‘oR-2008-006332-00107 vs. PETITION TO DISMZSS Joan C. “STUART, Defendant. John Stuart, Real Party in Interest/Third Party Intervene: ‘Third Party Intervenes appears specially and not gonezally and petitions, in the nature of a motion, having already tendered bonds) to supersede all previous bonds in the original case, hereby petitions this court to dismiss the charge proffered by plaintiff and captioned Jas “COUNT 1: PRESENTMENT OF FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING, CLASS 6 FELONY (JOHN CHESTER STUART)” on the grounds that the bonds were accepted by the court and the judge signed the order to set aside all previous bonds in case #CR2008-106594-001 PT. Furthermore, let the record reflect that the reasons for tendering said Supersedeas Bond to Jerivately settle the penal sum was due to the following facts: 2) The prosecution hes never denonstrated that the man known as John Stuart was not engaged in self defense in accord with the statutory requirenents of both $8 1145 and A.R.S. 13-418 that require that prosecution FIRST PROVE that the man knovn as John Stuart was NOT Jengaged in self defense, and 2) that both the Maricopa County prosecuting attorney and betective Dalton failed to provide exculpatory witness testimony to the Grand Jury that proves that the man known as John Stuart was engaged in self defense, and 3) that the Maricopa County prosecuting attorney failed to turnover the toxicology report of the deceased thet allegedly now ‘080413 ~ (PettiontoDisnissChargsfchr, Page 1 of COPY Sutee aoeouns APR 14 2008 2) "Rea2 a u 6 16 v we a 20 2 22 a 2 25 Jdenonstrates that the deceased was allegedly intoxicated with 2 blood Jalcohot content of .18, and 4) that jucge ia case ACRZOU8-106591-001 DF wae not protecting the Rights of the man known as Joba Stuart by alloving activities deniniscont of a “kangaroo court” to proceed without due process of Law and the overwhelming evidence that no crime was committed, and 5) that defense counsel had already charged the man known as Jolin stuart in excess of USD $100,000 in the first month of defense and had not brought or motioned to bring and hold an evidentiary hearing to Jestablish that the man known aa dchn Stuart was engaged in self ldefense, thus establishing the fatal flaws in prosecution's case in accord with the statutory requiramants of both SB 1145 and A.R.S. 13- 419 that require that prosecution FIRS? PROVE that the man known ae John Stuart was NOT engaged in self defense BEFORE charges could be Jprought, and 6) The Supersedeas Bond was intended to allow the prosecution, fehis court, judge, SUATE OF ARIZONA and STATE OF ARIZONA Risk. Management Underwriters a gracefii manner of disposing of case # Jcr2008-106594-002 or. Riso, the named defendant known as JOHN C, STUART, a grantor ferust, in accord with the 1997 Statutory Treaty with the United Kingdom through the Social Security Administration vith the man know jas John Stuart formerly operating as grantor, co-fiduciary and co- loeneficiary nas been revested. Said trust PERSON had the uwrreo sraTES IAPTORNEY GENERAL operating ae trustee in accord with the Trading with the Enemies Act (1917) pursuant to $0 USC Appx 12, para 4. Tn accord with B1.Comn Vol, 2, Chap. 18, in February 2008, seid grantor revoked legal title from the trustes (USAG) and revested legal end equiteble title back to the grantor. Therefore, said person is now, (only) existing as a transmitting utility. Theroin, all trust res was to be turned over to the grantor. Tt was act. Hence, the boads and their packing as the USAG was, and still holds the res in question. rf, however, this court will not honor this status, the man known ae John Stuart will be forced to notify FOIC in Dallas, Texes to terminate all insurance relations therein and make the man known 2s John Stuart an uninsurable person. (80413 ~ [PetiiontoDismissChargelchn, Page 2 of32 a u a 1 v 18 1s 20 a 2 23 4 25 the chazge in this instant case eannot stand on the grounds that the forms known as 10990TD and 1040v are simply reporting forms for Jehe Supersedeas Sond and the Private Offset Sond tendered to both the [charging parties and the United States Secretary of the Treasury, Nr. Paulson, in effort to settle the penal sun of case # CR2008-106594-001 ot. There vas never an intention to defraud anyone. 1f the amount in the 1099020 was mixed with the Private Offset Bond, Thixd party intecvener apologizes. However, that issue is not relevant, as that is lan adninistrative matter for edwtinistzative resolution. on the foregoing grounds Third Party Intervene: respectfully is court to disnies the charge in this instant case as peritions th said charge ie without merit, and appears to be @ ploy by the prosecution to force the men John Stuart into pretrial continenent so that he will not be able to peruse renedy and accountability for the laany crimes committed against him by the prosecution. Therefore, the county respectfully sequesta that tho Constitution and its Jcounty/couvry zelease Third Party intervener. rurthermore, Third Party Intorvener reminds The Parties that with the evidence currently in possession of Third Party Intorvener and the court, the murder case is moot as the evidence already demonstrates that the men Enon as John Stuart was engaged in self defense, the prosecution never held an evidentiary hearing ceguired by 9B 1145 and In R.$. 13-418 and both that case and this case are now considered anderweiting igsves for future claims and settlenent vith STATE OF ARIZONA Risk Management. qhira party Intervener ceminds The Patios that said furure clain| Jcontinuse to rise aa having to wear an ankle bracelet and current [pretrial confinenent violate the Rights of Third Party Intervener. As lone retized judge stated after reviewing the facts in the murder case, gol, what we have hexe is not a crime, it is 2 tragedy.” Respectfully submitted this April, 2008. 80413 ~ (PeortoDiswissChargeohn, Page 3 of3