IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

JON DOE–Assignor, for the use of ) CASE NO.: ______________________.
Jon: Doe–Assignee, at arm's length, ) File On Demand (Claimant Waives Fee).
Claimant in personam, )
) IN ADMIRALTY, IN COMMON LAW,
Vs. ) CONTRACT, ANTITRUST, FRAUD,
)
STATE OF GEORGIA INC., et al, ) AFFIDAVIT OF PETITION FOR
Respondent(s). ) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.

COMES NOW Jon: Doe in propria persona and expressly not '' pro se,''

a real party in interest appearing ''nunc pro tunc'' by way of special visitation

and expressly not via general appearance, also hereinafter ''Affiant,'' standing in

unlimited commercial liability as a sovereign American Citizen, Secured Party

Creditor, seeking a ''Common-Law Remedy'' in Admiralty via the ''Saving To

Suitors Clause'' at USC 28-1333 (1), hereby and herewith formally petitioning an

Article-III court employing an Article-III Justice by way of AFFIDAVIT OF

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT on and for the public record,

with enunciation of principles stated in Haines v Kerner, at 404 U. S. 519,

wherein the court has directed that regardless if Affiant's petition be deemed ''in-

artfully plead,'' those who are unschooled in law will have the court look to the

substance of the ''pleadings'' rather than in the form; therefore Affiant's petition

is not required to meet the same strict standards as that of a ''licensed'' attorney,

and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if Affiant can substantiate

Page 1 of 146.

no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.

Affiant's factual allegations within this text are therefore accepted on their face

as true, correct, complete and not misleading, and are, to the best of Affiant's

ability, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; and said ''pleadings''

are hereby presented along with any and all reasonable inferences that may be

drawn therefrom. Subsequently, Affiant's petition should not be construed

narrowly, but rather interpreted liberally so as to accommodate any and all such

plausible implications gathered. Pursuant to Title 28 USC (also see the Uniform

Declaratory Judgment Act), petition for declaratory judgment is provided under

federal and state law. Declaratory judgments permit parties to a controversy to

determine rights, duties, obligations or status. The operation of the Declaratory

Judgment Act is procedural only. Relief under the Act is available only if the

requisite of jurisdiction, in the sense of a federal right or diversity, provide

foundation for resort to the federal courts. ( 1 ) Not excluding Affiant's inherent

status establishing foreign jurisdiction separate from that to which the Respondent

adheres, diversity in this case also establishes upon the fact that Affiant is a real

party in interest and the Respondent is a corporate fiction. ( 2 ) Furthermore,

controversies are raised pursuant to the Respondent's willful abrogation of

Affiant's inherent rights and status – which are protected and guaranteed under

the Constitution and Amendments as found within the Bill of Rights – via the

Page 2 of 146.

Respondent levying duties, obligations, arrest, charges, prosecution, conviction,

sentencing and incarceration upon Affiant. The United States Constitution,

Article-III, Section-II, limits the exercise of the judicial power to cases of

controversy. The Declaratory Judgment Act, in its limitation to cases of

controversy, refers to the Constitutional provision and is operative only in respect

to controversies which are such in the Constitutional sense. A justiciable

controversy is thus distinguished from a difference or dispute of hypothetical or

abstract character from one that is academic or moot. The controversy must be

definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal

interests. There must be a real and substantial controversy in meaning of

specific relief through decree of a conclusive character as distinguished from an

opinion abiding what law would be upon a hypothetical state of events. The

Declaratory Judgment Act allows relief to be given in recognition of the

Claimant's rights even though no immediate enforcement of it need be asked.

Therefore I, the living, breathing, flesh-and-blood man appearing as Jon: Doe,

do hereby and herewith solemnly state: ( i ) that Affiant is over the age

of twenty-one (21) years; ( ii ) that Affiant is competent for stating the first-

hand facts and knowledge contained herein; ( iii ) that Affiant grants original

jurisdiction to this court; ( iv ) that Affiant has the right to petition for

declaratory judgment relating to this matter; ( v ) that judgment on this petition

Page 3 of 146.

will not harm the public; ( vi ) that the court is indemnified by the bond of

''JON DOE;'' (see attached birth certificate) ( vii ) that Affiant has an

inherent, proprietary right to the certified title known as ''JON DOE;'' (also

see attached copyright notice with affidavit of publication attached) ( viii ) that

Affiant is the only real party in interest acting as contributing beneficiary who

has put any value into ''JON DOE;'' ( ix ) that Affiant is the only inherent,

legitimate claimant to any and all equity attaching to ''JON DOE;'' (also see

attached UCC-1 Financing Statement) ( x ) that Affiant is entitled to any and all

'' interpleaded funds'' relating to ''JON DOE;'' ( xi ) that Affiant has no

record nor evidence the Respondent has put any value into ''JON DOE;''

( xii ) that Affiant denies the Respondent has put any value into ''JON DOE;''

( xiii ) that Affiant denies Respondent has a proprietary right to ''JON DOE;''

( xiv ) that Affiant has no record nor evidence the Respondent has any right to

''JON DOE;'' ( xv ) that Affiant believes no such record nor evidence exists;

( xvi ) that Affiant does formally demand any ''original '' contract, not a copy,

which is being used against Affiant, be brought forward; ( xvii ) that a court at

law requires the original contract be entered as evidence; ( xviii ) that under the

Erie doctrine – Where there is no contract, there is no case; ( xix ) that

notwithstanding any and all assumed contracts signed, unsigned, constructed,

implied, adhered, invisible, and the like, Respondent is in breech of any and all

Page 4 of 146.

such alleged contracts for failure of full disclosure and/or equitable consideration;

( xx ) that if a party tries to void a contract because of a missing element and is

prevented from doing so, such instrument becomes a fraudulent contract;

( xxi ) that there is no statute of limitations on fraud; ( xxii ) that the

Respondent has been, and, is currently, doing business within the jurisdiction and

venue of this court; ( xxiii ) that despite Affiant's numerous filings which

clearly declare and delineate the distinct and inherent division between Affiant

and the certified title known as ''JON DOE,'' the Respondent wantonly diverts

its claim against ''JON DOE;'' i.e., the Respondent diversifies its harmful

actions against the certified title known as ''JON DOE'' by intentionally

bringing such harmful actions to bear upon the real party in interest known as

''Jon: Doe,'' i.e., the living, breathing, flesh-and-blood man, via State Court

Accusation Number 2010D-12345-1, thereby causing the following damages to

occur as direct result of the Respondent's willful diversity in such ultra vires

infringements visited upon Affiant–Jon: Doe–the living, breathing, flesh-

and-blood man–the real party in interest:

I (*) – (see addendum for further details)

Affiant's Constitutionally-protected 4th-Amendment Right, which states '' no

Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,'' is abrogated by the Respondent

on 07/21/2010 (see arrest warrant).

Page 5 of 146.

is in derogation to the Constitution pursuant to the 5th-Amendment Right to due process of law. and is expressly not waived by Affiant as is eluded to in Respondent's document dated 03/22/2011 (see attached). . the Respondent's erroneous / false assertion that Affiant waives his 5th-Amendment protected Right to arraignment. by entering a plea of ''Not Guilty'' for Affiant (see STATE'S document). is required at law to be construed Page 6 of 146. II (*) – (see addendum) Affiant's Constitutionally-protected 1st-Amendment Right to be heard by the court is abrogated by the Respondent on 12/15/2010 (see attached state-certified transcript). and / or any other Constitutionally-protected Rights. V (*) – (see addendum) The Respondent's practice of law from the bench. III (*) – (see addendum) On 12/15/2010. IV (*) – (see addendum) The Respondent's obstruction of Affiant's arraignment is in subsequent derogation to the 6th Amendment. unlimited to Respondent's abrogation of Affiant's Constitutionally-protected Rights to know the nature and cause of the accusation and define / challenge jurisdiction / venue. Affiant's arraignment is obstructed by the Respondent. Subsequently.

IV. OR. as described above.1. 1st CONGRESS. 17-7-91. Admiralty Law and Uniform Commercial Code. and. VIII. IX. 77. 17-7-93. September 24. VI (*) – (see addendum) The Respondent's non-response to Affiant's filing of numerous Truth Affidavits dating from 12/13/2010 to 03/16/2011 (see attached). VI. Constitution. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such. Chapter 20. Additionally. is an abrogation of Affiant's ''declaratory decree'' and ''declaratory relief '' pursuant to title 28 USC § 2201 – Creation of remedy: (a) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction. The First Judiciary Act. under Common Law. the UN-rebutted declarations asserted in Affiant's truth affidavits.as ( a ) being in derogation of O.C. . Equity Law. and. Sess. may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration. ( b ) a judicial determination of Affiant's non-guilt (see document – ''Praecipe of Judgment'' – filed in the court. 1789.A.G. any court of the United States. dated 01/24/2011 and 02/01/2011 (see attached). VII. at amendments I. whether or not further relief is or could be sought. V. and. U. to any of Affiant's thirteen (13) objections w/ demand for probable cause via a fact-finding hearing filed nunc pro tunc in the court. … as determined by the administering authority. upon the filing of an appropriate pleading. p. stand as the absolute Page 7 of 146. S. dated 02/04/2011).

445 U.'' (see attached transcript of sentencing) thereby further abrogating Affiant's Right to declaratory relief pursuant to title 28 USC § 2201 – Creation of remedy and the Honorable Bill of Rights. VII Although Affiant already had a surety bond in place upon himself at the time of sentencing in the foregoing matter (see attached surety bond). . 415 U. truth and the final judgment in any and every court. as declared in Affiant's Truth Affidavits and Affiant's nunc-pro-tunc filing of objections and demand for probable cause via fact-finding ( both previously referenced in article VI ). S. ''Once jurisdiction is challenged it must be proven by the plaintiff.'' (Owens v CITY OF INDEPENDENCE. S. 622. and.'' (Hagans v Lavine.) ''The mere good-faith assertions of power and authority [jurisdiction] have been abolished. 533. etc. is an abrogation of Affiant's 4th-Amendment Right to establish probable cause. etc. 5th- Amendment Right to due process of law. Respondent fails to answer Affiant's motion for ''stay of execution pending outcome of appeal.) IX (*) – (see addendum) Page 8 of 146. VIII (*) – (see addendum) Respondent's failure to respond to Affiant's challenge to jurisdiction. 6th-Amendment Right to define and challenge jurisdiction.

Woolf v STATE. App. App. . when ''Prosecutor'' (Jane Doe) and the minor child were both residents of Fulton County. Gwinnett County is an improper venue / jurisdiction to file / hear such alleged claim. 2005 (see attached criminal arrest warrant).Since the minor child in question did not move to Gwinnett County until September of 2007 (see documentation of school records. 2005 (see attached criminal arrest warrant). as the Prosecutor's sworn affidavit states that the offense alleged began on July.'' (Fairbanks v STATE. 513. . (also see: Waits v STATE. 255. 105 Ga. et cetera .) X The Respondent's prosecution does not comport to the requisite within the Admiralty. ''[We reverse on the ground that] In Georgia. 77 Ga. 139 Ga. reasons for change of custody. Nelson v STATE. App. App. App. divorce decree. 412. Turner v STATE. 27). 52 Ga. Browning v STATE. App. Admiralty law is governed by a uniform three-year statute of limitations for bringing a claim of personal injury. 138 Ga. York v STATE. Furthermore. subject to mandate known as the ''reverse-Erie- Page 9 of 146. 56 Ga. App. . the venue [jurisdiction] of a prosecution for the offense of abandonment is in the county where the minor child first becomes dependent upon persons other than the parent for support. wherein the Prosecutor's sworn affidavit states that the alleged offense began on July. 488. 91. affirmed affidavits with custody documents and court order attached). 113 Ga. 11.

and all others like him.'' all state courts are required to apply substantive federal admiralty law by way of the '' Supremacy Clause. 304 U. into ''Debtors' Prison. XI (*) – (see addendum) Pursuant to. predicated upon Affiant's failure to pay court-ordered child support without providing a caveat requiring a plaintiff provide unequivocal proof that Affiant possesses such enumerated amount and refuses to pay. S. Co. and. v Tompkins. the United States' abolition of ''Debtors' Prison'' in the year 1833. procedures. arrests. the Respondent's compliance with such uniform three-year statute of limitations found within the Admiralty is required. having been filed on or about July of 2010. is out of time. sentencing and incarceration. do not comport to federally mandated laws and procedures.'' even if it conflicts with the laws of any state.'' XII (*) – (see addendum) Page 10 of 146. Since the court in which this claim was filed is absolutely operating under jurisdiction of admiralty (Note: After Erie R. Therefore. 64 (1938). R. . regulations. the Respondent's claim. convictions. and unlawfully become a 'throw-back' to nothing short of placing Affiant. rules. virtually all courts within THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA eventually came under jurisdiction of admiralty. in direct contravention of. hence the yellow tassel and yellow fringe around the border of every flag found in all courtrooms). any and all Georgia penal codes. prosecutions.doctrine. and therefore null and void ab initio. statutes.

547) In Mangum v STATE.G. 91 Ga. while knowing full and well that Affiant is entirely unable to pay. sets an amount of $25. the use of the statute's guidelines for computing the amount of child support is mandatory. 520. Supreme Court of Georgia. Fulton County] is still in effect at this time.Pursuant to O. in derogation of the guidelines. line 1 of the court transcript of the sentencing in case # 2010D-12345-1 (see attached). thereby. claim that you can't pay that [child support]. the Respondent. App. 261 Ga.00 to be paid before Affiant may be released from incarceration.A.'' (Arrington v Arrington. 19- 6-15] are the legislative will regarding the calculation of child support and must be considered by any court setting the child support. but that order [i. the original divorce decree from June.000. in effect. Mangum v STATE further asserts – '' . '' The trial court is obligated to consider whether such support is sufficient based on the child's needs. thereby considering Affiant's ability to pay. 2005. . .G. it is declared – '' Child support guidelines [found in O. on page 4.e. it is determined – '' If you claim that you are indigent.A. 19-6-15.C. . imposing a Page 11 of 146.'' In the Georgia court of appeals. and the parent's ability to pay. because the statute [19-6-15] provides for the trial court that hears the abandonment action to set and modify child support. it would not make sense to involve another forum in determining the amount of child support for the child.'' In this case.C.'' Therefore the Respondent is in error when.. there is a proper court that can modify that amount.

and is completely analogous to a most pernicious form of abandonment. God-given. Respondent's '' Request to Charge'' (see attached document(s) dated 03/22/2011) does not provide for equal protection of the law. i. ''Deadbeat Dads'' – is generating billions of ''Dollars'' in '' re-venues'' by way of the STATE'S wanton ''purSuit'' of pecuniary ambition. within such pretext. . Page 12 of 146. honor and protect the unalienable..'' dated 03/25/2011). XIII (*) – (see addendum) Pursuant to the 5th Amendment.'' whereby the ''warehousing'' of people who by way of victim-less charges have committed no crimes under the Common / Constitutional Law – such as the top-three revenue generators. Constitutionally-guaranteed rights / status inherent to the American Citizenry.'' this merit-less act is also in derogation of the child's rights to their parents. better known as ''crime prevention.'' and. ''Drug Dealers.''life sentence'' (in ''debtors' prison'' ) upon Affiant. you guessed it. *Note that when the Respondent locks a child's parent away for his inability to pay a ''duty.. it's not difficult to see. that.'' ''Drunk Drivers. the Respondent's forsaking of its sworn oath/duty to recognize. save for the fact that a conviction of this type carries a maximum one-year sentence (see attached order in transcript and document entitled ''Order Clarifying Sentence. the Respondent's true motivating factor is not for the well-being of my daughter.e. i. When taken into account the multi-billion ''Dollar'' body-attachment-bond industry conducted by the corporate de facto STATE.e.

an UN-divorced father who does not provide for his child(ren). This is correct.g.e. App. App. and whose child(ren) receive(s) welfare and/or is/are supported by the mother while said father is cohabiting with his child(ren). Page 13 of 146. App. . Supreme Court of Georgia. 238 Ga. 91 Ga. 94 Ga. App. upset the balance of equal protection. 777) (see also: Mangum v STATE. 421) XIV (*) – (see addendum) '' Counsel for the defendant contend that since abandonment of a minor child was not a criminal offense under the common law [Constitutional Law] that the statutes making abandonment a criminal offense are to be strictly construed since they are in derogation of the common law [the supreme Law of the Land] and also because they are penal in nature. there is no evidence in this case to show that the child was in a dependent condition because he was deprived of food.'' (Logue v STATE. . is excluded from such charge / prosecution / conviction / sentence. Bray v STATE. 567) (see also: Logue v STATE. and does. App... 520. '' . 777) '' We reverse on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and judgment of conviction.'' (Calvin v Calvin. therefore. 94 Ga. clothing or shelter as required under the code section. 166 Ga. . the law places no greater duty of support on a divorced father than on one who is not divorced. 187) '' While a parent's defense that personal difficulties prevented him from making support payments is only a partial defense. 157 Ga..'' (Lewis v STATE.

173 Ga. citation of the United States Supreme Court asserts that – ''. . the facts in an abandonment case must be construed in the parent's favor and against the abandonment. via its accusation found in case Page 14 of 146. 214 S.. so far as is possible to do so. ( i ) the Respondent's prosecution for Affiant. . and. 138 Ga. of Family and Child Services. 146) '' . . Subsequently. throw off all obligations growing out of the same. 162 Ga. App.'' Therefore. App. GOSSETT. the parental relation.. 113 Ga. 234 Ga. 702. in Scott v STATE. and forgo all parental duties and claims. App. placing custody of the child in the mother would not. 124 Ga. Supreme Court of Georgia. 10. Additionally. 145. code 74-9902 requires that the abandonment be done ''willfully'' and ''voluntarily. Ramos v Ramos.'' (Wheeler v Little. 259 Ga. the ''any-evidence rule'' is not Constitutionally sufficient in obtaining a criminal conviction. .. . be used to show abandonment under Code § 74-108 (3)'' (HOWELL v. App. 106) (see also: Thrasher v Glynn County Dept.'' (Elam v STATE. App.. the acquiescence of the father in. App. 2d 882). 432) ''In order to find abandonment. E. 198 Ga. 30) '' . there must be sufficient evidence of an actual desertion. a person may not be held culpable under a criminal statute unless the act committed by the person clearly is in violation of the law. . 590. Brassell v STATE. Supreme Court of Georgia.'' (Meyers v STATE. accompanied by an intention to sever entirely.even if we assume that the payments were not made in accordance with the [divorce] decree. .

C. ( ii ) nor does the Respondent's prosecution of said case prove that Affiant's minor child was / is in a dependent condition because said child was / is deprived of food. 397). de facto offices of STATE. XV (*) – (see addendum) Pursuant to Secretary of State Kemp's silence and acquiescence of corporate office re Affiant's U. Filings (see attached documents). or shelter. Page 15 of 146. Affiant's aforesaid U. therefore negating the necessary ''willful'' and ''voluntary'' elements of the code by which the accusation is predicated (see Crews v STATE. ratifies the severance of any nexus or relationship between Affiant and any and all corporate-commercial. does not prove that Affiant possessed nor possesses the enumerated amount of court-ordered child support and refused nor refuses to provide the duties alleged therein. 2009) does not constitute abandonment. clothing. . tendered by way of Secretary of State Kemp. negating the ''willful'' and ''voluntary'' elements necessary to sustain Respondent's conviction / sentencing in the case currently under scrutiny. 178 Ga. Furthermore.number 2010D-12345-1. in manifest of the Good Faith Oxford Doctrine.C. this matter of public record.C. coupled with Affiant's reservation and exercise of all Rights and Remedy.C. Filings. App. ( iii ) the court-enforced change in custody of Affiant's minor child (see attached court orders dated June 28th. and December 1st. – as provided for Affiant by way of such that are unlimited to the Saving To Suitors Clause. Thereby. 2005.

employing an Article-III judge. bound by COMMON LAW. and. such as that which is Page 16 of 146. thereby relieving Affiant from any and every presumption. and / or. and all the like thereof. and. and. local. i.. and the like. federal.e. that Affiant has not entered into knowingly.'' corporate officer / agent / representative / member / partner / employee / fiction / transmitting utility / franchisee / ens legis / stramineus homo (straw-man) / dummy / juristic person / libellee / debtor / obligor / accommodation party / surety / trustee / and/or the like – unequivocally expatriate Affiant from the de facto government's jurisdiction. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. therefore releasing Affiant from any and every unrevealed contract / agreement. charging Affiant as a 14th-amendment ''citizen / person.'' ''subject. voluntarily. and.'' ''person of inherence and / or incidence. entitling Affiant remedy by trial according to the rules. will not. agreement. that. accusation. and. 15 Statutes At Large. and / or the like thereof.'' ''resident of the commonwealth. accept the liability associated with the ''compelled benefit '' of any unrevealed commercial agreement. .13th Article of Amendment to the Constitution.'' ''resident. that reservation serves notice upon all administrative agencies of government. whereby Affiant reserves his Common Law / Constitutional Right not to be compelled to perform under any contract. regulations and procedures of an Article-III court. intentionally. Affiant does not. indictment. state. Uniform Commercial Code in Book 1 at Sections 207 and 308. presentment. House Joint Resolution 192.

Equity Law. it is simply unlawful. Affiant does not work for the Respondent. Furthermore. a father is duty-bound. and cannot apply to Affiant. not a slave. due to the fact that the Respondent's contract does not comport to '' the supreme Law of the Land. and it does not provide full disclosure. nor the Uniform Commercial Code.'' This contract is nothing more than the Respondent's erroneous attempt to UN- Constitutionally inflict its corporate code / policy upon Affiant.'' (see attached) wherein said charge erroneously attempts to make claim against Affiant to the effect that – ''[i]n Georgia. . While it is true the Constitution provides government the right to legislate laws..'' a/k/a Common / Constitutional Law. the Constitution for these United States of America. Amendment IX. If the father does not comply with that duty imposed upon him.found within the Respondent's '' Request to Charge.'' – Respondent's contract is not offered insomuch as Affiant is coerced while under duress. by stark contrast. Affiant is a free man. Admiralty Law. In accord with the aforementioned law / code. et cetera.. Respondent's Page 17 of 146. a lawful contract has – 1) '' Offer.. statutes and codes. not excluding full disclosure.. says – '' The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. the duties of support which he has failed to assume.'' Since Affiant is absolutely descended from the sovereign American People of Posterity (see attached documentation).

books. declares – '' There is clear distinction between an individual and a corporation.meddling into Affiant's affairs. Section 1-Article 28 of the Constitution for the State of Georgia says virtually the same as does the 9th Amendment. long antecedent to the organization of the state.e. However. unalienable.'' Hale v Henkel. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way... the sovereign individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a Citizen. S. and the [sovereign] immunity of Page 18 of 146. since he receives nothing therefrom... for audit at the suit of the state. Constitutionally-protected rights / status. God-given. shall not be construed to deny to the people any inherent rights which they may have hitherto enjoyed. etc. inventory. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself. to divulge his business. without Affiant's permission. or to open his doors to an investigation so far as it may tend to incriminate him. or to his neighbors. license. and that the latter has no right of refusal to submit its papers. i. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [common law]. beyond the protection of his life and property. . He owes no duty to the state. nor jurisdiction for doing so. contract. He owes no such duty to the state. His power to contract is unlimited. 43. and in accordance with the Constitution. and can only be taken from him by due process of Common Law [Constitutional Law]. denies and disparages Affiant's inherent. at 201 U. '' The enumeration of rights herein contained.

Constitutionally-protected rights / status.'' – The Respondent's contract does not promise Affiant anything that Affiant should not already possess.himself and his property from arrest or seizure.e. in consideration of.e. i. Affiant's performance of ''duty. in fact.'' – Nelson Mandela. On the contrary.'' according to the Respondent's contract. and therefore obligated to perform certain ''duties. . This is akin to communism.'' by all parties involved with the contract.e.'' – Affiant does not accept.. Constitutionally-protected rights / status. '' You don't know the country you live in until you've been through its criminal justice system. The third element of a lawful contract is – 3) ''Acceptance. God-given. the Respondent contends that it provides Affiant his rights / status in exchange for.'' by the Respondent's contract. fascism. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. God-given.'' wherein the contract stipulates that since Affiant – '' does not comply with that duty imposed upon him. Affiant's inherent.. and is.'' The second element of a lawful contract is – 2) '' Consideration for all parties for the contract. except under a warrant of Common Law. unalienable.. or. the Respondent forecloses upon Affiant's inherent. any part of the Page 19 of 146. unalienable. Affiant. i. according to the Respondent. '' a meeting of the minds. is ''duty-bound.'' i. nor will Affiant accept.

both signed and / or unsigned. status. which comport to any reasonable semblance of a lawful contract or agreement made between Affiant and the Respondent. and. the Respondent's contract does not comport to the maxims of Common Law. and / or the like thereof. the Respondent's silence / non-response to Affiant's U. The fourth element of a lawful contract is – 4) '' The signatures by all parties involved with the contract. To this.Respondent's contract. In fact.C. and Counterclaim with certification of non-response attached). Affiant goes to great lengths to express rejection for the Respondent's contract. is tantamount to acquiescence. the Respondent remains silent. To date. nor does it adhere to the necessary elements in constituting a lawful contract under the Uniform Commercial Code.'' – Affiant repeatedly asks the Respondent to produce any and all documents verifying any and all contractual agreements.C. Opportunity to Cure. Respondent fails to answer any of Affiant's numerous affidavits declaring rights. not excluding Respondent's lack of jurisdiction.-1 Financing Statement. the Respondent is in default for non-response to Affiant's demands to produce the aforesaid bills of verification (see attached Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment. Consequently. Page 20 of 146. numerous declarations. and. laws of Admiralty. Respondent's numerous state. federal and Constitutional infringements upon Affiant's rights / status. . In conclusion. Equity Law. Additionally.

warrant for arrest. Jon: Doe. notwithstanding the inherent rights and status of Jon: Doe. the living.'' ( c ) that Jon: Doe is entitled to any and all '' interpleaded funds'' put into ''JON DOE. charge. order to convict. do solemnly affirm Page 21 of 146. is the only party acting as contributing beneficiary who has put any value into the certified title known as ''JON DOE. order to sentence. having no claim in fact. prosecution. is barred from any and all collection for any and all alleged debt from Jon: Doe relating to ''JON DOE. and. ''JON DOE. on its own motion. 2010D. is the only real party in interest.'' ( d ) that the Respondent. flesh-and-blood man. breathing.'' State Court Accusation No. . under my personal commercial liability. to rule: ( a ) that Jon: Doe. is hereby and herewith declared null and void ab initio. Conclusion: Therefore this court ought.'' ( e ) that the Respondent's jurisdiction.'' ( b ) that Jon: Doe is entitled to any and all equity put into such title known as ''JON DOE. Affirmation: I.12345-1. and. inflicted upon Jon: Doe subsequent to the complaint filed in STATE OF GEORGIA Vs.

and / or. Notice to agent(s) is notice to principal(s). thereby raising the 4th-Amendment question of probable cause. the accusation. I – II – III – IV / XIII (re the 1 . and before entering a plea. the Respondent's assertion that the only elements allowed therein be a reading of the accusation and a plea from Affiant is erroneous. Further Affiant Saith Not. correct. and that I have read the foregoing petition and do know for fact that said petition's content is true. not misleading. as well as any / every attachment coupled hereto. 4 . (*) ADDENDUM TO AFFIDAVIT OF PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: The purpose of this addendum is to further clarify certain enumerated articles of the forgoing affidavit of petition for declaratory judgment by expounding upon various points raised therein. complete. Upon hearing the accusation. 3 . & 13th articles of the aforesaid affidavit / petition) st nd rd th Whereas Constitutional mandate requires without question that the integrity of the arraignment be preserved at all times. is hereby and herewith made a part of this petition. is the truth. and. notice to principal(s) is notice to agent(s). Affiant may ask questions / make assertions about. declare laws / rights / status pertaining / raise objections to.that the addendum. and / Page 22 of 146. 2 . . the whole truth and nothing but the truth. such as whether the charge is civil or criminal.

. . or property. 17 Ga.. 368). . deprived of life. raise objections. 612. and / or the like. be informed Page 23 of 146. Respondent effectively obstructs Affiant's arraignment by erroneously asserting that Affiant ''waives'' his right to it. the accused shall enjoy the right to. without due process of law''. 121 Ga. wherein it says ''No person shall be.or the 6th-Amendment question of proper jurisdiction / venue. and therefore abrogates the 1st Amendment. enter motions.. ( ii ) and allows the Respondent to identify Affiant as the proper party to proceed against. . it can not be said that Affiant ''stands mute'' at his arraignment. thereby abrogating the 5th Amendment. i. since Affiant tries to speak. while acting under such Article-I color-of-'law'. Wells v Terrell. make assertions or declarations. and the Respondent.. In case # 2010D-12345-1. Subsequently. Affiant asserts that the Respondent's infliction of such color-of-'law' abridges his freedom of speech. Affiant may even move for discovery before entering a plea. ''In all criminal prosecutions.. ( i ) It allows Affiant to weigh the issues / evidence before entering a plea. Due to the fact that the Respondent is acting under Article-I color-of-'law' when restricting Affiant's '' freedom of speech '' during the arraignment.e. Therefore.. abridging the freedom of speech '' (also see: Smith v STATE.. App. does not allow Affiant to ask questions. the Respondent's abrogation of the 4th. et cetera . wherein it says – '' Congress shall make no 'law'. 1st and 5th Amendments results in the Respondent's abrogation of the 6th Amendment. The purpose of this is two fold. liberty.

and ( b ) the arraignment is ultimately obstructed. and thus cannot prepare a proper defense. trial... the accused shall enjoy the right to.g.g. . e. prosecuted. common law. 2) Affiant is not informed of the nature / cause of the accusation nor the jurisdiction / venue he is standing in. 1st. probable cause / jurisdiction / venue. Affiant is ( a ) not allowed to speak freely. e.'' 4) Affiant is ultimately deprived of his inherent rights. i. charged. The jury is not of his peers. by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the [alleged] crime shall have been committed. convicted. question / declare rights / status. wherefore Affiant is arrested. sentenced and incarcerated for one year (see attached arrest warrant.of the nature and cause of the accusation ''.. civil law.e.. status. Affiant is arrested without probable cause.. 3) Affiant is charged and tried in the wrong county / venue / jurisdiction. etc. The Respondent's abrogation of the 4th. The 6th Amendment also says – ''In all criminal prosecutions. In the case of 2010D-12345-1. accusation. 5th and 6th Constitutional Amendments results in the following – 1) Affiant is not the proper party to the action. which district shall have been previously ascertained by law ''. request to Page 24 of 146. freedom and property without due process nor equal protection of the law. admiralty law.. '' The order of things is confounded if everyone preserves not his jurisdiction. arrest report.

1992) (''When the State does not respond to a petitioner's allegations. charge.A. App.6 (b).'' Note that the forgoing states – '' Upon the arraignment. Because his claim is not barred.3 and Rule 32. '' Upon the arraignment.G. . therefore. order to sentence. quoting Smith v State. they must be accepted as true.C. 746 (Ala.' VI / XV th th (re the 6 & 15 articles of the aforesaid affidavit / petition) The following citations are case law which requires that an UN-rebutted Affidavit be accepted as truth. 2d 1283. Poole Page 25 of 146. and. 2d 745.. order to convict. 2007. May 25. the unrefuted statement of facts must be taken as true.2. 17-7-91 ( b ). See Bates v State. 1991). and. and. his claim is not precluded by any of the provisions of Rule 32. is sufficiently pleaded.. In Poole v State of Alabama. App. Poole's claim is sufficiently pleaded to satisfy the pleading requirements in Rule 32. Crim. V th (re the 5 article of the aforesaid affidavit / petition) O. 620 So. [Circuit Court] CR-05-1846. answer or plea shall be made orally 'by the accused person' or his counsel. and his factual allegations [as expressed by way of Affidavit] were unrefuted by the State.'').'' and not – ' Upon the accusation. state respectively: '' The court shall 'receive' the plea of the accused ''. 581 So. 17-7-93 ( a ). In addition. and is unrefuted by the State. proof of incarceration). Crim. 1284 (Ala.

. Rule Crim. a movant's allegations are accepted as true unless they are conclusively refuted by the record. '' (See Case No. . 9 & 15 articles of the aforesaid affidavit / petition) Page 26 of 146. 831 So. 675 F. 644 (Ala. Gassner v Raynor Manufacturing Company. leaving no issue of fact. 2d 1085 (Fla. 8 .. 2d 116) VI / VIII – IX / XV th th th th (re the 6 . he is then entitled to an opportunity to present evidence in order to satisfy his burden of proof.'') Plaintiff refutes none of these facts. Procedure. 2-10-0180. 917 So. 271 Ill. Ala. while Gassner did not offer any evidence to the contrary. The trial court granted RMC's motion for summary judgment. The court noted that the affidavit was evidence. We accept them as true. See Ford v State. Crim. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).. See Carlile v Snap-On-Tools.7 (d). Sixth Circuit. see Stancle v State. 648 N. 2d 641.is entitled to an opportunity to prove his claim. the appellant has alleged a facially sufficient claim for relief which is not refuted by the record. 834...E. Based on this. United States Court of Appeals.. 2d 317 (1995) (unrefuted facts accepted as true for purposes of appeal). App. 4th DCA 2005) (''When no evidentiary hearing is held [on a motion for post-conviction relief]. the court concluded that – ''[RMC's] evidence goes unrefuted and must be accepted as true.'') See Thurman v State. 2001) (''Once a petitioner has met his burden of pleading so as to avoid summary disposition pursuant to Rule 32. 3D 833. App. Court must treat all unrefuted allegations as true. 892 So.

Ct. 2502 (1980)). it must be proved to exist. (Honneus v Donovan. even on appeal. 2d 906. on the record. 93 F. 100 S. Supp." (Lantana v Hopper. "Once challenged. 1982))." (Hagans v Lavine. Chicago v New York. 102 F. all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted. "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time. S. jurisdiction cannot be assumed. 691 F.The following case law herein cited represents affirmation for Affiant's clear and numerous declarations that proof of proper jurisdiction is required before moving forward to trial: "Jurisdiction. 415 U. it must be proven. 436-37 (1982) affd.R. 495 F. cannot be assumed and must be decided.. 2d 188. 94 Ca 2d 751. "The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged. 478 So. 910).2d 1 (1st Cir. Ct. once challenged. "Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power Page 27 of 146." (100 S. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)). 250). Though not specifically alleged. "The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.D." (Hill Top Developers v Holiday Pines Service Corp. 37 F. . "Court must prove. 211 P2d 389). 2d. defendant's challenge to subject matter jurisdiction implicitly raised claim that default judgment against him was void and relief should be granted under Rule (60) (b) (4).." (Basso v Utah Power & Light Co. 433. 150)." (Maine v Thiboutot. "Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time. 533)." (Stuck v Medical Examiners.

" (Melo v U. IV & V in the Bill of Rights. jurisdiction cannot be assumed to exist 'sub silento' but must be proven. 2d 1026). 415 US 528. 13th.delegated to them. such complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. such does at least violate Amend.. Page 28 of 146. 474 2D 215). and certainly in contravention of it. 344 SW 2d 925 (1976). The burden of proof – that one can afford to pay – is on the plaintiff." (Joyce v U. 2d 416). Since jail will not compel compliance under such circumstances. . ''Where jurisdiction is denied and squarely challenged. the court has no authority to reach merits. 11 . 1189 (1850)). 12 . wherefore Affiant does hereby and herewith affirm that. 8 HOW. . 469 F. 2010. "There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction. they are not voidable. – One cannot be held criminally liable for child support if one cannot afford to pay. on or about September 14th. N5). If they act beyond that authority. Furthermore." (WILLIAMSON v BERRY. 505 F. 945. . I / XI – XII – XIII – XIV – XV (re the 1 . i.'' (Hagans v Lavine. but rather should dismiss the action.Ed. but simply void. 1170.e. their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. 14th & 15th articles of the aforesaid affidavit / petition) st th th The following is construed in harmony with EX PARTE DAVIS. "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction. 533. S.." (Rosemond v Lambert. et cetera . "Once jurisdiction is challenged. the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction. and this even prior to reversal. 540 12 L. S.

2011. The use of such instruments (body attachment.) presumably is a method to "streamline" arresting people for child support and circumventing the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. etc.C.S.Affiant did suffer unlawful arrest. or arrest by the Prosecutor and / or issuing of the same by the court. that. bench warrant. arrests. is Page 29 of 146. Affiant did suffer unlawful imprisonment. A man. U. Amend. Const." "gender biased discrimination" and a "gender biased hate crime" in that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. on or about March 23rd. In the instant case. or arrest in child support matters because it is a civil matter. and is used as a debt-collecting tool using unlawful arrests and imprisonment to collect a debt or perceived debt. no probable cause can exist. bench warrants.A. in this civil case. There is no escaping the fact that there is no probable cause in a civil matter to arrest or issue body attachment. Therefore. seeking of body attachment. because the entire matter has arisen out of a civil case. The arrest of non-custodial parents in which men make up significant majority of the "arrestees. pursuant to the Probable Cause and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. 4. child support is a civil matter and there is no probable cause to seek or issue body attachment. "Probable cause" to arrest requires a showing that both a crime has been. and that the person sought to be arrested committed the offense. bench warrant." is "gender profiling. that. . or is being committed. cannot be arrested in such civil matters.

S. U. 818 (there can be no objective reasonableness where officials violate clearly established Constitutional Rights such as – (a) United States Constitution. 204 F. See. Supreme Court. Eighth and Ninth Circuits) ''by definition. civil disputes cannot give rise to probable cause''. Pierson v Ray. 386 U. 3d 64. the United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the aggrieved party has a cause of action under 42 U. Fifth. Page 30 of 146. 435 (3rd Cir. 1213 (1967).S. § 1983. 73 F. 800. no body attachment. 1995). S. . If a person is arrested on less than probable cause. Seventh. Fourth Amendment (Warrants Clause). v Parker. commercial (and civil) debt.3d 28. S. 1997). Ninth Amendment (Rights to Privacy and Liberty). probable cause to arrest can only exist in relation to criminal conduct. Allen v City of Portland. Every U. 108 F. 547.C. bench warrant or arrest order may be lawfully issued. Illinois v Gates. S. S. S. the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (citing cases from the U.against the law and the Constitution. 269 F. or. 213 (1983) – therefore. 2001) (citations omitted) and U.3d 232 (9th Cir. violation of Fourth Amendment rights. Paff v Kaltenbach. 2000) (Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement officers from arresting citizens without probable cause. v Lewko.3d 425. Harlow v Fitzgerald. Court of Appeals that has addressed this issue has held that child support is a common. 87 S. 68-69 (1st Cir. – See. S. 462 U. 457 U. Ct. Fifth Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection). 31 (3rd Cir.

e. Constitution. 1:3:3 and 2:1:5. Therefore. agencies. offices. (1) The first class of citizens are the ''American Citizens'' / ''state Citizens''. who inhabit the land known as ''the several states of the Union''. The pertinent court cases define the term ''United States'' in these Clauses to mean ''States United''. i. and who live within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Common Law. ORIGINAL WRIT OF DEMAND TO SHOW QUO WARRANTO: How Many Classes Of Citizens Currently Inhabit America? Answer: There are two (2) classes of citizens currently inhabiting America. e. . state and local governments. living within the geographic boundaries of the country known as ''America''. using various names not excluding that of the ''United States''. when properly used within its intended text – means: Page 31 of 146. et cetera . citizens of the federal government..) Note the UPPER-CASE ''C'' in ''Citizen''. .g. whereby the term ''Citizen of the United States'' is used. municipalities. and. the de facto federal. (See 1:2:2. who seem to be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the de facto government. . the original. et al. (2) those of whom the second class is comprised are known as ''federal citizens'' / ''citizens of the United States''. S.. The first class of Citizen appears in the Qualifications Clauses of the U. full term – ''Citizen of the United States''. which is a foreign corporate fiction now operating as a collection of corporate entities and subsidiaries. and not the federal government currently operating as a foreign corporation using the name ''United States''.

which is first declared within Article I of the Articles of Confederation. U.' (*Note that Abraham Baldwin and William Few were the Georgia delegates who signed the Constitution for the United States of America on September 17th. primarily for the former slaves who President Lincoln had previously attempted to free with the Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure).) Similar terms are found in the Diversity Clause at Art III. (Also note that: Prior to the Civil War. §1983.) The second class of citizen originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act. joined within the Union of the several states. and later by the 13th amendment Page 32 of 146. 914-915 (1918) for definitive authority on this key point. 910. there was only one (1) class of Citizen under American Law. Sec 4 of the Constitution for the United States of America. Constitution. Note the lower-case ''c'' in ''citizen''. ratified in the year 1789.'A Citizen is the sovereign who inhabits the land found within one of the common-law bound. Clause 1." This is further guaranteed at Art IV. de jure Republic states.S. whereby Georgia is joined as a signatory to the Constitution. . wherein it is affirmed – '' The Stile of this Confederacy shall be the United States of America. at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Clause 1. Sec 2. wherein the term ''citizen of the United States'' is used. ratified in the year 1781.C. Roanoke. S. Sec 2. This Act was later codified at Title 42 U. and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause at Art IV. See the holding in Pannill v. The pertinent court cases hold that Congress thereby created a municipal franchise. 252 F.

and since it may be rightfully presumed that the federal. Tompkins.'' the inferior courts (acting under Art. whereby the 1st-class- American Citizens' inherent. Co. by failing to use the unique and appropriate term ''federal citizen. such as that found in Black’s Law Dictionary. Article I.'' while operating under a ''presumption of law. v. Constitutionally-protected and guaranteed rights/status may not be recognized by the lower (inferior) courts. state and local body-politic now consists of intelligent men and women. 304 U.'' which would properly identify any 2nd-class of citizens now living within the several states. S. 64 (1938)). it would seem clear that an attempt is being made to confuse these two classes of citizens by attempting to make it appear as though all citizens are ''equal'' under the 14th amendment. 2 of the U. IV. subjecting them to the inferior maritime- admiralty law (commercial law / law of the water). Common-Law venue (the Supreme Law of the Land). which ultimately results as impetus to the ''Erie doctrine. 8. . S. 3 CI. Constitution. whereas rather than rightfully elevating the rights and status of the 2nd-class-citizen to that of the 1st-class-American Citizen. unalienable. I. 17 and Art. Sec. Sixth Edition (''But a state and the federal government each has citizens of its own''). CI. However. Sec. Section 8 (Erie R. R. Constitution) now arbitrarily 're-venue' the 1st-class-American Citizens from their beloved Constitutional.banning slavery and involuntary servitude. and later under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. and pursuant to the abuse in power of the Commerce Clause of the U. God-given. Page 33 of 146. many of whom are attorneys.'' by way of the ''Supremacy Clause. S.

the 1st-class-American Citizens are now being subjected to the type of inferior. However. that is meant to prevail. which is intended to govern the human rights and status of all men and women equally. Affiant does hereby and herewith formally invoke his rights and status under such Law which requires the Respondent now answer for its ultra vires actions pursuant to Affiant's demand that Respondent forthwith show Quo Warranto. whereas any criminal statute which may attempt to compel the performance of any ''obligation'' or ''duty'' under which there is no such Law of Liability is tantamount to slavery.but rather.e. . http://www. corporate-commercial acts currently inflicted upon virtually 'all' citizens now inhabiting America. i.scribd. the Supreme Law of the Land. which is in direct contravention to the guarantees and protections the 1st-class-American Citizens enjoy under the U. insomuch as it is the Common Law. Constitutional Law. Therefore. we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats (Article IV.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans. which are now regularly circumvented as direct result of the pecuniary ambition not uncharacteristic of the ultra vires. the Guarantee Clause of the U.com/doc/135949169/The-Unconstitutional-14th-Amendment Furthermore. statutory codes. rules and regulations described above. neither the 14th-amendment nor its proposal has ever been lawfully nor legally adopted or ratified. S. God's Law. Page 34 of 146. it is not a question as to whether judgment should be granted to the Claimant against the Respondent in this case. as we now know. Section 4). Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments).. involuntary servitude and extortion.

child support was determined by balancing the needs of the child against the non-custodial parent’s (hereinafter the "NCP") ability to pay. . income tax. from those used by the State of Wisconsin (hereinafter the "Wisconsin Model"). (hereinafter the "Guidelines") in 1989. § 19-6-15. with little modification. codified in O. the Wisconsin Model was designed for use in low-income and poverty situations in which the obligors pay little.A. Akins. Unfortunately for NCPs in Georgia. 6 No. if any.C. In an effort to bring some predictability and uniformity to child support awards. As a result of the erroneous economic assumptions upon which these Guidelines are based. Georgia Bar Journal.1 The Guidelines adopted by Georgia were taken. the federal government mandated the use of economically based numeric guidelines as a requirement for a state’s continued receipt of federal funds under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.G. October 2000 – Vol.2 Page 35 of 146. In Georgia and other jurisdictions using similar criteria. low income NCPs are often pushed below the poverty income level and higher income NCPs pay grossly excessive child support payments which are tantamount to hidden alimony. 2 Cover Story: ''Why Georgia's Child Support Guidelines Are Unconstitutional'' By William C. Prior to the adoption of Georgia’s Child Support Guidelines. this resulted in widely varying obligations.

current tax laws grant all tax benefits to the custodial parent (hereinafter. 5 In Georgia. . How do the Guidelines Work? The Guidelines calculate presumptive child support obligations based on a range of percentages of the NCP’s gross income with no consideration for payroll deductions for federal and state income tax. the "CP"). etc. the federal laws in effect in 1989 rewarded states based on total dollars of child support collected.Perversely. the federal government provided welfare and collection incentive funds to the states based on the gross amount of the total child support payments recovered from NCPs. trial courts are powerless Page 36 of 146.3 That is. social security.4 Furthermore. The 1998 revision bases welfare and incentive funding on the percentage of child support awards collected. thus rewarding efficient recovery of appropriate awards. Those laws were amended in 1998 to reward efficiency of collection. The effect of the earlier federal statute and Georgia’s adoption of Wisconsin Style Guidelines is one of the most onerous child support schemes in the country. from 1989 to 1998. and one which violates both substantive due process and equal protection guarantees of the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Georgia. thus creating a corresponding incentive to establish support obligations as high as possible without regard to appropriateness of amount. rather than gross collections. mandatory insurance contributions.

take-home pay of $41. and that during their marriage. with no insurance or retirement contributions. utilities.000 per year and Jane’s is $21. Example 1: Dick and Jane have filed for divorce. Dick’s after-tax.to apportion tax benefits absent an agreement between the parties.000. Page 37 of 146.069. Thus. Jane is awarded physical custody of the children. 33% of Dick’s after tax take-home pay. Dick’s gross income is $30. automobile loans. is now $1. Let us examine how the application of Georgia’s Guidelines would affect a hypothetical. from which he supported his children while married. He is also ordered to pay 25. The $638 he has been ordered to pay is in reality. after paying his basic child support. Dick has $1.274 left from which to pay rent. In the divorce.7 there is no guidance as to how they are to be applied and they are so seldom addressed as to be non-existent in any practical sense. insurance and maintenance. then. they both supported their children from their combined after-tax. They have two children.912. or $638. take-home pay. typical couple. medicare and social security.5% (the mid-point percentage) of his gross monthly income as child support. Assume that both pay federal and state income taxes.6 While the Guidelines provide some 18 bases for departing from the presumptive award. . Dick is given alternating weekend and holiday visitation with some longer stretches in the summer.

Example 2: Assume that with only one child. after child support net annual income is $15. $4. tax-free. $638 from Dick for a total monthly net income of $2.300 federal standard exemption for Dick and $6.000 per year gross or $62. In addition. She then receives.752 after taxes.340 social security tax and $1. and clothing.food. Jane. Interestingly. he will also have to pay to feed.000. After taxes and child support. Dick makes 58% of their combined gross income of $51.677 annually. After the divorce. Dick made $70.300 federal income tax. or 70% of the combined marital net income. Jane now nets $28. Dick’s after tax.000 less $14. These calculations include the $4. not to mention birthday and Christmas presents. on the other hand.950 federal taxable income.713 state income tax.015 Medicare tax). $3.350 for Jane (as head of Page 38 of 146.631 ($70. and Jane made only $40. and clothe his children during visitation periods. house. Jane’s child tax credits and earned income credit of $246 ($2952 annually) almost totally offsets the $248 in federal and state income tax. It should be noted that. health insurance.150 in federal taxable income.296. social security and medicare for which she is liable. now takes home $1. . even before receiving Dick’s child support payment. Dick’s after-tax income would be $46.390.000 or $28.

The economic flaws in the Guidelines include. and $11 higher than in Florida. In the first example. result in a higher standard of living for the CP. The Economic Problems: The Guidelines are not based on sound economic principles.631 and Jane makes $45. In the second example. Net after-tax. It should be noted that such excess is not just a matter of a few dollars. without limitation. Any visitation arrangement would entail further reductions.000 (20%) per year as child support. which is non-taxable income for Jane.750 child exemption and $500 child credit for Jane. 28% or $141 more than South Carolina. Dick’s $1.167 obligation is 80% or $518 per month higher than the average obligation for his and Jane’s income levels in all four of the aforesaid states. or 14% over her gross. the following: (a) An intact Page 39 of 146. And you thought divorce was an equitable proceeding. a $2. Dick’s $638 monthly obligation is 15% or $81 higher than in North Carolina.533. 21% or $112 higher than Alabama.750 personal exemption for each and a $2. .household).8 And these figures presume no visitation. In addition. Dick then pays Jane $14. after child support incomes? Dick makes $32. and exceed actual child care costs. they ignore tax benefits. although these states’ guidelines consider CP income.

instead. a sound method for calculating support awards requires consideration of the CP’s income at some point in the calculation of the presumptive award. considered. That is. imposing a straight line percentage on all income levels without any cap. higher income households do not spend as much of their income on their children as lower income families. . The Guidelines do not reflect this economic reality. In other words. It is simply not based on child cost patterns. however. No economic study supports such a result. a 17% obligation to a person who loses 35% of his income to taxes and other involuntary deductions requires 26% of his after-tax income to meet this obligation. which circumstance is seldom. The CP’s income is only addressed as a special circumstance for departing from the presumptive award. an NCP whose gross income is just above the poverty Page 40 of 146. The Guidelines do not do this. (b) The Guidelines create an obligation based on a percentage of pre-tax income. In other words. (c) The absolute amount of money expended on children decreases as a percentage of intact family spending as income rises. (d) The Guidelines do not contain a provision for self- support reserve. if ever. Therefore. Similarly a 23% award becomes a 35% obligation. they base the presumptive award solely on the NCP’s income.family supports its children from both parents’ incomes.

not for general application. specifically recommended against Wisconsin-style guidelines. in Denver. 1998. As to the use of guidelines designed for poverty / welfare cases. a result which is likely to add to the public assistance roll as the result of government action.. Dr. so I would say basically not. While the Guidelines allow this issue to be addressed by a finder of fact on a discretionary basis. Inc. (f) The Guidelines result in presumptive awards so far above child rearing costs as to result in the granting of hidden alimony without the satisfaction of the requirements for alimony awards under Georgia law. "there’s never been another advisory panel.. Dr. Colorado. Williams was asked "[w]hen the federal government mandated states adopt presumptive-type guidelines and the advisory panel. is anything changed that would revise those recommendations?" He replied. there is no assurance of reasonably consistent application of such deviation. testified at length before Georgia Commission on Child Support (the "Commission") on May 1. Robert Williams of Policy Studies. . (e) The economic study which underlies the Wisconsin Model upon which the Guidelines are based states that "obligor-only" guidelines should only be used at the poverty level.level will be forced below the poverty level by making support payments required by the Guidelines.''9 At least one Page 41 of 146.

without due process of law. although the decision was based on simple logic. was admitted by the Commission in the Report to the Governor from the Georgia Commission on Child Support (1998) (hereinafter. the "Majority Report").F. except by due process of law." That no such study on the costs of raising children in Georgia has been done. . . . The United States Constitution provides that no state may "deprive any person of life.12 45 C. or property. § 302. Georgia’s Constitution provides that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life.11 They were hastily adopted using the Wisconsin Model to beat the federal deadline for enactment of guidelines.R. "a State must consider economic data on the cost of raising children .56 (h) (1999) states in pertinent part.10 The Due Process Problem: The Guidelines were enacted in 1989 to insure Georgia’s receipt of an estimated $25. and that such a lack of data is a problem. rather than constitutional grounds.000 in federal funds. The Commission also recommended seeking federal funds to conduct the federally mandated studies. or property."14 Page 42 of 146.000. liberty."13 Similarly. liberty.state’s supreme court has held that the use of poverty level guidelines for calculating support obligations at higher income levels is irrational and inappropriate.

however. is a permissible state objective. providing a consistent basis for the award of appropriate child support. the Guidelines. § 302. Page 43 of 146. by an improper purpose. "to ensure that their application results in the determination of appropriate child support award amounts. is whether the means adopted. Note.17 It is readily conceded that the objective of the Guidelines.Protection from arbitrary state action is the very essence of substantive due process. bias." (emphasis added) The question then.R. a showing must be made that such government action is motivated. To attack a statute on due process grounds. at least in part.F.16 Substantive due process guarantees are said to be violated if the questioned state statute or a part thereof is a patently arbitrary classification lacking any rational justification. that 45 C.e. i.15 The test to be applied in a due process analysis of governmental action infringing on non-fundamental rights is whether or not the legislation was aimed at a legitimate state objective and whether the means adopted are rationally related to accomplishing that objective. are rationally related to that economic objective.e.18 One constitutionally impermissible motive is a governmental pecuniary interest. .56 (e) (1999) mandates a review of each state’s guidelines every four years. i. or bad faith.

Turlington. Offutt. violated the federal due process clause.20 it is clear that the Guidelines were enacted almost exclusively for a governmental pecuniary purpose.21 The Majority Report admits that no study on Georgia child-rearing costs has been conducted22 and justifies its assertion that no change in the Guidelines is required. 139. Furthermore. 543 (1989) (later codified as the Guidelines) and recognized by the Court of Appeals in Department of Human Resources v. in which judges were paid directly by the parties. and the continued use of the Guidelines in the absence of such data. . B. This assertion of arbitrariness is buttressed by the State’s hasty adoption of the Wisconsin Model. Given the direct link to federal funds which motivated the legislature’s adoption of the Guidelines and which was expressly articulated in H. Long. v.19 the district court held that Georgia’s "fee system" courts. with vague Page 44 of 146. render the adoption and application of the Guidelines an arbitrary. in part. the complete failure of the State to gather the objective economic data required to support the Guidelines amounts.For example. That scramble to beat the federal deadline is not unlike the almost impromptu literacy test foisted on Florida’s high school seniors in violation of both federal due process and equal protection guarantees in Debra P. bad faith exercise of governmental power. Act No. in Doss v.

the Forest Service approved certain timber projects in the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests without sufficient studies of the projects’ impact on endangered species. and is.references to data from other states. regardless of the state’s legitimate interests. violative of due process.25 the underlying rationale of Sierra Club v. Although Dr..23 In that case. holding that "[a]gency actions must be reversed as capricious and arbitrary when the agency fails to ‘examine the relevant data. Forest Service set out in Sierra Club v. . Martin makes plain that such arbitrary conduct cannot support a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made. This is startlingly similar to the arbitrary and capricious conduct on the part of the U. The State of Georgia. acknowledged in testimony before the Commission that determining what portion of the CP’s household costs could be Page 45 of 146. Inc. The Eleventh Circuit declined to defer blindly to the Forest Service’s conclusions. is also engaging in impermissible arbitrary and capricious state action. therefore. Robert Williams of Policy Studies. by analogy. Georgia’s adoption of a child support scheme unsupported by economic data is irrational. Thus. S. by subjecting its citizens to a statutory child support scheme totally lacking in supporting data.’"24 Although decided under the Administrative Procedures Act. Martin.

"26 In other words.28 without Page 46 of 146. or who arguably have an interest in maintaining the status quo. author of the Minority Report. the commissions appointed to review the Guidelines have been composed. . In 1998. is an economist. four were either present or former child support enforcement personnel and two were state legislators who were up for re-election. for example. in large part. two were members of the judiciary. two represented CP advocacy groups. of individuals who are unqualified to assess the economic validity of the Guidelines. In addition. Mark Rogers. and the child’s standard of living drops significantly while the NCP’s rises. the CP has a limited ability to earn additional income. or both. he was quite clear that "it’s [the presumptive award amounts under the Guidelines] exceeding what we estimate would have been spent on that child at those combined income levels. This lack of qualification and concern about reality-based results is further exemplified by the Commission’s blind acceptance of such assertions as that after divorce. It is a further indication of the state’s arbitrary treatment of these issues that by recommending no change. of the 11 members of that Commission. Guideline-based awards exceed child-rearing costs. R. the Commission essentially ignores the advice of the economists called to testify.27 Only one.defined as child support was not always easy.

Such a distinction of class and burden is in no way related to the legitimate Page 47 of 146.C.a shred of supporting data. It is also troubling that. § 19-6-15 (c) (16) does not require a deduction from the presumptive award for the cost of said coverage. § 19-6-15 (a) requires the NCP to provide health insurance where reasonably available. Such reliance on anecdote and general impression has created the present inequitable situation. thereby allowing disparate results for similarly situated NCPs. for that matter.29 The Equal Protection Problem: The federal regulations governing state plans for calculating child support specifically provide that such awards shall be in amounts which are "appropriate. .G.G.A.C.C. Nor does O.G. O. but also violate equal protection guarantees.A. any married or cohabiting parents) pay from their net income. the resulting Guideline awards are not only grossly inappropriate. while the language of O.A."30 By imposing an obligation on NCPs based on a percentage of their gross income while the CPs (or. It should also be noted that the due process protection of Georgia’s Constitution is greater than that of its federal counterpart which is construed in most cases cited herein. § 19- 6-15 (c) provide a method for mandatory and consistent application of the factors for deviating from the presumptive awards.

82.governmental purpose of providing economically appropriate support to Georgia’s children. that is. The United States’ Constitution provides that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. since the Page 48 of 146."32 These protections are difficult to define with precision and must be applied to the particular facts of each case. they discriminate on the basis of sex and must undergo the intermediate scrutiny test.33 A reviewing court must apply different levels of scrutiny to a questioned statute depending on the nature of the governmental classification.. . of College Park."31 Georgia’s Constitution also states that "[n]o person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Most domestic relations practitioners’ observations would likely show a similar or higher percentage. D. the strict scrutiny / compelling state interest test does not apply.36 That survey found that in contested custody cases. J.34 As the instant case involves neither classification by race or national origin.35 A survey of child custody awards in 14 south Georgia counties for the years of 1995-97 was conducted by Kent Earnhardt. D. Therefore. Ph. Because the Guidelines have a highly disproportionate impact on men as applied. that the statutory classification must be substantially related to an important governmental objective.22% of the custody awards went to the mothers. however.

As with the due process claim. most of which he never receives. both parents supported their children from after-tax. net income. An NCP must pay an amount equal to a given percentage of his Page 49 of 146. similarly situated persons must be treated alike. one parent. under the minimum scrutiny test. Upon being classified. by imposing a greater burden on NCPs and providing greater benefits to CPs.application of the Guidelines overwhelmingly impacts men.37 Even if the Guidelines did not discriminate on the basis of sex. the analysis proceeds from the premise that providing appropriate child support is a legitimate state objective and seeks to ascertain whether the classification created by the Guidelines bears a substantial or rational relationship to that purpose. that is. is suddenly required to support his children from a totally different pool of funds. . they still violate equal protection guarantees. it constitutes sex discrimination in violation of equal protection. the NCP. That is. Prior to being classified on the basis of custody. whether the statutory classification bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.38 The Guidelines violate equal protection. The equal protection clause of the United States’ Constitution does not allow one group to be singled out for extraordinary burdens or benefits when such classification is not rationally related to the state objective. however.

is afforded a truly amazing windfall as described in the examples of Dick and Jane. who stands on exactly the same footing as the NCP regarding parenthood. Domestic corporations were granted great leeway in setting the par value of their stock and otherwise reducing their tax base. Alabama. save for the fact of having primary custody of the children. foreign corporations were required to pay an amount equal to three-tenths of a percent (0. the Guidelines present a situation functionally similar to that found in South Central Bell Telephone Co.gross income to the CP. . After the Supreme Court of Alabama upheld Page 50 of 146. v. In this regard. The result of this scheme was that foreign corporations paid approximately five times the tax required of domestic corporations.3%) of the value of the actual amount of capital employed in Alabama. which was not extended to their foreign counterparts. The CP.39 That case involved a negative commerce clause challenge to Alabama’s corporate taxation scheme in which domestic corporations were required to pay an amount equal to one percent (1%) of the par value of their stock. That payment is made from the NCP’s net income without any consideration for involuntary reductions. By contrast. The plaintiffs sued Alabama on equal protection and commerce clause grounds seeking a refund of taxes paid. or the CP’s income.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Alabama tax scheme failed under the strict scrutiny test used in commerce clause cases. primary or even predominant motive for the questioned legislation. by its very Page 51 of 146. the Court’s decision clearly held that when similarly situated parties—corporations doing business in Alabama—are required to pay a common obligation—corporate taxes—from different "sources"—firmly fixed asset value versus highly fluid. Although decided under the commerce clause employing the strict scrutiny test. . by analogy.41 In the Guidelines. easily minimized stock value—based on a single statutory distinction—domestic versus foreign status. a discriminatory intent must be shown. As with the due process analysis.the tax scheme 5-4. after-tax income —based on a single. the resulting disparity in the size of the obligation violates the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States. the Guidelines’ require that similarly situated individuals—parents—be required to pay a common obligation—the support of their children—from different sources—gross income versus net. but such intent need not be the sole. discriminatory intent is clear as. statutory distinction—custody of the children. the United States Supreme Court struck it down.40 the Court’s analysis strongly suggests that the Guidelines would not withstand an equal protection challenge under any level of scrutiny because.

Evans. only the NCP must pay child support based on gross income without accounting for involuntary reductions that substantially reduce disposable income or otherwise addressing the CP’s income. In Georgia. the Court applied the minimum scrutiny test and reviewed the Amendment for a rational relationship to a legitimate state end. . both parents have an obligation to support their child(ren).42 No rationale justifies singling out the NCP on that basis alone and imposing upon him (and.43 the Supreme Court scrutinized Amendment 2."44 Worse. such laws "raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons Page 52 of 146. a Colorado statute which stated that homosexuals could not be granted any special privileges by any governmental entity. the majority noted that the statute singled out a class of persons identified by a single trait. Because homosexuality is not a suspect class. occasionally. In holding Amendment 2 unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.terms. then denied them protection across the board. In Romer v. The majority said that such a scheme is not within our constitutional tradition as "[e]qual protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities. her) a disproportionate financial burden while awarding the CP a windfall of tax-free income and other benefits.

Presumably. Married parents.A. however. . They then go on not only to impose a burden on that class on a basis that is not rationally related to the statutory objective.C. and most pay social security (F. the Guidelines single out a class of persons by a single trait. the concern was that an obligor might engage in creative accounting to artificially lower his obligation. non-custodial parenthood. also benefits a similarly situated class. i.47 Involuntary reductions nonetheless are ignored by the Guidelines.000 annual retirement contribution to be deducted prior to calculating the presumptive award if the investment plan was in place prior to the divorce. many must pay mandatory insurance premiums.affected. In addition. even worse than Amendment 2.I."45 By comparison. union dues. The Majority Report cautions that using the NCP’s net income would not be desirable because net income is subject to too much variation. Every Georgian must pay (or be exempted from) federal and state taxes. the CPs.46 The State of Washington even allows a $2. Many states employ a definition of "adjusted gross income" which sets forth specific deductions. thus eliminating creative accounting as a concern. but. All this is done in the complete absence of supporting economic data and is contrary to demonstrated economic reality. cohabiting parents Page 53 of 146.) and medicare taxes as well. and the like.e.

As noted previously. but you have no idea how that latitude is being exercised Page 54 of 146. . the trier of fact is required to consider 18 possible reasons for deviating from the presumptive award. . where a child support case goes to trial.and CPs may take advantage of such reductions before supporting their children. one who may have offended the same judge in some way) will pay 23%. for example. Dr. Indeed.48 For a single child." not a range of computation. the Guidelines could result in one NCP paying 17% while an identical NCP elsewhere (or. the state plan must be based "on specific descriptive and numeric criteria and result in a computation of the support obligation. As required by federal regulation. but the NCP in Georgia may not. The Guidelines also allow unequal treatment between similarly situated NCPs by the use of a range of percentages. there is no factual basis for the amount or degree of deviation. Although the degree of this disparity varies somewhat with income level. the Guidelines create an economic underclass (NCPs) and a relatively privileged class (CPs) out of similarly situated persons without empirical data to justify the distinction. you’re given a tremendous latitude for variation.49 Even assuming an NCP could afford a trial. . Williams told the Commission that "what troubles me about this is that it doesn’t tell anybody how you should deviate .

Page 55 of 146. L. and the assistance of R. the Guidelines’ simultaneous imposition of a greater burden on one class of similarly situated persons and a greater benefit to the other violates the equal protection clause of both the state and federal constitutions. Mark Rogers. §§ 651.51 "[A]n arbitrary classification. where there exists no real difference as concerns the purpose of the legislation. 669b (1994 & Supp. D.C. is not allowed and constitutes a violation of the [Georgia] Constitution notwithstanding an arbitrary attempt to classify and then discriminate between those in different classifications. 42 U."52 Thus. Q. 2.55. received his B. He gratefully acknowledges the editorial input of Nina M.R."50 Georgia’s Constitution provides equal protection guarantees that are "coextensive" with those of the federal constitution. general litigation practitioners in Toccoa. _________________________________________ End-notes: 1.F.56 (1999). from Woodrow Wilson College of Law in 1983. Wisconsin-Style and Income Shares Child Support Guidelines: Excessive Burdens and Flawed Economic Foundation.and whether it’s being used to achieve results that are fair or not. 45 C. 33 Fam. Black. II 1996).S. Georgia. Akins. from the Citadel in 1976 and his J. Svoren and Sean A. 302. an Assistant District Attorney for the Mountain Judicial Circuit. See generally R. a research economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. 135. 139-41 (1999). A. Mark Rogers. for the reasons stated. . §§ 302. _________________________________________ William C.

S. 6 Ga. 6. Cullen. 488. Neal. 11. Fla. 270 Ga. ¶ 1. 1985). 626 P. 20-7-852(A) (West Supp.A. 551. 2000).4 (1999).3d 79. Tr.E. id.. These are approximations based on the plain language of those states’ guidelines. 14. 42 U. 8. see also Department of Treasury.. 4. 516 U. 559.S. 130 (N. Page 56 of 146. Blanchard v. § 1. 7. 641 (1956). 11. Smith. 488. 227 n. J.C. Supp. § 658a (1994 & Supp. L. Bradley.Immediato v. 73 F. 17. 5. 19.See Smith v. amend. Williams]. 13.Department of Human Resources v. 599 (1995). 406 (5th Cir. Supreme Court of N. 2000). 1980). 893 n. 9. 12. Long. 1998) [hereinafter Dr. §§ 43-5-580 (b) (West 1985 & Supp.2d 397.C. 825. See Ala. Gen.See Slochower v. Schedules X and Z in 1999 1040. Rule 32.3d 454. Ga. Mark Rogers.2d. 12-15. Turlington. 1997). App.30 (West Supp. 249 (1999). 261 Ga. aff’d. Rules of Judicial Admin. 350 U.D. 1996).U. 18.E.C.S. Blanchard. § 50-13. art.2d 597.G. Robert Williams before the Georgia Commission on Child Support at 93 (May 1. St. 501 (West Supp. 21.United States v. IV 1998). Tolchin v.C. and S. Rev. v. Township of Springfield. Ct.3. Bradley v. 1409 (7th Cir.S. 217 Ga. . § 19-6-15(c) (1999).F. 15. 1115 (3d Cir.2d 248. 1996). O. amend.4 (1989). 637. 102 F. Const. Offutt. of testimony of Dr.S. 459 S.4 (3d Cir. Board. 46 F. § 1. 1995). V. 460-61 (2d Cir. 26 U.A. Dist. Stat. Code Ann. 133. XIV. 823. 629 F.3d 1405. 10. Rye Neck Sch. U. 512 S.Debra P. 76 S. Unit B May 1981). 345-48 (Or. 16. 1999). 111 F. § 61.GA. The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998. 284 (1996).A. Selected 1989 Georgia Legislation — Domestic Relations. Stat. 342.Ersek v.3d 1099. 152. Const. 1999).C. Forms and Instructions. 644 F. 715-17 (1991). of Higher Educ. 401 S.R. § 19-6-15(b) (1999). Ann. 404. §§ 32. 20. 127.. Minority Report of the Georgia Commission on Child Support at 14 (1998).E. O.2d 714.Doss v.G. N. I.C.

aff’d. 243 Ga. 38. 243 Ga. 108 S. § 1. Ga. Sims v. 1910. 96 F. 276. Sims. 240 Ga. 26.Kent Earnhardt. 301. Georgia Selected Counties Child Custody Survey (unpublished manuscript on file with author). 33. 470 U.E. Ward. 79 S. Williams. Jeter. 275. 346-47. 526 U.See Caban v. 1196. 516 U.56(e) (1999).Clark v. ¶ 2. 441 U. 301.S.3d 1 (11th Cir. But see Metropolitan Life Ins. Ct. 23. 41. 34.45 C. 461. 736. 1200-01 (1959). Ct. 340. 611 (2d Cir. Co. 656 F.Cf.South Cent. Alabama. 24. Ct. 722 F. 160. Supp. XIV. 1760. Searcy v.S. 1605 (1982). 1981). 861 (1996). 31. Const.Id.S. § 1. 1999).R. 39. 874-83. 744 (S.S.See Safeway Stores. 312. Ct.U. Ct.22.See Sierra Club v. v. 1989).3d 600. supra note 23. Bulloch County Bd. supra note 9. 1914 (1988).. 99 S.2d 762. 116 S. 105 S. .Id.E. 40. 1996). 455 U. Faulkner.United States v. Mohammed. 848. amend.S. 1180 (1999).. 334.Truax v. Oklahoma Retail Grocers Ass’n Inc. Of Educ. Ct. Stitt v. Stitt. 240 S. 25. Bell Tel. Inc. 256. 325. Ct. 333. 27. 42 S.See Suber v.See Majority Report. 26 (1977).S.S. 765 (1979).S. Bickford v. 29. § 706 (1994). 253 S. Caban.2d 764. I. v. 32. Williams. City of Yonkers.. 869. Page 57 of 146. 28. Ct. at 391. at 1767.2d 24. 37. § 302. Co. 984 102 S.Report to the Governor from the Ga.Ga. 30. 257 U. 360 U. art. Corrigan. Ct. 119 S.D.S. 1679-84 (1985).Dr. 762 (1979). at 20. Comm’n on Child Support at 2 (1998) (hereinafter Majority Report).See Fulton v. Martin. 253 S. 36.F.S. 35.E.2d 1003 (5th Cir. 1676.S. 380. 1766 (1979). 130 (1921). 456.C. v. at 5. 168 F.5 U. Nolen. 441 U. 99 S. at 3. Const. at signature page. 255. 486 U. 388. 124.

at 18. shall be the supreme Law of the Land. 42. and all Treaties made. 48. 418 S. N. 339. § 19-7-2 (1999). 47. 52. 908 (1962). under the Authority of the United States. both of the United States and of the several States.C. 45.191-.E. 29 (1992). Stat. § 19-6-15(c) (1999).G.C.Id. 337.G. 262 Ga.2d 907. 517 U. XII / XV (re the Twelfth & Fifteenth articles of the aforesaid affidavit / petition) Article VI of the Constitution for the United States of America says: ''This Constitution. at 634. at 1628. 50.H. at 633. shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation. Code Ann. Rev. Rev. Ct.Wash. to support this Constitution''. Ct. §§ 26. Ann.E.100 (West 1997). 1620 (1996). all executive and judicial Officers. Williams. Code Ann. 374. §§ 43-19-101 to 103 (1999). supra note 9.O.Grissom v. 116 S.O. and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby. and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof. 218 Ga.. 51.56(c)(2) (1999). 116 S. . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. 127 S.Miss.F. 376. 44.Simpson v.Id. § 302. 620.45 C.S. 49.R. Gleason. §§ 458-C:1 to 7 (1992). at 1628. 43. The 13th Article of Amendment to the Constitution for these United States of America declares – Page 58 of 146.. 46. Ct.A. 116 S. State.A.2d 27. Evans.Dr.Romer v. or which shall be made.

. order. or any place subject to their jurisdiction.. or questions the right of expatriation. instruction.. 1868 – An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States: ''Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people.'' (See: Chuidian v Philippine National Bank) Uniform Commercial Code... §308 – Performance or Acceptance Page 59 of 146. That any declaration. shall exist within the United States.§207. of any officers of this government which denies. enacted by Congress July 27th. restricts..''Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. (b) An 'agency or instrumentality of a foreign state' means any entity – (1) which is a separate legal person corporate or otherwise. pg. indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. liberty. ¶ 249.'' 15 Statutes at Large.'' The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 provides that – ''a foreign state. and (3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States nor created under the laws of any third country. includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in. opinion. impairs. Book 1. and (2) which is an organ of a foreign state or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof. § 1.. 223. is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government. and the pursuit of happiness. or decision.

192. coined or issued by the United States. Res. and Whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States. J. JUNE 5. in the markets and in the payment of debts. and are inconsistent with the declared policy of the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar. – ''Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States. obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value of money of the United States.Under Reservation of Rights: (1) ''A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved.'' (2) ''Subsection (1) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction. and therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction.. 73rd Cong. 1st Sess. therefore. or in an amount of money of the United States measured thereby. H. Now. 1933. be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. ''Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affect the public interest. That (a) every provision contained in or made with respect Page 60 of 146. ." or the like are sufficient." "under protest.'' JOINT RESOLUTION TO SUSPEND THE GOLD STANDARD AND ABROGATE THE GOLD CLAUSE. Such words as "without prejudice.

2. the term ''obligation'' means an obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States. (b) As used in this resolution. 1933. including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations. is hereby repealed. . is declared to be against public policy. or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby.to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency.". dollar for dollar. and the term ''coin'' or ''currency" means coin or currency of the United States. and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto.. approved May 12. heretofore or hereafter incurred. in any such coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. is amended to read as follows: ''All coins and currencies of the United States Page 61 of 146. excepting currency) payable in money of the United States.. Every obligation.'' SEC. shall be 'discharged' upon payment. but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law. The last sentence of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 43 of the Act entitled "An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency. Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States.

every.M." Approved June 5. 390. duties.'' – John Maynard Keynes. charges.192 does not refer to 'payment' of debt. all. Minister of the British Treasury. W. etc. both public and private.. an important part of the wealth of their citizens. Author of the book – ''The Economic Consequences Of Peace'' (1920).' – ''shall be discharged''. taxes. shall be legal tender for all debts. surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. . Note that HJR . governments can confiscate. and dues. except gold coins. and does it in a manner which not one in a million is able to diagnose. for public and private. 172 Minn. debts.(including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) hereunto and hereafter coined or issued. There is no subtler. '' By a continuing process of inflation. In the precedent set at Stanek v White. Economist. 1933. obligations. "Whoever controls the volume of currency in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.. and. taxes.. Garfield. the Supreme Court of Minnesota clarifies the legal distinction between the terms "discharged" and Page 62 of 146. shall be legal tender only at valuation in proportion to their actual weight. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic laws on the side of destruction. 4:30 P. public charges. duties. when below the standard weight and limit of tolerance provided by law for the single piece." – President James A. 784. secretly and unobserved. but rather clearly states that 'any. 215 N.

the debt still exists. Though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. i. The abrogation of the Constitution's gold standard. and this type of debt is perpetual.. and it seems the only public judicial venue is international maritime-admiralty law.e.192.' When discharged. The former substance of our previous monetary system. something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist. seems to deprive our Common Law of any real substance and leave a consequential void so far as the de jure government is concerned. whereby debt has become money (The Federal Reserve calls it "monetized debt"). makes it the subject of transfer by assignment." Thus. so as to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation. The only option one has is tender by transfer of debt. moving forward from June 5th. while our beloved Common-Law venue seems to languish as result. 1933." wherein – "There is a distinction between 'a debt discharged ' and 'a debt paid. the temporary / indefinite suspension of the ability for one to pay his debts. . no one is able to pay a debt. The fact that it carries something which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay. is now replaced with a system of Public National Credit / Public Trust. as protected by the Constitution. Since the American Citizens living within the several states Page 63 of 146. it is clear that as result of HJR ."paid. which may be transferred even though the transferee takes it subject to its disability incident to the discharge.

comes the authority and jurisdiction via governor's convention to pledge the sovereigns' labor. and is still assumed today. . acting Page 64 of 146. being recognized as sovereign. 31 USC 315 ( b ) provides that – "No gold shall after January 30. and the Federal Reserve / Department of Treasury. who are summarily presumed by the Article-I courts to be trusties / sureties. provided however. that coinage may continue to be executed by the mints of the United States for foreign countries. be paid out or delivered by the United States. be coined. the public policy adopted by Congress is purported to be a contractually-binding commercial agreement between the sovereign American Citizens.are indeed "sovereign. Contrary to Constitutional consideration. and no gold coin shall after January 30. 'cannot' be held to the internal public policy of the corporate de facto UNITED STATES. under the Common Law. property and surety as debtors to a privately owned corporation (Federal Reserve System)? Clearly this alleged ''authority'' and ''jurisdiction'' comes by way of the so-called ''public (corporate) policy. as result of its plan for re-organization / restructuring under its Chapter-Eleven filing in or about the year 1933. 1934. which was assumed." This exception is necessarily facilitated due to the fact that foreign countries. 1934." from where and from whom.'' which is declared by the de facto Congress pursuant to a filing for bankruptcy and subsequent financial state of insolvency and receivership suffered by the corporate de facto UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

thereby providing the STATE title (entitlement). creating a trust which. .'' thereby creating a decedent by which to probate said estate. or legal interest / ownership in the sovereigns' property (possession is only 9/10ths of the law). ''interest'' on ''debt'' and ''Mort-gage. not excluding such labor as is exerted during child birth. whereby sovereigns' straw-man (the all-capital-letter name on the birth record) is declared ''lost at sea.'' (a conjunctive noun / verb.respectively as creditor / fiduciary in this scheme. whereby this system of public credit is falsely presented as being extended by way of the Federal Reserve Bank. which is subsequently used as investment collateral generating enormous returns held in account of private estate which is created via a document of live birth (the sovereigns' birth record) by the Department of Treasury. un-apportioned taxation on the sovereigns' labor is also in derogation to the Constitution).'' (which constitutes ''sin'' within virtually every holy text on Earth.e. while in reality this type of system can only exist when the sovereign is forced to extend his credit to the Public Trust. by way of the Fed's predatory lending practices known as ''usury. Latin. and thus administrated to by the acting executor (executive) of the Page 65 of 146.'' is presumed abandoned. at which point the sovereign are then duped into registering their children (as a ''product of the water''). including any other ''estate property.'' with the STATE.. by way of ''presumption of law. meaning: ''Death-grip'' ) whereby the sovereigns' labor is pledged (*NOTE – such direct. including the Bible) i.

.e. Additionally. etc. III. regulations. Common / Constitutional Law (see Articles I. ''corporate policy.'' etc.e.'' ''THE CITY OF LAWRENCEVILLE.g.'' and thus suffer the equivalent of public-debt-servants who are now. IV and VI of our Constitution for these de jure united states of America). . under the corporate / maritime (law of the water) jurisdiction of the de facto UNITED STATES. not excluding any and all subsidiaries thereof.e. However. i.'' i. procedures. e. rules. as most of these so- called ''laws'' are imposed without a valid claim made by a ''flesh-and-blood'' man / woman. most all of these charges are invalid when compared to ''the supreme Law of the Land. being ''charged'' at maritime with offending more than 60-million corporate codes. with estate assets declared ''abandoned. the sovereign people are 're-venued' from Common-Law jurisdiction into being held as liable trusties / sureties under ''public policy.'' therefore. under rule of public / corporate policy. ''THE STATE OF GEORGIA... whereby the charge (because it's really all commercial in nature) is Page 66 of 146. the sovereign people's Constitutionally- protected rights and status are further circumvented due to their unwitting assumption of this fictitious ''straw-man'' identity and ''product-of-the-water'' status which is placed upon them at '' birth. statutes.'' i.'' and thus ''salvaged'' (pirated) under International- Maritime-Admiralty-Law by the foriegn corporation known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. the President of the Corporation–(UNITED STATES)..'e-states'.'' ''THE COUNTY OF GWINNETT..

''contrary'' to the Constitution and thereby ''notwithstanding. therefore.'' such does not void one's right to challenge the intent / interpretation / validity / Constitutional-muster of any code(s). even though one may have succumb to the aforesaid ''public policy. Whereas such codes' / statutes' sole purpose is for protecting the rights/status of sovereign men and women from the actions of corporations. S. – i. Thus.fraudulently filed under false pretense.e. and therefore can apply only to corporate-personhood. nor. and / or the like thereof. this thug-like mentality cannot be said to have set proper legal precedence. 3. CI.e. 8. '' The STATE 'picked up' the charge'' – and is. Constitution (i. met an accord under the guidelines of the Uniform Commercial Code. Sec.'' or '' incarceration'' ).. Sec.'' In addition to a lack of full disclosure. pertaining to / purportedly conferring thereupon the " compelled benefits of privilege" presumed by way of Article I.'' or '' plea bargain'' ). so long as the sovereign people are forced to follow such public policy by way of coercion / black-mail – (The STATE calls it '' negotiation. the inferior ''courts'') and/or any other edict which may predicate its actions upon the erroneous / false presupposition of any such codes' or statutes' Constitutionality as applies to the flesh-and-blood American Citizen. 17 and Article IV. . CI. 2 of the U. Remarks in Congress as recorded in the Congressional Record: The following are quotations from several speeches made on the Floor of the Page 67 of 146. and / or duress / strong-arm – (The STATE calls this '' enforcement. statute(s).

The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over. Congressman McFadden. there can be no accusation of partisanship lodged against him. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. on or about the years 1932 and 1934. The Federal Reserve – A Corrupt Institution: McFadden: "Mr. hereinafter called the Fed.'' which gives impetus to the ''Internal Revenue Service. . Because these speeches are set out on their face as recorded in the Congressional Record.House of Representatives by the Honorable Louis T. "This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United Page 68 of 146. Chairman. we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known.'' Whereas Congressman McFadden was elected to the high office on both the Democratic and Republican tickets. was the best posted man on these matters in America. they carry weight that no amount of condemnation on the part of private individuals could hope to carry. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. due to his having served as Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for more than 10 years. and was in a position to speak with authority on the vast ramifications of this gigantic private credit monopoly known as ''The Federal Reserve. McFadden of Pennsylvania.

Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers. . there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket. They created a Page 69 of 146. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates. "Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks [are] United States Government institutions.States. through the mal-administration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it. and rich and predatory money lenders. there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures. and has practically bankrupted our Government. had bankrupted itself. "These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers.

reign of terror in Russia. in order to help that war along. Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun the breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children. Aldrich. and placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky's disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that. . "In 1912. He was the tool. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution. They financed Trotsky's passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. Chairman. through him. made a report and presented a vicious bill called the National Reserve Association bill. the National Monetary Association. Page 70 of 146. and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War [ I ]. and who in 1912 has spent and were continuing to spend vast sums of money to accomplish their purpose. Senator Aldrich did not write the Aldrich bill. if not the accomplice. there should be no partisanship in matters concerning banking and currency affairs in this Country. and I do not speak with any. with our money. under the chairmanship of the late Senator Nelson W. This bill is usually spoken of as the Aldrich bill. "Mr. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia. of the European bankers who for nearly twenty years had been scheming to set up a central bank in this Country.

the worm- eaten monarchical institution of the "King's Bank. After that. and the Wilson administration. and it set up the antiquated 2-name paper. there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of government. in 1837. It discriminated against our 1-name commercial paper. The men who rule the Democratic Party then promised the people that. the finest in the world. was hurled out of existence. when the second Bank of the United States. established here. Thirteen months later. which is the present curse of this Country and which wrecked every country which has ever given it scope. it fastened down upon the Country the very tyranny from which the framers of the Constitution sought to save us. the Country was warned against the Page 71 of 146. if they were returned to power. "The Federal Reserve Bank destroyed our old and characteristic way of doing business. in our free Country. President Jackson's time: "One of the greatest battles for the preservation of this Republic was fought out here in Jackson's time."We were opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank." to control us from the top downward. and from the cradle to the grave. under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House. . that promise was broken. founded on the same false principles of those which are here exemplified in the Fed.

and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. gentlemen. but that is your sin! Should I let you go on. I shall ruin ten thousand families. you charged it to the bank. That is what the predatory interests did when they came back in the livery of hypocrisy and under false pretenses obtained the passage of the Fed. on or about 1834: “Gentlemen.'' President Andrew Jackson to the Bankers. and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won.dangers that might ensue if the predatory interests. disguise and unite themselves to the Executive. you will ruin fifty thousand families. and by the eternal God. This is an era of misery. after being cast out. I intend to rout you out.” McFadden: "The danger that the Country was warned against came upon us and is shown in the long train of horrors attendant upon the affairs of the traitorous and dishonest Fed. you divided the profits amongst you. Look around you when you leave this Chamber and you will see evidences of it in all sides. I will rout you out. and. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter. I have had men watching you for a long time. and through him acquire control of the Government. should come back in. and when you lost. This is an era Page 72 of 146. the Fed are fully liable. That may be true. . for the conditions that caused that misery.

wrote to Senator John W. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. There is no secret about it. he obtained employment with Carter Glass to assist in drawing the banking bill for the Wilson administration. He appropriated the text of the Aldrich bill. . and when the Aldrich measure failed. It was a copy in general. namely an asset currency based on human debts and obligations. Parker Willis had been employed by Wall Street and propagandists. One-half million dollars was spent on the part of the propaganda organized by these bankers for the purpose of misleading public opinion and giving Congress the impression that there was an overwhelming popular demand for it and the kind of currency that goes with it. "It has been said that the draughtsman who was employed to write the text of the Fed used a text of the Aldrich bill because that had been drawn up by lawyers [retained] by acceptance bankers of European origin in New York. the Fed does not play the part of a disinterested spectator. H. Weeks as follows: Page 73 of 146. of Massachusetts. The test of the Federal Reserve Act was tainted from the first. in the financing of crime. Dr.of financed crime and. "A few days before the bill came to a vote. a translation of the statues of the Reichsbank and other European central banks.

The powers vested in the Federal Reserve Board seem to me highly dangerous. The bill as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the currency. speculators. This bill puts the Government into the banking business as never before in our history. Henry Cabot Lodge. stability in business. and swindlers in all parts of the world. . I had hoped to support this bill. but I cannot vote for it because it seems to me to contain features and to rest upon principles in the highest degree menacing to our prosperity. December 17. especially where there is political control of the Board. Through the Fed. smugglers. bootlegger's. and to the general welfare of the people of the United States. the riffraff of every country is operating on the public credit of the United States Government. New York City. it has been made the backer of horse thieves and card sharks. Page 74 of 146. I should be sorry to hold stock in a bank subject to such dominations. I have supported all measures designed to take the Government out of the banking business. 1913 "My Dear Senator Weeks: Throughout my public life. Against its will. all of his predictions have come true. The Government is in the banking business as never before. Very Truly Yours." McFadden: "In eighteen years that have passed since Senator Lodge wrote that letter of warning.

is an impractical. Alexander Lassen made the following statement: "The whole scheme of the Fed.000 dwelling houses and farms were brought under the hammer (foreclosed on) in a single day. we ourselves are in the midst of the greatest depression we have ever known. Mr. instead of Page 75 of 146. cumbersome machinery. before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee. is simply a cover to secure the privilege of issuing money. "Recently in one of our States. and to evade payment of as much tax upon circulation as possible. . At no time in our history has the general welfare of the people been at a lower level. The Great Depression: "Meanwhile and on account of it. our Country has been ravaged and laid waste by the evil practices of the Fed and the interests which control them. They are the victims of the Fed. From the Atlantic to the Pacific. 60. The people who have thus been driven out are the wastage of the Fed. or the minds of the people so full of despair. Their children are the new slaves of the auction blocks in the revival of the institution of human slavery. with its commercial paper. 71. The Scheme of the Fed: "In 1913.000 houses and farms in Oakland County. and then control the issue and maintain. were sold and their erstwhile owners dispossessed. Michigan.

and shortly afterwards.'' McFadden: "If ever a prophecy came true. and.reducing. and no rate of interest will tempt it to return. sent one of their partners here to run it. . Loeb and Co. which alone could have kept us from catastrophe. interest rates. They should not have made the Government [liable on the private] debts of individuals and corporations. least of all. He predicted: ''Long before we wake up from our dream of prosperity through an inflated currency. the German International bankers. for when there is a shortage of money. an asset currency. It will prove to the advantage of the few and the detriment of the people. our gold. When the proponents of the act saw that the Democratic doctrine would not permit them to let the proposed banks issue the new currency as bank notes. "The Fed Note is essentially unsound. will have vanished. It is the worst currency and the most dangerous that this Country has ever known." A few days before the Fed passed.. they should have stopped at that. namely. It will mean continued shortage of actual money and further extension of credits. in the year 1913. on Page 76 of 146. The Fed became law the day before Christmas Eve. on the United States Government. Senator Root denounced the Fed as an outrage on our liberties. people have to borrow to their cost. that one did. Kuhn. They should not have foisted that kind of currency.

the private debts of foreigners. As Kemerer says: ''The Fed Notes, therefore, in

form, have some of the qualities of Government paper money, but in substance,

are almost a pure asset currency possessing a Government guarantee against

which contingency the Government has made no provision whatever [but for

governors' convention pledging people as its collateral].''

McFadden: "Hon. L. J. Hill, a former member of the House, said, and truly:

"They [Fed Reserve Notes] are obligations of the Government for which the

United States received nothing and for the payment of which, at any time, it

assumes the responsibility: looking to the Fed to recoup itself.''

McFadden: "If this United States is to redeem the Fed Notes, when the

General Public finds [how much] it costs to deliver this paper to the Fed, and if

the Government has made no provisions for redeeming them, the first element of

unsoundness is not far to seek.

"Before the Banking and Currency Committee, when the bill was under

discussion, Mr. Crozier of Cincinnati said: ''The imperial power of elasticity of

the public currency is wielded exclusively by the central corporations owned by

the banks. This is a life and death power over all local banks and all

business. It can be used to create or destroy prosperity; to ward off or cause

stringencies and panics. By making money artificially scarce, interest rates

Page 77 of 146.

throughout the Country can be arbitrarily raised and the bank tax on all

business and cost of living increased for the profit of the banks owning these

regional central banks, and without the slightest benefit to the people. The 12

Corporations together cover [industry] and monopolize and use, for private gain,

every dollar of the public currency and all public revenue of the United States.

Not a dollar can be put into circulation among the people by their Government,

without the consent of and on terms fixed by these 12 private money trusts.''

McFadden: "In defiance of this and all other warnings, the proponents of the

Fed created the 12 private credit corporations, and gave them an absolute

monopoly of the currency of these United States; not of the Fed Notes alone,

but of all other currency. The Fed Act [is] providing ways and means by which

the gold and general currency in the hands of the American people could be

obtained by the Fed in exchange for Fed Notes, which are not money, but mere

promises to pay.

"Since the evil day when this was done, the initial monopoly has been extended

by vicious amendments to the Fed and by the unlawful and treasonable practices

of the Fed.

Money for the Scottish Distillers:

"Mr. Chairman, if a Scottish distiller wishes to send a cargo of Scotch whiskey

Page 78 of 146.

to these United States, he can draw his bill against the purchasing bootlegger in

dollars and after the bootlegger has accepted it by writing his name across the

face of it, the Scotch distiller can send that bill to the nefarious open discount

market in New York City where the Fed will buy it and use it as collateral for a

new issue of Fed Notes. Thus the Government of these United States pay the

Scotch distiller for the whiskey before it is shipped, and if it is lost on the way,

or if the Coast Guard seizes it and destroys it, the Fed simply write off the loss

and the government never recovers the money that was paid to the Scotch

distiller.

"While we are attempting to enforce prohibition here, the Fed are in the

distillery business in Europe and paying bootlegger bills with public credit of

these United States. Mr. Chairman, by the same process, they compel our

Government to pay the German brewer for his beer. Why should the Fed be

permitted to finance the brewing industry in Germany either in this way or as

they do by compelling small and fearful United States Banks to take stock in

the Isenbeck Brewery and in the German Bank for brewing industries? Mr.

Chairman, if Dynamit Nobel of Germany wishes to sell dynamite in Japan to use

in Manchuria or elsewhere, it can draw its bill against the Japanese customers in

dollars and send that bill to the nefarious open discount market in New York

City, where the Fed will buy it and use it as collateral for a new issue of Fed

Page 79 of 146.

Notes; while at the same time, the Fed will be helping Dynamit Nobel by

stuffing its stock into the United States banking system.

"Why should we send our representatives to the disarmament conference at

Geneva, while the Fed is making our Government pay Japanese debts to German

Munitions makers?

"Mr. Chairman, if a German wishes to raise a crop of beans and sell them to a

Japanese customer, he can draw a bill against his prospective Japanese customer

in dollars, and have it purchased by the Fed and get the money out of this

Country at the expense of the American people before he has even planted the

beans in the ground. Mr. Chairman, if a German in Germany wishes to export

goods to South America, or any Country, he can draw his bill against his

customers and send it to these United States and get the money out of this

Country before he ships, or even manufactures the goods.

"Mr. Chairman, why should the currency of these United States be issued on the

strength of German Beer? Why should it be issued on the crop of unplanted

beans to be grown in Chili for Japanese consumption? Why should these United

States be compelled to issue many billions of dollars every year to pay the debts

of one foreigner to another foreigner? Was it for this [reason] that our National

Bank depositors had their money taken out of our banks and shipped abroad?

Page 80 of 146.

Was it for this [reason] that they had to lose it? Why should the public credit

of these United States and likewise money belonging to our National Bank

depositors be used to support foreign brewers, narcotic drug vendors, whiskey

distillers, wig makers, human hair merchants, Chilean bean growers, to finance

the munition factories of Germany and Soviet Russia?

The United States has been ransacked:

"The United States has been ransacked and pillaged. Our structures have been

gutted and only the walls are left standing. While being perpetrated, everything

the world would rake up to sell us was brought in here at our expense by the

Fed, until our markets were swamped with un-needed and un-wanted imported

goods priced far above their value and made to equal the dollar volume of our

honest exports, and to kill or reduce our favorable balance of trade. As Agents

of the foreign central banks, the Fed try by every means in their power to

reduce our favorable balance of trade. They act for their foreign principal and

they accept fees from foreigners for acting against the best interests of these

United States. Naturally there has been great competition among foreigners for

the favors of the Fed.

"What we need to do is to send the reserves of our National Banks home to the

people who earned and produced them and who still own them, and to the

Page 81 of 146.

banks which were compelled to surrender them to predatory interests.

"Mr. Chairman, there is nothing like the Fed pool of confiscated bank deposits

in the world. It is a public trough of American wealth in which the foreigners

claim rights equal to or greater than Americans. The Fed are the agents of the

foreign central banks. They use our bank depositors' money for the benefit of

their foreign principals. They barter the public credit of the United States

Government, and hire it to foreigners at a profit to themselves.

"All this is done at the expense of the United States Government, and at a

sickening loss to the American people. Only our great wealth enabled us to

stand the drain of it as long as we did.

"We need to destroy the Fed, wherein our national reserves are impounded for

the benefit of the foreigners. We need to save America for Americans.

Spurious Securities:

"Mr. Chairman, when you hold a $10.00 Fed Note in your hand, you are

holding a piece of paper which sooner or later is going to cost the United States

Government $10.00 in gold. It is based on 'Limburger cheese' (purported to be

in foreign warehouses) or in cans purported to contain peas (but may contain salt

water instead), or horse meat, illicit drugs, bootleggers fancies, rags and bones

Page 82 of 146.

from Soviet Russia (of which these United States imported over a million dollars

worth last year), on wines, whiskey, natural gas, goat and dog fur, garlic on the

string, and Bombay ducks.

"If you like to have paper money, which is secured by such commodities, you

have it in Fed Note. If you desire to obtain the thing of value upon which this

paper currency is based, that is, the Limburger cheese, the whiskey, the illicit

drugs, or any of the other staples, you will have a very hard time finding them.

"Many of these worshipful commodities are in foreign Countries. Are you going

to Germany to inspect her warehouses to see if the specified things of value are

there? I think [not;] more, I do not think that you would find them there if you

did go.

"On April 27, 1932, the Fed outfit sent $750,000 belonging to American bank

depositors in gold to Germany. A week later, another $300,000 in gold was

shipped to Germany. About the middle of May, $12,000,000 in gold was

shipped to Germany by the Fed. Almost every week there is a shipment of

gold to Germany. These shipments are not made for profit on the exchange,

since the German marks are below parity with the dollar.

"Mr. Chairman, I believe that the National Bank depositors of these United

Page 83 of 146.

but which are being financed on the public credit of the United States Government? What goods are those upon which the United States Government is being obligated by the Fed to issue Fed Notes to the extent of several billions of dollars a year? The Bankers' Acceptance Racket: "The Fed have been International Banks from the beginning. we had over a half billion dollars outstanding daily to finance foreign goods. this item amounts to several billions of dollars of the public credit of these United States. There are millions of National Bank depositors in the Country who do not know that a percentage of every dollar they deposit in a Member Bank of the Fed goes automatically to American Agents of the foreign banks. . What goods are these on which the Fed yearly pledge several billions of dollars? In its yearly total. and that all their deposits can be paid away to foreigners without their knowledge or consent by the crooked machinery of the Fed and the questionable practices of the Fed. Chairman. "Mr. But it is none the less Page 84 of 146. In 1930. the American people should be told the truth by their servants in office.States have a right to know what the Fed are doing with their money. "What goods are those which are hidden in European and Asiatic stores [and] have not been seen by any officer of our Government. with these United States as their enforced banker and supplier of currency.

000. In the past ten years. by and of pirates.000.000. you have.000 [one-hundred-million dollars] per week.000 [ninety-billion dollars]. as it has been developed by the Fed. Coupled to this. a gambling on which the Fed is now spending $100. and by means of a long rawhide whip of the credit masters. "Fed Notes are taken from the U. compel them to enter another seventeen Page 85 of 146. I say the magnitude of this racket is estimated to be in the neighborhood of $9.extraordinary to see these twelve private credit monopolies buying the debts of foreigners against foreigners. Is it strange that the burden of supplying these immense sums of money to the gambling fraternity has at last proved too heavy for the American people to endure? Would it not be a national calamity if the Fed should again bind down this burden on the backs of the American people.000. how to loot the people. and asking the Government of these United States for new issues of Fed notes in exchange for them. the gambling in the United States securities. [encompasses] their foreign correspondents and the predatory European born bankers. who set up the Fed here and taught your own [bankers]. it is said to have amounted to $90.000. Government in unlimited quantities. In my opinion. S. which takes place in the same open discount market. to the extent of billions of dollars. The magnitude of the acceptance racket. in all parts of the world. it has amounted to several times that much. .000 [nine-billion dollars] per year.

. five-hundred-ninety-eight-million. I addressed the House on the subject of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Speaker.000 [sixty-billion. or a pile of cord-wood by its check-kiting operations in the money market.000 a week.000. I made the following statement: In 1928. The actual amount of such obligations called for six Page 86 of 146. Our people are disgusted with the experiences of the Fed.years of slavery? "They are trying to do that now. six- hundred-ninety-thousand dollars] from the Fed on their fifteen-day promissory notes. The Fed is not producing a loaf of bread. in addition to all their other seizures. Think of it.690.000 [one- hundred-million dollars] of the public credit of the United States every week.598. and they are sending that money to the nefarious open market in a desperate gamble to re-establish their graft as a going concern. the member banks of the Fed borrowed $60. Sixty billion dollars payable on demand in gold in the course of one single year. and with the money. a bushel of corn. they are buying our Government securities for themselves and their foreign principals. "Mr. They are trying to take $100.000. on the 13th of January of this year. In the course of my remarks. "They are putting the United States Government in debt to the extent of $100. a yard of cloth.

of about $7.000 [seven- million dollars] to every member of the Fed. has at last proved unequal to the task of supplying this huge total of cash and credit for the benefit of the stock market manipulators and foreign swindlers? In 1933. This shows that when the banks were gambling on the public credit of these United States. In 1929.782.000.000 [thirteen-billion. while the speculating banks were getting out of the stock market at the expense of the general public. When the swindle began to fall. the bankers knew it in advance. as represented by the Fed currency. the Fed advanced $58. Page 87 of 146. "In 1930.598.022. which ultimately pays the cost of all banking operations of this Country. in the course of one single year.times as much monetary gold as there is in the world.690. the Fed advanced them $13.000.000 to its member banks at the expense of the wage earners and tax payers of these United States. Such transactions represent a grant.000. . and withdrew from the market. the Fed presented the staggering amount of $60. seven-hundred-eighty-two-thousand dollars]. the year of the stock market crash.000 [fifty-eight-billion dollars] to member banks. twenty-two-million. "Is it any wonder that American labor. and left the people of these United States to pay the piper. They got out with whole skins. they were subsidized to any amount they required by the Fed.

they lent $33. . but they lend comparatively little that way. Mr. McGugin.000."My friend from Kansas.000. They discourage it.00 to their favorite banks for whom they do a business of several billion dollars income tax on their profits to these United States. It is too slow for genuine high flyers. They prefer to subsidize their favorite banks by making them $60. The John Law Swindle: "This is the John Law swindle over again. and they prefer to acquire assistance in the notorious open discount market in New York. So they do. The theft of Teapot Dome was trifling compared to it. What King ever robbed his subject to such an extent as the Fed has robbed us? Is it any wonder that there have been lately ninety cases of starvation in one of the New York hospitals? Is there any wonder that the children are being abandoned? "The government and the people of these United States have been swindled by swindlers deluxe.] or a parcel of Page 88 of 146. where they can use it to control the price of stocks and bonds on the exchanges. to whom the acquisition of American [Notes. "For every dollar they advanced on discounts in 1928. The real discounting that they do has been called a mere penny in the slot business.000 [sixty- billion dollar] advances. has stated that he thought the Fed lent money on re-discounting.

Hoover's friend. by sharpers not subject to the jurisdiction of these United States. exchanging that currency for gold. and getting the currency out of the Fed for it as quickly as possible. Mr. presented no more difficulty than the drawing up of a worthless acceptance in a Country not subject to the laws of these United States. . The credit of the United States Government was peddled to him by the Fed for their own private gain. was drawn from the government and the people of the United States through the Fed. sharpers with strong banking "fence" on this side of the water. That is what the Fed has been doing for many years. Page 89 of 146. endorsing it. Give them the flag and they will sell it. and in turn. That is what happens when a Country forsakes its Constitution and gives its sovereignty over the public currency to private interests. and his rotten Wall Street bakers. transmitting the gold to its foreign confederates. "They have been peddling the credit of this Government and the signature (liability) of this Government to the swindlers and speculators of all nations. a "fence" acting as a receiver of a worthless paper coming from abroad. the Match King: "Such were the exploits of Ivar Krueger. Every dollar of the billions Kreuger and his gang drew out of this Country on acceptances.Fed Notes. Ivar Kreuger.

with a white face and shaking hands."The nature of Kreuger's organized swindle and the bankrupt condition of Kreuger's combine was known here last June when Hoover sought to exempt Krueger's loan to Germany of $125. went before the Senate on behalf of the moneyed interests and asked the Senate to levy a tax on the people so that foreigners might Page 90 of 146.000.000.000 [thirty-million dollars] was taken from the American taxpayers by certain bankers in New York for the ostensible purpose of permitting Krueger to make a loan to Colombia. Hoover. the President of the United States. The bankrupt condition of Krueger's swindle was known here last summer when $30. and to know how much of our Government currency was issued and lost in the financing of that great swindle in the years during which the Fed took care of Krueger's requirements. "The nature of Krueger's swindle was known here in January when he visited his friend. . I think the people of the United States are entitled to know how many billions of dollars were placed at the disposal of Krueger and his gigantic combine by the Fed. Colombia never saw that money.000 [one-hundred-twenty-five-million dollars] from the operation of the Hoover Moratorium. "A few days ago. Chairman. It was known here in March before he went to Paris and committed suicide. at the White House. "Mr. Mr.

It is asking for money that was raised from the people by taxation. when they peddled the signature of the Government to foreigners for a Price. C. It is what the United States Government has to pay to redeem the obligations of the Fed.know that these United States would pay its debt to them. where all the jackals have gathered to the feast.. at the door of the R. "Most Americans thought it was the other way around. Thieves Go Scot Free: "Are you going to let these thieves get off scot free? Is there one law for the looter who drives up to the door of the United States Treasury in his limousine and another for the United States Veterans who are sleeping on the floor of a dilapidated house on the outskirts of Washington? "The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad is here asking for a large loan from the people and the wage earners and the taxpayers of these United States. Page 91 of 146. It is begging for a handout from the Government. Loeb and Co. the German International Bankers. and wants this money of the poor for the benefit of Kuhn. F. It is standing. What does these United States owe foreigners? When and by whom was the debt incurred? It was incurred by the Fed. cap in hand. .

and the United States Government credit which the Fed exported out of this country to their foreign principals. their foreign masters.300. they have sent $1. "It will take twenty years to redeem our Government. three-hundred-million dollars] in gold to their foreign employers. C. is taking over these worthless securities from the Investment Trusts with United States Treasury money at the expense of the American taxpayer and the wage earner. I cannot enter into a Page 92 of 146.000 [one-billion. Twenty years of penal servitude to pay off the gambling debts of the traitorous Fed and to vast flood of American wages and savings. bank deposits. within the limits of the time allowed me."Is there one law for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and another for the hungry veterans it threw off its freight cars the other day? Is there one law for sleek and prosperous swindlers who call themselves bankers and another law for the soldiers who defended the flag? The R. . Chairman. along with the rest. "The Fed lately conducted an anti-hoarding campaign here.000. they sent it to Europe. and every dollar of that gold belonged to the people of these United States. Fiat Money: "Mr. They took that extra money which they had persuaded the American people to put into the banks. and was unlawfully taken from them. F. In the last several months.

Consequently. Mills of the Treasury has spoken here of his horror of the printing presses and his horror of dishonest money. whole and entire. The man who deceives the people is a traitor to these United States. nothing should be concealed from the people. . I introduced a resolution here asking for an examination and an audit of the Fed and all related matters. He has no horror of dishonest money. a market in which the sellers are represented by 10 discount corporations owned and organized by the very banks which own and control the Fed. the people of these United States will obtain information of great value.particularized discussion of the Fed. by the people. Page 93 of 146. for the people. "Mr. Mills is fighting for is the preservation. of the bankers' monopoly of all the currency of the United States Government. indeed! "What Mr. I have singled out the Fed currency for a few remarks because there has lately been some talk here of "fiat money. Chairman." What kind of money is being pumped into the open discount market and through it into foreign channels and stock exchanges? Mr. If he had. "Fiat money. If the House sees fit to make such an investigation. he would be no party to the present gambling of the Fed in the nefarious open discount market of New York. last December. This is a Government of the people.

000. or to suffer and die of starvation in the streets. I am told that they amount to upwards of a billion dollars. If that claim is enforced. the Fed has usurped the Government. "Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers. three-hundred-million dollars]. They constitute a claim against our Government and likewise a claim against our peoples' money to the extent of $1. The people have a valid claim against the Fed. Speaker. families will be kept together. and American children will not be dispersed and abandoned. "Here is a Fed Note. the Americans will not need to stand in the bread line. which Page 94 of 146.000 [one-billion. it is a monstrous thing for this great nation of people to have its destinies presided over by a traitorous government board acting in secret concert with international usurers. Women will be saved.300. Immense numbers of the notes are now held abroad. but the truth is. Mr. What National Government has permitted the Fed to steal from the people should now be restored to the people. It makes and breaks governments at will. It controls everything here and it controls all of our foreign relations."The man who knows or suspects that a crime has been committed and who conceals and covers up that crime is an accessory to it. "No man and no body of men is more entrenched in power than the arrogant credit monopoly which operated the Fed. .

They are trying to make rates so attractive that the human hair merchants and the distillers and other business entities in foreign land will come here and hire more of the public credit of the United States Government to pay the Fed outfit for getting it for them.000. on unlimited supplies of money and credit sent out of this Country by the dishonest and unscrupulous Fed.000 a week buying government securities in the open market and are making a great bid for foreign business. the people of these United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here which would make the savings of the American school teacher available to a narcotic-drug vendor in Page 95 of 146. World Enslavement Planned: "Mr. when the Fed was passed. within the last few months. "The Fed are spending $100. . The greater part of our money stock has been shipped to other lands. Chairman. cheap goods. "Why should we promise to pay the debts of foreigners to foreigners? Why should the Fed be permitted to finance our competitors in all parts of the world? Do you know why the tariff was raised? It was raised to shut out the flood of Fed Goods pouring in here from every quarter of the globe. been shipped abroad to redeem Fed Notes and to pay other gambling debts of the traitorous Fed. produced by cheaply paid foreign labor.has.

"It is true that the warehouses and coal yards and grain elevators are full. So far as the people of the United States are concerned. clothing and medicine. "The people of these United States are being greatly wronged. and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. They have been driven from their employments. They did not perceive that these United States was to be lowered to the position of a coolie country which has nothing but raw material and heart. They have been left to suffer and die for lack of shelter. They have been dispossessed from their homes. but Page 96 of 146. the cupboard is bare. They have been evicted from their rented quarters.Acapulco. food. They have lost their children. that Russia was destined to supply the man power and that this country was to supply the financial power to an "international superstate." A superstate controlled by international bankers. . "The wealth of these United States and the working capital have been taken away from them and has either been locked in the vaults of certain banks and the great corporations or exported to foreign countries for the benefit of the foreign customers of these banks and corporations.

"Whereas. Federal Reserve Page 97 of 146. M. Speaker. Black. "Mr. Williams. W. E. Curtis. Austin. I rise to a question of constitutional privilege. Eugene B. Woo. "Mr. and the great banks and corporations hold the keys. . W. Chairman. Oscar Newton. Roy A. Young. Mills. S. Wood. C. Hoxton. T. L. F. "What is needed here is a return to the Constitution of these United States. Mr. George De Camp. William H. Walsh. I charge. Ogden L. Payton. M. J. H. N. Charles S. Newton. Poole. Through the Fed. We are trustees of the people and the rights of the people are being taken away from them. F. J. George R. members of the Federal Reserve Board. Adolph Casper Miller. L. James. Andrew W. McClure. Eugene Meyer. Edmund Platt. Hamlin. Isaac B. the people are losing the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Stevens. a serious situation confronts the House of Representatives today. Chane. Their property has been taken from them without due process of law. L. W.these are padlocked. . J. "The sack of these United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history. common decency requires us to examine the public accounts of the Government and see what crimes against the public welfare have been committed. Mellon. O'Connor. J. B. H. . R. C. Chairman.

and whereas I charge them with having taken funds from the U. and I charge them with having unlawfully taken over $80. S. one must first understand how we got into the position that we currently occupy.Agents. S. Byrns. '' *********************************************** After some discussion and upon the motion of Mr. . 1931. amounting to billions of dollars.000 [eighty-billion dollars] from the U. the resolution and charge was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. with violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States.000.000. The following facts are void of historical revision.000. and . S. Nothing in this evaluation is intended to be disrespectful or degrading (and certainly not racist) toward any group of people. . 1932 and 1933.000 in the year 1928. sovereign American Citizenship: The following facts are presented as historically correct proof. Treasury which were not appropriated by the Congress of the United States. and I charge them with similar thefts committed in 1929. the said unlawful taking consisting of the unlawful creation of claims against the U. jointly and severally. The united states of America Page 98 of 146. Government in the year 1928. and in years previous to 1928. in order to know and understand the truth about our rights and status. and all will be supported by unquestionable evidence. 1930. Treasury to the extent of over $80. however. .000.

. Pennsylvania. 1776.actually came into being on July 4th. Maryland. and for himself. with the signing of the ''Declaration of Independence.'' and the People who created these ''Free and Independent States'' would likewise. This confederation declared in Article I: ''The Stile of this Confederacy shall be the United States of America. otherwise they would not have had the authority to enter into such an agreement and to have created a free and independent state." The 13 Colonies declared themselves to be ''Free and Independent States.'' This passage represents an acknowledgment from Page 99 of 146.'' and delegated a portion of their sovereignty to this new Confederacy or Union. propriety. that he treats with them as such. recognized the independence and freedom of these states and the People thereof with the ''Treaty of Paris'' in 1783. and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. relinquishes all claims to the government. viz. New York. created the ''Union of the States.. which had previously claimed the right of sovereignty over the 13 Colonies and its people. and successors.'' agreed to in 1777 and ratified in 1781. have been free and independent themselves. his heirs. Connecticut. to be free sovereign and independent states. North Carolina. New Hampshire. South Carolina and Georgia. wherein the following quote from that document enunciates: ''His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States. Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. of necessity. New Jersey. Massachusetts Bay. Virginia. The British Crown.'' The ''Articles of Confederation.

King George III of England.'' It further defines ''Republican government'' as. ''A government in the republican form.'' In other words. In order to create a more perfect Union. a government by representatives chosen by the people. independently of its form of government.the most powerful earthly sovereign of that time.'' in Article IV Section 4. a government of the people. the people of ''the United States of America'' ordained and established a constitutional contract (to include the 13 states) for a united states form of government.'' were sovereigns of equal power with the king. a/k/a ''The United States of America. that the thirteen colonies / states of the American Union. In another sense. known as ''The Constitution. that ''sovereignty'' was extended from ''the people'' of those colonies / states. creating a Union government and delegating additional portion of its sovereignty to this united states government. Under the terms of their government [the Articles of Confederation. it signifies the state. This contract. a republic is a government Page 100 of 146. that form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all of the citizens. and later the Constitution for the united states of America]. Black's Law Dictionary (hereinafter ''Black's'') defines ''Republic'' as: ''A commonwealth. guarantees to every state in this Union a Republican form of Government. meaning ''the people'' were the sovereigns. To understand the true nature of the overall agreement to join the states together in a Union. . we must first understand what a Republic is.

a king or other ruler in a monarchy. body. Hence the term ''public servant'' is used when referring to the government official. we can now further understand how America is formed. . and in which the People own and control everything. He delegates to his colony (or hereinafter also ''state'') the jurisdiction and power to perform certain functions' all common law in nature. a chief ruler with supreme power. or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested. How many people. believe that government officials truly adhere to the meaning of ''public servant?'' Understanding the true meaning of Republic. these people were rebelling from a repressive government in which the King owned everything. The state Citizen owns everything. and their main intent was to become the ''sovereign. and the government serves at the convenience and by the permission of the People that it governs. and where the real power is bestowed. today. Understanding what a Republic and a state Citizen is. and that is exactly what they did.'' a position always held by the King.of which ''the people'' are the source and origin. ''A person.'' It is the main intent of these first Americans to keep for themselves and their posterity the things which had previously belonged to the King. we can see how the individual state Citizens of the thirteen Colonies actually own everything. Remember. Black’s defines ''sovereign'' as. He keeps most of the real Page 101 of 146. and he intends to keep it that way. and those things are vested in the sovereignty.

control over both subject matter and Page 102 of 146. So.'' Thus. i. he creates a system whereby limited jurisdiction over him could be attained only if he first breaks laws that are duly established under the ''Common Law. very limited areas. while he maintains the bulk of the power for himself. one must also understand the meaning of ''jurisdiction. ''A term of comprehensive import embracing every kind of judicial action… It is the power of the court to decide a matter in controversy and presupposes the existence of a duly constituted court with control over the subject matter and the parties…'' In other words. So the question that needs to be answered is – ''How did the federal and state governments get the virtually unquestioned power over all of the people who now consider themselves to be 'citizens of the United States' ?'' To fully understand the position that most American Citizens are currently in. certain laws will have to be passed and maintained for the protection of the individual rights of the free inhabitants. . He realizes that in order to live in a society with other people.. state Citizens.power for himself and his posterity. he has no intention of giving up his own personal freedoms. At the same time.e. He basically delegates to the state the jurisdiction to administer over him in a few.'' Black’s defines ''jurisdiction'' as. for jurisdiction to be claimed. the power that is currently assumed by the government over almost every phase of our lives was never given to the government over the American Citizen.

as the original state Citizens Page 103 of 146. it is impossible to give away all of your power.the parties is necessary. He passed on a very small portion of that power to the state so that society as a whole could be protected. because if he could not support his hiring with power. Jurisdiction is key to understanding the sovereign American Citizens' rights / status in contrast to the duties and obligations now placed upon them by the government or ''public trust'' now acting as the de facto government. because in so doing you would negate any portion of that which you gave away. be aware that the terms ''state Citizen'' and ''American Citizen'' are synonymous.'' All public property and all power and authority belongs to and are owned by him. therefore. Think of a company in which the Owner hired an assistant. and even if the Owner gave him full authority over all operations within the company. The state receives all of its power and authority from the sovereign state Citizen. The de jure state Citizen is the ''sovereign. the sovereign state Citizen must always maintain more power than anyone who acts under his authority. as there would be no power left to enforce the action taken by you. Therefore. However. his new employee could not carry out his mandate in the face of challenge. One must remember that all power in our Republic is passed from the sovereign People to the state. it must remain secondary in power to that of state Citizen. Also. the Owner would still maintain more power than his new employee. .

government Page 104 of 146. First.'' to serve as the ''Seat of Government. treaties and contracts as were necessary to the welfare of the society. also known as ''the sovereign American People. a separate city-state a/k/a the ''District of Columbia. and it had no sovereign authority other than that which was delegated by these independent sovereign States. After just having come out from under a totalitarian government. S.'' and the posterity of those Citizens make up the American Citizenry. and form the sovereign American People of Posterity as they exist today. as distasteful as it was to them. The power and authority delegated to the U. so they set aside 10 square miles of land. However. the state Citizen bestowed upon the state certain limited powers and limited jurisdiction.became the original American Citizens upon the forming of the Union. the state Citizens realized.'' This government was delegated its authority from the sovereign independent states. and to provide for the common defense. that some form of ''federal government'' would have to be established to oversee an expanded judiciary affording settlement in controversies arising between the states. they were all sure that they did not want this new ''monster'' in their own state. known also as the several States of the Union. Within those powers was the ability to make and enforce laws. . so long as the subject matter was that for which its jurisdiction was given. we can easily understand how our forefathers established this government. Following the foregoing principals.

''The United States Government'' had conditions and terms defining authority and limitation delegated upon it by the independent States in 1789 through a document known as ''The Constitution for the United States of America'' (hereinafter ''Constitution''). Page 105 of 146. . defined and limited by way of the aforementioned Constitution. at Article IV. Since the word ''Republic'' means a government ''of and for the people'' in which everything is owned and controlled by the People. and that is guaranteed in the Constitution. this United States government could not be more powerful than the several States. Section 4. on behalf of the state Citizens. ''The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. it states. In Article X of the Amendments (The Bill of Rights). it is clear that each State is a Republic even after the Union was formed. Supreme Court. every power given to the United States is clearly defined. The contract is actually between the States.was clearly delineated.'' From this Article. S. The wording of the Constitution leaves no room for misunderstanding. For example. Within the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. The Constitution has been held to be both a contract and ''the supreme Law of the Land'' by the U. and the limitations are exact. Eight years after its formation... Since this new government was granted its authority from the several States. it becomes clear that the People are superior to that government. and the United States government. and it is totally binding and all-powerful.

nor prohibited by it to the States. it would look something like this: state Citizen – First with unlimited power. ''The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. The Constitution is a contract which really Page 106 of 146.Derives his power from the Creator . our States (STATES) clearly take their orders from the United States (UNITED STATES). State – Second with limited power delegated by the Citizen. Derives its power directly from the sovereign .state Citizen) passed on a portion of his power to the state.'' Remember. all power flows first from the Creator and then from the sovereign state Citizen. Yet today. or to the people. the Constitution is in full effect today as always since its inception. As you can see from this chart. sovereign . and they continually bow to the presumed authority of the UNITED STATES. This chart can also be used to understand the rights/status protected by the Constitution. If we made a chart showing the power structure. . So how did this ''supremacy'' of federal government happen? We will now look at exactly what happened in the framing of this country's government. the party with all the power (the sovereign .state Citizen. United States – Limited power delegated by States. Then the State passed on a portion of its power to the United States government.it states.source of all power. Derives its power from the several States. are reserved to the States respectively. First.

The jurisdiction that the States and United States have over the state Citizens arises only upon the breaking of one of the Constitutionally passed Common Laws (whether state or federal) under which a state Citizen grants jurisdiction in order that those laws might be enforced for the overall good of society. It is actually granted by the States with the permission of the state Citizens. ''with intent.'' the matter would be civil in nature.involves three parties. Without ''intent. and it clearly limits the power of the United States government. Not a single crime can be committed accidentally. Most important to remember is that only these three parties are included in the Constitution. that is not the case. as there are a great number of ''offenses'' which have criminal effect and punishment that can occur without any ''intent'' on the alleged offender's part. . or his property. with intent.e. Page 107 of 146. This explains why. There are also numerous ''crimes'' today that do not involve damage of any kind. and more than one out of every one-hundred people in this country are currently incarcerated. That’s right. Those laws all require that actual damage to another party. These statistics are not only the highest in the world. i.'' before any jurisdiction over that state Citizen is bestowed. while reserving and guaranteeing massive Rights for the state Citizens. Today. a sentient man or woman.'' one in five Americans have been incarcerated. be done by the offending party. in ''the land of the free.. That's 20% of our population.

responsibility is freely undertaken. However. Lincoln tried to free the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. at the end of the Civil War. government as result of its victory in the Civil War. who use virtually all of their authority and power for their own personal gain. as their new owner. in 1865. Slaves were not considered citizens and they had no Rights. S. these people were legally nothing more than property. The slaves actually remained slaves. allowed the slaves Page 108 of 146. By sworn oath. The slaves actually became the property of the U. in fact. they became something called ''bounty. and that most who served were good Citizens from the community who gave a few years of their life to better their country. but the supreme court ruled that effort to be unconstitutional. an incredible situation arose. this system established by the founding fathers worked very well and virtually without incident until the time of the Civil War.but they are also the highest in the recorded history of this planet. stating that you could not free another man's property. In short. . The United States. Note that there were very few career politicians.'' Bounty is what a conquering nation seizes from a conquered nation. and all government officials are required to understand that the American Citizens are the ''sovereign. That’s right. So. At that time there was slavery in this country.'' and that the term ''public servant'' truly applies to each and every government official. A far cry from the power-crazed politicians we find running the country's government today.

the former slave’s woes were not. they were not. Now ask yourself. therefore. Unfortunately. Consequently. a citizen of the District of Columbia. the United States allegedly passed the 14th Amendment in order to afford the former slaves adequate protection and privileges. under common-law jurisdiction. Finally realizing the problem and plight of the slaves. but. with intent. and then only to the extent that the particular crime was involved. So in 1868. over whom did the United States government have jurisdiction? Certainly not the state Citizens.to start acting like free men. They had no standing in the society.'' The sovereign state Citizens were in no way affected by this new type of citizenship. as the two are synonymous under the authority of and pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. a new type of citizenship was born – that of a ''citizen of the United States.'' or. because simply freeing them did not create any new citizens. unless they had committed a crime. so slavery was forever ended in this country. because no state Citizenship was available to those ''persons. the United States government managed to pass the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1867. and abuses were common. . The only people over whom the United States had jurisdiction were the former slaves and immigrants from other countries who sought citizenship after the Civil War. in fact. The Supreme Court of the United States asserts: Page 109 of 146.

) 36. v Anthony) The following case law herein cited represents affirmation of these two classes of citizenry. 102 (1884).e." Elk v Wilkins. the concept of which [as denoted by use of the term ''second-class citizen'' ] is true concerning all federal citizens. 94. S. . 83 U. 112 U. 101.'' (see U. "The persons declared to be citizens are. In other words. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States [i. S. by their very definition. are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. 21 L. a person who is "completely subject" to the jurisdiction of the federal government [such as a citizen of the District of Columbia]. [See Slaughter House cases. as such. 394 (1873)] Instead. but completely subject. this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the Page 110 of 146.. Elk v Wilkins is a 14th-Amendment case. S. "The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens.''The rights of Citizens of the States. (16 Wall. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment.. former slaves and immigrants] and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. and are fully guaranteed by other provisions. Ed. all federal citizens must be.' The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States. Virtually any legal concept stated by the courts concerning a 14th-Amendment citizen is operative upon all federal citizens.

394 Page 111 of 146.'' Madden v Kentucky. 83. and a citizenship of a state. 155. Case: 3-08 CR 089 N Petition and challenge to jurisdiction 3.'' Slaughter-House Cases. 590 (1940) "It is quite clear. 56 S. 505. 1073. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other. Ed. 21 L. one of the United States and one of the state. 479." N.Y. Ct." Hague v CIO. two classes of citizens. then. Ed. affirmed 16 S. S. 287. 252 (1935) "… rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship. 839 F. "There are." Jones v Temmer. 36 N. S. Ed. 496. 84 L.E.'' Colgate v Harvey. 1226 "… the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action by the privilege and immunities clause [of the 14th Amendment]. under our republican form of government. that there is a citizenship of the United States.'' Gardina v Board of Registrars of Jefferson County. (16 Wall. 160 Ala. S. then. it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. . v re Merriam. 520 Volume 20 of Corpus Juris Secundum at 1758: "The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. 307 U.) 36. 141 N. 41 L. 48 So. which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual. 404.federal government.Y. 296 U. Ct. 309 U. S. Supp. 788 (1909) "The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. 83 U.

H.R. 1933. we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history. 73rd Congress [in] session June 5. and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such. March 17. Speaker-Rep. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others. 57 N. We are setting forth hopefully..J. 1933 . 542 (1875) "There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such. being bankrupt and insolvent. 33. 92 U. and each has citizens of its own. March 9. . E.(1873) "We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. (Ohio) addressing the House: “Mr. S. Speaker. 1. The Bankruptcy of The United States: United States Congressional Record. “It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act. a blueprint for our future. declared by President Roosevelt. page H-1303.Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Page 112 of 146. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise. the U. 1993 Vol. S. Public Law 89-719. James Traficant. Jr. 41.. 48 Stat." United States v Cruikshank.'' Ruhstrat v People. Government. 192.

Page 113 of 146. This new form of government is known as a Democracy. the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States.Offices. “The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers. Public Law 94-564. they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. Officers. 13955 reads in part: “The U. that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be “money” in America. Section H. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States. Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions. being an established Socialist / Communist order under a new governor for America. or “currency. All United States Offices.” “Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the united states of America. and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.” Currency is not money. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved. . the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. This act was instituted and established by transferring and / or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. R. S. and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. page 8. via the United Nations. Officials. but a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money.

not “money. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any kind.Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money.” The federal United States government and the U.” A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government. Federal Reserve Notes make no such promises. one can only get deeper into debt. S. . “It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. “Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. Whenever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing. perhaps not in their entire life. They have access to Page 114 of 146. but only lawful money – gold and silver coin. and are not “money. do you understand why you are “bankrupt. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of Federal Reserve Notes has everybody fooled.” Most Americans have not been paid any “money” for a very long time.” along with the rest of the country? “Federal Reserve Notes are unsigned checks written on a closed account. inflation occurs. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now. We the People no longer have any “money. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes. Federal Reserve Notes are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency).

you must pay with value or substance (i. law. silver. paying only for the printing costs of what they need. . You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. S.e. In fact. the international bankers used a “Canon Law Trust” as their model.” The U. With Federal Reserve Notes. No contract in Common Law is valid unless it involves an exchange of “good & valuable consideration. “There is a fundamental difference between “paying” and “discharging” a debt.” Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money. Since the inception of central banking. “The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon Law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870). although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. adding stock and naming it a “Joint Stock Trust. gold. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. Federal Reserve Notes are nothing more than promissory notes for U. To pay a debt. barter or a commodity). Their lust is for power and control. they have controlled the fates of nations. you can only discharge a debt. [1:9:3] Page 115 of 146. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal “person” to duplicate a “Joint Stock Trust” in 1873. Treasury securities (T-Bills) – a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank. S. equity or justice because they have so much wealth already.an unlimited supply of Federal Reserve Notes.

most Americans owned clear. “Prior to 1913. the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States Page 116 of 146. . free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) “Hypothecated” all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve – in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. S. the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties. In 1933.“The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. S. and / or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty / Maritime Law. “Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it) as security by the lender or underwriter. citizen (tenant. citizen – to the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle. franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his / her birth certificate. The U. The lender or underwriter bears the risks. allodial title to property. “In return. assets and labor of their “subjects” – the 14th-Amendment U. and the Maritime Law compelling specific performance in paying the interest. or premiums are the same.

“This has been going on for over eighty years without the “informed knowledge” of the American People. Like any other debtor. Now it’s easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt. without a voice protesting loud enough. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets. Unwittingly. S. birth certificates. forests. national parks. Why don’t more people own their properties outright? Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less? “We are reaping what has been sown. .corporation all the credit “money substitute” it needed. We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves. We the People have exchanged one master for another. and nonprofit organizations. “All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers. and the results of our harvest is a painful Page 117 of 146. citizens. whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. as collateral against the federal debt. America has returned to its pre-American Revolution. feudal roots.” the U. the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Once again. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories.

Few of our elected representatives in Washington. and its reputation for courage. chapter 20. ADMIT: Libellee(s) listed within said document(s) is/are required to admit to the truth and fact that law is established granting protection and surety to Affiant of all effects and qualities of the "Saving To Suitors Clause." i. September 24. page 77. America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership. precious liberties. . have dared to tell the truth. D. and human rights. vision. The federal United States is bankrupt. financial credit. in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt. ''… saving to suitors. and shall also have exclusive original cognizance [and culpability of the United States to protect rights and status] of all seizures on land…'' First Judiciary Act.e.bankruptcy. and a way of life. bankruptcy. the "Saving To Suitors Clause" in his document(s). be it known that this Affiant saving to himself all and all manner of advantage to the manifest uncertainties and insufficiencies in the Libellee(s) and Liable contained Page 118 of 146. 1789. within the Admiralty. This is an undeclared economic war. and the tyranny to enforce paying it. Therefore.. and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country. C.” SAVING TO SUITORS CLAUSE: Affiant has no record nor evidence that Affiant has not included and fortified. and a foreclosure on American property.

Page 119 of 146. – though Affiant is neutral and non- combatant. whose status / rights / freedom / property is now hypothecated under deception and tort as collateral for the "emergency" of the United States without Affiant's consent. and that a further "taking" would be a continuance of inequitable practices. therefore not intentionally volunteering. Additionally. Intrastate or International Commerce for profit and trade without payment of the assessment. says that well and true it is. employee. Therefore. admiralty adventure for profit under a policy of limited liability for the payment of debts. has never engaged in Interstate. nor that of Affiant's ancestors. Affiant declares that he is not a franchisee. nor any " compelled benefits of privilege " that the Respondent may otherwise allege. of any governmental unit. maritime. et cetera. or participate as part of a "tontine scheme" of a voluntary joint mercantile. . the "Doctrine of Necessity" expressly overrides any "Doctrine of Contribution" Affiant may have ever participated in as continuity for absolute survivor-ship. et cetera. and is an end consumer who exchanges sweat equity for goods consumed – Affiant is wrongly presumed by the Respondent to be a franchisee / trustee / surety. submitting. surety. trustee. nor consenting to servitude. insomuch thereof as is material and necessary to be answered. utilizing the only option available to Affiant as currency [money] in the public and private sector.for the complaint thereto. or to become a joint tort-feasor. has never intended to incur limited liability. agency nor trust.

of – (1) any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. exclusive of the courts of the States. and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land." See Delovio v Boit and many subsequent cases Re: The Huntress. . Revised and Annotated – Analysis and Interpretation. in all cases. Bringing into light the re-phrasing of Congress in the codification of the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789.e. 1333 – Admiralty. U... the right of a common law remedy. page 77. i. The Constitution for the United States of America.. 1982. etc. showing revenue causes under the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States in Article-III judiciary. maritime and prize cases: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction. where the common law is competent to give it. Cl... as well as upon the high seas. in the amendment.. Congress admits it cannot change the intent of the clause. The older reading adheres to two valuable points – 1) This remedy is "common law" as of 1789 – no blending equity (Bennett v Page 120 of 146. S. These facts of history and law move or remand Affiant out of the Article-I forum into Article-III "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Article III.. 1789. "… the United States. within their respective districts. (a) saving to suitors. 1 Diversity of Citizenship. September 24. 741. TITLE 28. saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled. Also. p. § 2. . Government Printing Office. Chapter 20. Sec. document 99-16." The First Judiciary Act.

1948. c. suitor who holds in personam claim that might be enforced by suit in personam under admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts may also bring suit. Lavergne v Western Co. This Act forms the basis of our Military Selective Service Act of June 24. .Butterworth. Co. 625. apply diversity of citizenship to State citizenship (a dispute between two different State Citizens) and a State or United States citizen verses a foreign citizen. 1863. leaving men and women the state. with a Provost Marshall over each district under the Department of War. Inc. 52 U S 669). at his election. the court of competent jurisdiction. in state court or on "common law" side of federal court. 2) Courts of competent jurisdiction – Modern usage of the [saving to suitors] clause. 604 and is Page 121 of 146. (La App 1st Cir) 1990 La App LEXIS 1937). and. as well as earlier.'' 2 Am Jur 2d ADMIRALTY § 122. while under "saving to suitors" clause of § 1333. ''Exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts under 28 USCS § 1333 is limited to maritime causes of action begun and carried on in rem [enrichment without cause]. The States went bankrupt in 1933 by governor's convention. of North America. the United States has been overlaid on to the States and divided the United States into military districts. Since the Enrollment Act of March 3. 62 Stat. (La) 371 So 2d 807 (superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Cramer v Association Life Ins.

1862. sections 7651-7681 of the Military Code of Justice. 363 (1943) and the United States v Kimbell Foods.S. This is why title 28 1333 gave the district courts of the United States original jurisdiction exclusive of the States for all cases of admiralty maritime jurisdiction under the saving to suitors clause. this is all laid out in volume 324.codified to title 50. under the Insurrection & Rebellion Acts of August 6. S.R..C. pg. this means that common law is under admiralty. . Thereby common law is vested in district courts of the United States. and for the better Administration of the Law of Prize. where they adopted the U. 1861 and July 17. v U. Equity. 318 U. Rules in formulating Federal Common Law.C. The military was placed under admiralty jurisdiction by the law of prize and capture under "An Act to facilitate Judicial Proceedings in Adjudications upon Captured Property. S. 2D PG. under the F. This law was passed March 25. [Federal Rules Decisions]. 325 of the F.C.D. are indicative of the Federal Common Law of Admiralty (see INTERPOOL LTD v CHAR YIGH. 440 U.C.P. This is because Maritime Commercial Transactions under the U. 715 (1999). Civil and Admiralty was merged under one rule. Then in 1966. accessed via the Saving to Suitors Page 122 of 146. 1862. sections 451-473. In 1938 a change was made from the English Common Law to the Federal Common Law under the Erie v Tompkins decision.R. 890 F. which is the impetus for The Clearfield Doctrine under Clearfield Trust Co.C. 1453) [1989].'' This law forms the current basis of title 10.

C.C. This is the reason one cannot ordinarily find a common-law remedy in state court. 8.C. 6. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act title 28 sections 1602-1611. The following laws provide remedy under the common law within the admiralty: 1.S. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of title 39 sections 1-908 & 3621-3691. The Admiralty Extension Act 46 U. This is the only side of the court that has Article-III judicial powers under the War Powers Act of Admiralty. irrespective of ownership (A) the premises of the United States diplomatic. The False Claims Act of title 31 U. section 3729 (a) (7).C. . (3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States.Clause. Chapter 147 section 14706.A.A. . military. and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto.C. 11. Title 50 Appendix section 7 (c) sole relief & remedy under the trading with Page 123 of 146.S.A. 3. 2. The Lanham Act of title 15 section 1125 (a). . 7.S. maritime and Prize cases title 28 section 1333 (1) (2). 10. The Bills of Lading Act title 49 U. 5. The Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States title 18 section 7 (1) – a citizen of the United States is a vessel. (B) residences in foreign States and the land appurtenant or ancillary thereto irrespective of ownership. The suits in Admiralty Act 46 U. The Public Vessels Act 46 U.A. 4.S. Article III Section II gives the district courts of the United States judicial power in all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. consular.S.A. The Admiralty. Appendix sections 781-790. 9. Section 740. Appendix sections 741-752.

. 1333 Admiralty. Page 124 of 146. bankruptcy. fraud. Vol. duress. misrepresentation. in all cases. antitrust. One need only make the demand in his briefs to the court. exclusive of the courts of the states.. in the space to the right of the center of the first page. principal and agent.'' Hone Ins. estoppel. 31 Iowa 242 (1871).e. A suitor therefore has the right to be tried at common law. Co. rule. 9 on page 88 states: '' saving to suitors. or regulation made by the president under the authority of this act. mistake. i. such as admiralty. of (1) any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. v North Packet Co. or other validating or invalidating cause. contract. shall supplement its provisions. where the common law is competent to give it. opposite the caption of the case. Supplementary to general principles of law applicable. Title 28 USC Sec. maritime and prize cases states in part: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction. and (2) the nature of the action. The Federal Statutes Annotated. . saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled. coercion. there shall be placed (1) the case number. the enemy act & (e) No person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in pursuance of any order. the principles of law and equity. the right of a common law remedy. even though the case comes under a maritime jurisdiction. including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract. unless displaced by particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code.

Affiant enters unequivocal declaration objecting to the court moving forward until jurisdiction is defined. NOTICE OF CORPORATE DENIAL AND NON-CORPORATE STATUS: Pursuant to FRCP 52. If a judge takes judicial notice of the nature of a case without communication of such to one of the parties. Accusation Number 2010-D-12345-1. legal fiction. Therefore. shape. and with the knowledge that all such entities are not living. how can said party know in what terms he is to couch such case? Be aware that this is precisely what happens in STATE OF GEORGIA Vs. termed. in any way. sentient men and women. Under the Erie doctrine – Where there is no contract. A court at law requires the original contract be entered as evidence. negligence. as a corporate person.eminent domain. nor. nor. Affiant does herewith formally and unequivocally declare that Jon: Doe is in no way to be construed. JON DOE. . breathing. patent. The jurisdiction of a case is required to be identified before any case can proceed. nor. incorporated. there is no case. etc. Affiant hereby makes express and explicit claim and affirmation to the living. fictional person. securities. form. means. thought of. whose Creator is Affiant’s Heavenly Father. fraud. Affiant also exercises demand that any original contract (not a copy) that is being used against him be brought forward. and with knowledge of the fact that ''assumption'' and ''presumption'' may prevail unless rebutted or explicitly denied. with express and explicit Page 125 of 146.

partnership. Point: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.'' nor any other form of corporation. . No civil or criminal cause of action can arise lest there be a contract. ''person'' may be construed according to several references not excluding 22 USC Sec.e. which is the same in all states as in the Federal Rules. as are attached and previously referanced in Articles VI. and is not a goverernmentally-created ''person of inherence or incidence. 260. Page 126 of 146. and XV of Affiant's Affidavit of Petition for Declaratory Judgment. which clearly declare that Affiant is not incorporated). 1621 Definitions – STATUTE: For the purposes of this subchapter.claim and affirmation that Affiant is a self-aware. applies in Civil and Criminal actions with equal force and effect because criminal is always civil in nature. (a) The term ''person'' shall include an individual. See Eads v Marks. that -. sentient. or the Government of the United States. a presumption becomes a finding of fact by the court unless rebutted before trial (see Affiant's definite and numerous affirmed declarations. indivisible from the divine soul inherent of the Heavenly Creator. flesh-and-blood man.'' Thus. Regarding: The word / term of art i. corporation. 2d 257. the Texas Court of appeals (5th Cir) has ruled in the finding of fact by the Court.''the failure of an adverse party to deny under oath the allegation that he is incorporated dispenses with the necessity of proof of the fact. Rule 52. 249 P. There is always a presumption that a contract exists and that the responding party is a Corporation. VIII. Under Rule 52.

. Point: A presumption is a rule of Law. Arizona Revised Statutes: Title 47 Section 1201 (31) ''Presumption" or "presumed" means that the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact presumed unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence. must find the existence of the fact presumed per FRCP 52. a presumption means that the trier of fact (the judge / administrator). Pepper Co. Thus. Defendant did not deny by verified pleading pursuant to [TRCP] 52 and 83… that it was not a corporation. Statutory or judicial. by which the finding of a basic fact gives rise to the existence of presumed fact until presumption is rebutted. R. unless and until the evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its non-existence. 621 S. no Writ) ''Plaintiff plead defendant was a corporation.W.-Waco 1981. 465 (Tex App. v Crow. the Affidavit of Non Corporate Status is for the purpose of rebutting any presumption that the Affiant is any Corporation named in the alleged complaint (see Affiant's numerous Affidavits).'' Point: Louisiana Revised Statutes Art. See Van Wart v Cook. 2d 1161.301 Agreement by Acquiescence Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states -. Point: Federal Rules of Evidence.Point: Dr. 557 P.''…a presumption imposes on the party Page 127 of 146. In the Commercial Law of all States.Corporation existence is presumed unless affidavit of denial is filed before trial (see Affiant's affirmed Affidavits). 429 -.2d 464. such fact was established. thus.

Foster v White Cloud.. i. its existence as a Page 128 of 146. fee. 2 Colo.e. 505. 147 U.E. Folsom v Star Union Etc. all of which are revenue. 421 U. therefore: ''A derivative of a name is not the legal name. S. 20 Wall. Co. the name of which in that case is but a derivative of Affiant's real name. STATE COURT CASE NO. in addition to Affiant's previous Affidavits rebutting any and all presumption and assumption to the effect that Affiant is a Corporation.'' (see Monroe Cattle Co. tax or duty.. 43 Md. See Colonial Pipe Line Co. 123 Mass. Hobich v Folger. Point: If Affiant is not a Corporation he cannot appear and plead. 54 Iowa 490. Greenwood v Railroad Co. 32 Mo. v Eyser. 32. STATE OF GEORGIA v JON DOE. 359. the instant complaint – which is in result of case # 2010-D-12345-1 (i.against whom it is directed the burden of proof [see 556 (d)] of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption. Point: When brought into Court by its Corporate name.. Thus.'' Point: When the complaint is lodged by the government for a fine. V Triangle.e. 100 (1975). 1. Boyce v M. 141. ''re-venue'' for the collection of ''duty'' which is required to have been lodged against a Corporation. See West Union Tel. Church. S. v Becker. Fright Line. . 2010-D-12345-1. 47)) – does hereby and herewith formally affirm and depose that Affiant rebuts any and all presumption / assumption that Affiant is and / or ever was any Corporation named in the complaint heretofore alleged. they are imposed only on Corporations.

state or federal. It has been held that where the representative of a railroad corporation is served with process. Callender v Railroad Co. breathing sentient beings. Ewing v Robeson. 15 Ind. (see Kelly v Railroad Co. 394 (1886)) Point: No laws have been passed by Congress granting that corporations should be treated the same under the Constitution as living. C. 11 Ohio St. 8 S. and that this doctrine derives from a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court reporter’s notes. 47 Ala. the Supreme Court did not grant corporate-personhood to any State of the Union or Federal Government. held that corporations were ''persons'' instead Page 129 of 146. he may.. Stewart v Dunn. 447. S. & W. Quarrier v Peabody Co. v Taylor. 667. 516.. 282. Stevenson v Thorn. .C. 581.Corporation is admitted.. compare the foregoing cases to Ware v St.. Johnson v Gibson. (see Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company. Point: Stating only conclusion without facts is insufficient. (see Mud Creek Drain Co. 157. 149) Where the person is so served. Va. 26. by plea. C. 516. Evarts v Killingworth Co. 118 U. deny that he / she sustains any such relation to the Corporation that authorizes the service of process on him / her. 581) In 1886.. 10 W. 2 Flip C. 20 Conn. Louis Bagging & Rope Co. Callender v Plainsville Co. 2 Flip C. 507. 43 Ind. V State. (see Kelly v Railroad Co. 11 Ohio St. he may plead in abatement in his own name that the Corporation is extinct. Ins. Com. Co. Etc. 73 Ind. 13 Mees & W. 12 Mees. 107) Also. 655.. No court decisions.

statutes employing the terms ''person'' and ''corporation'' are ordinarily construed to exclude the sovereign man or woman. 667 (1979) (therein quoting United States Page 130 of 146. in common usage. applies to these corporations.'' was not a formal ruling of the court. the attorneys for the opposing party. published in New York in 1886 by Banks & Brothers Publishers." See Vermont Supreme Court building. . 442 U. Supreme Court’s Reporter.'' Wilson v Omaha Tribe. We are of the opinion that it does. that: ''The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Volume 118 of United States Reports: Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court at October Term 1885 and October Terms 1886. which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. As railroad attorney Sanderson and his two colleagues watched. . Point: Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court that: '' .'' with an equal footing under the Bill of Rights as ''humans. that corporations were ''persons'' rather than ''artificial persons. C. S. [However. 653. recorded by the court recorder.of ''artificial persons. Bancroft Davis.'' The Supreme Court did not rule in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company on the issue of corporate personhood. Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite told Delmas and his two colleagues.] This written statement. but was reportedly a simple statement by its Chief Justice. and written by J. .

'' ''inhabitant of. enclave. 330 U. nor any foreign state or country.'' Point: Affiant is not: a U. S.v Cooper Corp. 275 (1947). S. and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it. 604 (1941)).'' U. 653. See also United States v Mine Workers. S. 442 U.'' Page 131 of 146. . S. 1.'' ''subject of. nor any possession of the United States.'' ''Corporation.'' ''Resident. 312 U.'' nor is Affiant a corporation created under the laws of any State of the Union of States.. S. S. ''Person. Supreme Court in Wilson v Omaha Indian Tribe. 600.'' ''Consumer. S. Point: U. 667 (1979): ''In common usage. Supreme Court in Luther v Borden. 48 U. jurisdiction. public or private. Point: Affiant is not: a ''resident of. the District of Columbia. as the original fountain.'' as such are ''terms of art.'' nor ''citizen of the United States. nor any territory. might take away what they have delegated and in trust to whom they please. S. the United States. 12 Led 581: ''…The government are but trustees acting under derived authority [of the sovereign American People of Posterity] and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them.'' nor ''citizen subject to U. commonwealth. … The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure. But the people.'' ''franchisee of.'' ''Individual. the term ''person'' does not include the sovereign. 258.

17 of the Constitution. IV. Code. resident inhabitant or domiciled in any corporation. Furthermore. Sec.'' Point: Affiant hereby and herewith revokes and cancels ab initio all of Affiant's signatures on any and all forms which may be construed to give the Federal Government or any other State agency or department of the United States Government created under the authority of Article I.'' the State of the Forum of any ''UNITED STATES. CI. Sec. I.'' nor municipal body politic created under the primary authority of Art. C.'' nor. . shareholder. ''subject to the jurisdiction of. 2 of the Constitution for the United States. an officer.'' ''chattel of. Sec. 3 CI. 8. I.'' ''corporate STATE. franchise or fiduciary agent. 17 and Art.'' D. Title 11 at p. Sec.'' as ''Legislation enacted by Congress applicable to the inferior courts in the exercise of the power under Article III of the Constitution cannot be affected by legislation enacted by Congress under Art. CI. . .''ward of. surety. 8. Sec. de facto ''UNITED STATES. 13 defines this as '' . authority or jurisdiction Page 132 of 146. CI. Affiant is not a subject nor ward of the Administrative and Legislative Article-I Courts. corporate. 17 and Article IV. 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America. and Affiant is not subjected to any legislation created by or under the jurisdiction of any officers. agent.'' ''corporate COUNTY.'' ''property of. CI. nor bound by precedents of such courts created by the congress of the hypothicated. 8. 3. agents or employees deriving their authority thereof.'' ''corporate CITY.

Point: Affiant is not a vessel documented under Chapter 121 of Title 46. Sec. on the grounds of non-disclosure.over Affiant. and / or the like thereof. nor to that of the United States. CI. enclave. United States Code. instrumentality or enclave under the sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction of the United States government. resident. insomuch as said power of attorney may pertain to Affiant by way of. commonwealth or possession of the United Page 133 of 146. and/or without Affiant's consent. quasi. Affiant has no record nor evidence that Affiant does not cancel any presumption and assumption that Affiant ever voluntarily elected to be treated as such a citizen. any and all multi-jurisdictional. IV. or ever has been. rescinds and makes void ab initio all powers of attorney in fact. possession. 8 CI. 3. any territory. nor to the United States Government. colorable. person or corporate entity / fiction. public government entities. nor a vessel numbered as provided in Chapter 123 of said Title. 17 and Art. Point: Affiant is not an enemy to any state of the Union of States. Sec. such as the District of Columbia. et al. signed by anyone other than Affiant. but not limited by. 2. municipalities or corporations. Point: Affiant hereby cancels any presumed election made by the United States Government or any agency or department thereof. a citizen. I. as defined in the Constitution for the United States of America in Art. that Affiant is. in presumption and otherwise. Affiant also revokes. . unequitable consideration and constructive fraud. alien citizen or resident of any territory.

and are affirmed facts that. None of these facts have been found to be ''frivolous'' by any court. e. state or corporation created under the laws of the United States Government. present or future reference to Affiant as such a threat. Point: This Affidavit is not written for the purpose of debating the Constitutionality nor legality of the Communications Act of 1934. Affiant is not a pirate. False Claims Act (see 31 U. Any past. both public and private.S.States. but is a non-combatant. made by any agency or its officer(s).C. oppressors and all Libellees will have no immunity ''within the Admiralty.. neutral body. Point: Any statements or claims in this Affidavit must be properly rebutted by Page 134 of 146. under Commercial Law. or any foreign country. Many facts contained herein are based upon ruling case law and un-overruled decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Public Vessel Act. and Federal Tort Claims Act. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.'' and will be litigated as such in the foreign jurisdiction where offenders. . § 3729 (a) (7)).g.'' via 28 USC 1333 or 1337. Puerto Rico. Bills of Lading Act. Gwam. but rather to establish facts exposing the United States Government’s lack of jurisdiction over Affiant. domestic or foreign. will be construed as ''defamation of character. must be rebutted with ''case law'' or acquiesced to. terrorist nor an enemy to any public or private corporation. Any and all of the facts and laws presented herein are not contrary to the Communications Act of 1934. nor court decisions applicable to Affiant.

An Affidavit of Truth. if so accomplished.facts of law or overriding Article-III Supreme Court rulings. VIII and XV of this Affidavit of Petition for Declaratory Judgment) that Affiant is an adverse party denying under oath the allegation that Affiant is incorporated. Affiant's postal mailing location is known as: JON DOE. and thus becomes part of the official record]." Galleria Bank v Southwest Properties. Point: In addition to being Affiant's property (see attached copyright notice with affidavit of publication attached). Executor Office. General Page 135 of 146. common-law-bound court. Nation Georgia-Republic. ( iii ) agreement. Affiant's name is unique and is not given to any other. can only be satisfied by way of ( i ) rebuttal Affidavit of Truth. regulations and proceedures of an Article-III. regarding: "The failure of an adverse party to deny under oath the allegation that he is incorporated [is acquiescence to such. Point: Affiant makes it perfectly clear (see Affiant's numerous declarations made by way of Affidavits which are attached and previously referanced in Articles VI. point for point. ( iv ) resolution by a jury under the rules. The Christian Appellation that Affiant answers to is Jon: of the Doe Family. Affiant has no ''last name. under Commercial Law.'' Affiant is domiciled as a resident living within the state of mind. Estate. ( ii ) payment. shall not prejudice the lawful validity of all other statements or claims not properly rebutted or invalidated by facts of law. . and. 498 Southwest 2nd.

[30024-9998] Non-Domestic to U.'' Therefore. job.'' ''place'' or ''position'' is to perform duties and obligations Page 136 of 146. copyright 1988.g. n. S. holding the "office'' of ''person. abuse and perversion of words by way of transforming them into ''terms of art'' in order to change their meaning. Point: The following exemplifies the use. place. United States Minor. BERTH. the perception is that the ''STATE'' presumes this so-called "birth" as the ''berth'' of a ''sole'' (instead of ''soul'') ''corporation'' (''corpus'' Latin. certified declaration to the Suwanee Postmaster). office. 4) a position. although not affiliated with the ''Corporate Body Politic'' near the same location. Suwanee. Webster's New World Dictionary of the English Language – Third College Edition.]'' The words "birth. A station in which a ship rides.'' ''berth'' and "born" all come from the same etymological root. ." When you look up the word "berth. Affiant's postal mailing location. is particularly unique to Affiant. [See Berth.Post-Office.. misuse. (see notarized. Outlying Islands. meaning "to bear. and is determined as complete. necessary and sufficient identification evidencing Affiant’s neutral standing (15 USC 1681 (h)). Meaning: ''body'' ). Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines the word ''birth'' as follows: ''BIRTH. e. . also defines it as – '' berth n. n. Doe Province." whose ''job. . . Near." you find that most every definition has to do with ships. page 132. etc. So our "berth-day" is the day we were given a place within the maritime / admiralty jurisdiction as a so-called ''vessel'' of the State.

'' but rather. to which Affiant.'' Affiant heretofore denies having. a ''birthday. Point: For reasons explicitly defined within these Points addressing the foregoing '' terms of art. Whereas I inform the nice policeman. Affiant did have a '' Nativity '' upon the Land. the court system. under protection of his freedom from religious persecution. and all other parties that may inquire – ''I.as dictated by the ''STATE. There are only two (possibly three) ''birth-days'' mentioned in the Scripture. . emphatically does NOT subscribe nor submit. Jon: Doe. and at Herod's ''birth-day party'' in the Gospels. ''Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold''.'' This is all clearly carried out by way of Atheistic / Luciferian doctrine. why should a ''Christian Nation'' elect to celebrate such so- called "Berth"-days? Note that the possible third ''birth-day'' was mentioned in the Holy Writ. or ever having had. 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13. In both cases a man lost his head. Point: A Living Soul has a date of Nativity. and that the 666 talents of gold mentioned therein did not include all that was wrought by merchant means. and celebrates his day of Nativity as such. a Sole Corporation has a date of Birth / Berth. have no birthday. the baker was hung. John the Baptist was beheaded. the ''de facto'' government. So I ask. At Pharaoh’s ''birth-day party'' in Genesis.'' hereby reiterating this Page 137 of 146. the bureaucrat.

and (2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof. and (3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (d) of this title. or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof. corporate or otherwise. nor created under the laws of any third country. (d) A 'commercial activity' means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular Page 138 of 146. includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection (b).declaration by way of the tenet – " No man can be compelled to incriminate himself." Thereby under protest. (c) The 'United States' includes all territory and waters. nor to any of Respondent's practices and presumptions. . except as used in section 1608 of this title. The Foriegn Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA): Title 28 Section 1603 states – ''For purposes of this chapter – (a) A 'foreign state'. as is clearly enunciated throughout the entire body of this Affidavit of Petition for Declatory Judgment. subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Affiant does herewith formally waive the benefit of privilege. (b) An 'agency or instrumentality of a foreign state' means any entity – (1) which is a separate legal person. continental or insular. and does not grant Respondent consent to jurisdiction.

Next. one must understand that the statutes are subject to ''strict construction. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act. Therefore. rather than by reference to its purpose. an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof. or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by Page 139 of 146. or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state. the definition of a foreign state does not include the state itself. It says that ''An 'agency or instrumentality of a foreign state' means any entity – which is a separate legal person. but only a political subdivision. clearly defines Affiant's status. . Section 1603 (a) says that a foreign state includes a political subdivision. corporate or otherwise. .. Section 1603 (b) defines what constitutes an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state with relation to the FSIA. under strict construction of the statute.'' i. one must be – ''. they mean exactly what they say. no less – lest there be constitutional confusion.commercial transaction or act.e. . or an agency or instrumentality thereof. let's break down what a foreign state is in relation to the FSIA. – no more. Here. by way of Affiant's definite and numerous declarations.'' such as that which.'' Now. (e) A 'commercial activity carried on in the United States by a foreign state' means commercial activity carried on by such state and having substantial contact with the United States.

the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. When we look at Section 1332. strict construction applies. nor a citizen of any state created under the laws of any third country. inborn.a foreign state or political subdivision thereof. constitutional. which became effective January 19th.'' – since Affiant is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined above. as the organic law of the United States is the Constitution'' – such as that which. . inherent. Once again. it says that you must be neither a citizen of a State of the United States.'' with an ''organ'' being defined as: ''of or having to do with an organ. Last. 1977 by providing a statutory remedy equal to that of an Article-III remedy. a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter. The Foriegn Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. it defines ''a State of the United States'' as the Territories. – which declares: '' Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act. pursuant to Title 28 Section 1604. Therefore. clearly defines Affiant's status is an ''organ'' of such. in law. organized. as defined in 1332 (c) and (d) of Title 28. nor created under the laws of any third country. fundamental. heretofore ratifys Affiant's definite and numerous declarations affirming Page 140 of 146. systematically arranged. by way of Affiant's definite and numerous declarations.

and stands as the truth unless rebutted point-for-point by counter-affidavit signed and certified on the executing party's commercial liability as true. thus incurring liability as the respondent superior upon those unlimited to any and all federal.'' or blindly obeying one's ''superiors. Whereas.'' states: ''Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Black's 1st Note: The capacity to issue one's solemn declaration of truth. the truth.e. is the most basic. one's sacred word. As per the maxim of law: ''The order of things is confounded if everyone preserves not his jurisdiction. duty. Exodus 20:16.'' Because truth is supreme in Commerce. Subsequently. self-contained document. unequivocal and ceremonial means extant to express truth without evasion. and kill or are killed on the basis thereof. perspectives and priorities of the affiant. society and civilization. concealment. and only each soul of free-will possesses the right. the truth. state and local municipalities. and / or corporate agencies.'' an affidavit is not subject to cross-examination and is intended to be a complete.. deception or insincerity. the whole truth. and can destroy lives. diplomatic immunity from / to the Respondent's jurisdiction. – A written or printed declaration or statement of facts made voluntarily and confirmed by the oath of affirmation of the party making it. the ''Ninth Commandment. . an affidavit is the most important document in Commerce. All truth is subjective. taken before an officer with authority to administer such oath.'' The Bible is especially harsh on those who bear false witness. No one has the authority nor the ability to state the truth of another. An ''affidavit'' is a written statement under oath executed and sworn to before an authorized officer on the maker's commercial liability that all assertions contained within the affidavit are true. within maxims of the Common Law. As distinguished from ''testimony. underlying foundational concept of all commerce. correct and complete. People often act on what is told them.'' Page 141 of 146.Affiant's status is that which enjoys sovereign. and complete (i. n. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. AFFIDAVIT. difficult if not impossible to undo when spread as rumors. Lies are weapons that are easy to utter. and nothing but the truth). that he forthwith receive remedy and redress in such matters. not misleading. Affiant does herewith demand. Affiant does hereby formally declare that Respondent's corporate- commercial acts are ultra vires and injurious by willful and gross negligence. privilege and capacity to state Affiant's own truth in accordance with the unique nature. fundamental. it being readily apparent that Affiant does not grant Respondent consent to jurisdiction. such as marching off to war believing ''authorities. not misleading. correct. An affidavit is the most solemn. and / or persons thereof involved directly and / or indirectly with the Respondent via any and every nexus or relationship acting therewith.

2013. appears Affiant. Sui Juris. . STATE OF GEORGIA ) ) COUNTY OF GWINNETT ) On the___day of________________. Executor Office. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NOTARY: – JURAT – Date:_____________________________. before me. All Rights Reserved. Notary. Executor Office. and affirms to me that he executes the same in his authorized capacity. UCC 1-§308. JON DOE. Page 142 of 146. known to me (or proved to me via satisfactory evidence of identification) to be the sentient living man whose name is subscribed upon this instrument. Estate. DATE:____________________________. by:_____________________________. Notary Signatory. NOTARY SEAL: My Commission Expires: _______________________________. Affiant / Executor.________________________. __________________________________. Witnessed by my hand and official seal. Jon: Doe.

deny nor bar Claimant's Petition. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JON DOE–Assignor..: ______________________. Jon: Doe–Assignee. it is the ruling of this Court that no genuine issue of material fact remains in this case to dismiss.'' and that Jon: Doe is declared.'' and that Jon: Doe is declared. Vs. ) CONTRACT. on and for the public record. IN COMMON LAW. ORDER: Whereas. Claimant in personam. and that Jon: Doe is declared. it is hereby ORDERED that judgment be GRANTED to Claimant against Respondent in favor of Claimant's pleadings therefore petitioned. for the use of ) CASE NO. ) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. ANTITRUST. the only party that has put any value into the certified title known as ''JON DOE. et al. on and for the public record. . ) ) IN ADMIRALTY. Claimant's Petition for Declaratory Judgment having been brought before this Court and the Court having considered said Petition. the only party entitled to any and all equity attaching to ''JON DOE. Page 143 of 146. FRAUD. ) AFFIDAVIT OF PETITION FOR Respondent(s). Claimant's Affidavit and the entire record of the above-styled case. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. ) File On Demand (Claimant Waives Fee). at arm's length.

IT IS SO ORDERED this _____ day of ______________________. Prepared and presented by: Jon: Doe©. charge. STATE OF GEORGIA. arrest record. the only party entitled to any and all interpleaded funds relating to ''JON DOE. Lawrenceville.. Georgia. charges. Georgia. Federal Judge. District Court. A. JON DOE. Executor Office. on and for the public record. conviction. __________________________. and. subsequent to the complaint filed in THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY. is hereby and herewith declared. U. in propria persona. . S. having no claim in fact.'' and that the Respondent is declared. obligations.'' and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent's jurisdiction. [30046] Phone Number: [555] 867-5309 Page 144 of 146. In Care Of: A. Atlanta Division. order to sentence. JON DOE. warrant for arrest. Estate. 20_____. barred from placing any and all duties. debts.on and for the public record. on and for the public record. in the case of STATE OF GEORGIA Vs. claims. against Jon: Doe relating to ''JON DOE. 12-B Free Drive. Northern District. null and void ab initio. prosecution. and / or the like. Nother Person. Accusation Number 2010D-12345-1.

In Care Of: James N. ATLANTA. [30303-3361] PHONE: [404] 215-1655. P.: ______________________. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have. Sui Juris.. Executor Office. IN COMMON LAW.. Claimant in personam. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA.C. . Served this Affirmed – AFFIDAVIT OF PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. ATLANTA DIVISION. at arm's length. by way of U. FRAUD. ) CONTRACT. Jon: Doe© / Executor. RUSSELL FEDERAL BUILDING. ANTITRUST. by:_________________________. Vs. GEORGIA. with all rights reserved. S. 20___. 75 SPRING STREET. U. Without Prejudice. d/b/a/ JAMES N. ) ) IN ADMIRALTY. S. ) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. S. on this ___ Day of _____________. Jon: Doe–Assignee. RICHARD B. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JON DOE–Assignor. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. et al. Page 145 of 146. Respectfully presented. HATTEN.C. Hatten. ) File On Demand (Claimant Waives Fee). ) AFFIDAVIT OF PETITION FOR Respondent(s). Certified Mail Number – ======================== (place the 20-digit number here) ======================== To: CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 1-§308. W. for the use of ) CASE NO.

W.. ATLANTA. IN COMMON LAW. et al. with all rights reserved. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. ANTITRUST.C. 203 STATE CAPITOL. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. Sui Juris. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. Jon: Doe–Assignee. on this ___ Day of _____________. ) AFFIDAVIT OF PETITION FOR Respondent(s). Executor Office.: ______________________. ATLANTA DIVISION. Served this Affirmed – AFFIDAVIT OF PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. d/b/a JOHN NATHAN DEAL. by way of – CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have. 1-§308. ) File On Demand (Claimant Waives Fee). S. Claimant in personam.. In Care Of: John Nathan Deal. by:_________________________. Respectfully presented. Page 146 of 146. ) CONTRACT. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JON DOE–Assignor. ) ) IN ADMIRALTY. Vs.C. et al. Without Prejudice. ) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. U. . To: STATE OF GEORGIA INC. ex rel. FRAUD. [30334] PHONE: [404] 656-1776. for the use of ) CASE NO. GEORGIA. 20___.. at arm's length. Jon: Doe© / Executor.

because the name was changed. .g.The following motion is to be filed (within 28 days of the judgment) in the event that the District Court of the United States (address all documents to ''The District Court Of The United States'' rather than ''The United States District Court''. inferior Article-I court of admiralty) returns an unfavorable judgment / dismissal. etc. on or about 1946. in order to reflect a non-constitutional.) so that the constitutional issues raised within the affidavit of petition for declaratory judgment can be preserved for filing an appeal to ''The Appelate Court Of The United States''. on grounds of jurisdiction and / or frivolity.. (e.

: ______________________. ) ) IN ADMIRALTY. et al. therefore Movant's ''motion'' is not required to meet the same strict standards as that of a ''licensed'' attorney. on and for the public record. in regarding escheat by way of collection in rem. Jon: Doe–Assignee. complete and not misleading. to the best of Movant's Page 1 of 16. Secured Party Creditor.'' a real party in interest appearing nunc-pro-tunc via special visitation and expressly not via general appearance. ) CONTRACT. ANTITRUST. . S.'' those who are unschooled in law will have the court look to the substance of the ''motion'' rather than in the form. for the use of ) CASE NO. FRAUD. Movant's factual allegations within this text are therefore accepted on their face as true. ) File On Demand (Claimant Waives Fee). ) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. at 404 U. 519. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JON DOE–Assignor. and are. correct. Vs. ) AFFIDAVIT OF PETITION FOR Respondent(s). IN COMMON LAW.. standing in unlimited commercial liability as a sovereign American Citizen. at arm's length. with enunciation of principles stated in Haines v Kerner. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. Claimant in personam. wherein the court has directed that regardless if Movant's motion be deemed ''in-artfully plead. MOTION FOR FINDINGS: COMES NOW Jon: Doe in propria persona and expressly not '' pro se. seeking a ''Common-Law Remedy'' within the Admiralty via the ''Saving To Suitors Clause'' at USC 28-1333 (1).

but rather interpreted liberally so as to accommodate any and all such plausible implications gathered regarding judgment in ''the case''.ability. viz ''THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. sanctioned to exercise jurisdiction in the Common Law arising under Article-III. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. viz ''JON DOE–Assignor. is.. is not. 2013.'' [emphasis added] This rule permits a party to file a motion for findings after the judgment has been entered. Therefore. Claimant in personam. STATE OF GEORGIA INC.. for the use of Jon: Doe–Assignee. viz ''JON DOE–Assignor. or. ATLANTA DIVISION''. Subsequently. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. rendered and entered May 6. THEREFORE MOVANT DOES hereby and herewith formally move this court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (also hereinafter FRCP). and said ''motion'' is hereby presented along with any and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. Vs.. Rule 52 (b). does hereby and herewith formally move this court to amend its judgment accordingly. . 2013. et al. the truth. received May 8. at arm's length. Page 2 of 16. CASE NO. after entry of judgment. 1-23-CV-0123-SCJ''. the court may amend its findings–or make additional findings–and may amend the judgment accordingly. Movant's ''motion'' should not be construed narrowly. Claimant in personam''.. for the use of Jon: Doe–Assignee. ''the party''. which provides in pertinent part that ''[o]n a party's motion. at arm's length. by way of providing the party an enumerated bill of particulars clarifying point-by-point: ( i ) that ''the court''. Respondent(s).

viz ''the original. to support this Constitution.'' ( ii ) that ''the judge'' assigned to the case.'' Section II – ''The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases. is. to all Cases affecting Ambassadors. and. Section-I. both of the United States and of the several States.Section-I. is not. shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation. or which shall be made. i. viz ''STEVE CARMICHAEL JONES.e. drafted on or about the year 1787 and ratified by the several states of the Union on or about 1789. receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. of the Constitution. the Laws of the United States. both of the supreme and inferior Courts.e. ''… all executive and judicial Officers. . to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction. affirmed / sworn under ''oath'' for said office. The Judges. to Controversies to Page 3 of 16. or. or. Article-III. and.'' See Article VI of the Constitution for authority. Article-III. and shall. and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. is not. shall be vested in one supreme Court.. at stated Times. Section I – ''The judicial Power of the United States. organic Constitution for these United States of America. in Law and Equity. arising under this Constitution. and Treaties made. d/b/a/ Federal Judge''. ( iii ) that the judge is. Section-II. shall hold their Offices during good Behavior. sanctioned to exercise jurisdiction in the Common Law arising under Article-III. Section-II. other public Ministers and Consuls.. of ''the Constitution''. i. under their Authority.

or. operating within the geographic boundaries of the common-law jurisdiction. . an accurate description of ''declaratory judgment'': A declaratory judgment is the legal determination of a court as to the legal position of litigants where there is doubt as to their position in law. between a State and Citizens of another State. Citizens or Subjects. or. is not. within the geographic boundaries of the common-law jurisdiction. and between a State. or. a signatory to the Constitution pursuant to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 and ratification of the same in 1789. is not. ( ix ) that the following is. legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and Page 4 of 16. and foreign States. between Citizens of different States. ( vi ) that the state of Georgia is. the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act is. or. or. provided under both federal and state law. a signatory to the Constitution pursuant to its ratification on or about the year 1789. ( vii ) that the state of Georgia is. is not. is not. or. is not. ( viii ) that pursuant to Title 28 USC. is not.'' ( iv ) that the United States government is. or.which the United States shall be a Party. possible. It is a form of legally-binding preventive adjudication by which a party involved in an actual. to Controversies between two or more States. or the Citizens thereof. between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States. ( v ) that the United States government is.

provide exercise of the judicial power to cases of diversity and controversy which are such in the Constitutional sense. does not. does. at Article-III. conviction. does. . or. and. provides foundation for resort to the federal courts. charges. or. other equitable reliefs and declarations. ( xi ) that the party's inherent status establishing foreign jurisdiction separate from that to which the Respondent adheres. does. establish diversity and controversy in the case. status. ( xii ) that the Constitution. behaves in legal terms similarly to. or. relief is historically related to. prosecution. as well as the fact that Jon: Doe is the real party in interest and the Respondent is a corporate fiction. does not.affirm the rights. ( x ) that relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act is. obligations. controversy or diversity. incarceration / body attachment. pursuant to matters arising outside the common-law / trust-law jurisdiction. is not. arrest. sentencing. Although generally a statutory rather than equitable remedy in the United States. ( xiii ) that escheat via the Respondent's collection in rem and willful abrogation of the party's inherent rights and status – which are protected and guaranteed under the Constitution and Amendments found within the Honorable Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments) – by way of the Respondent administrating duties. available when jurisdiction. does not. in the sense of a federal right. obligations. duties. Page 5 of 16. or. of one or more parties in a civil dispute. Section-II. or.

is not. provide original cognizance and culpability of the United States government to protect all rights and status of all seizures on land. or. ( xvi ) that the party in the case does. ( xxi ) that the court is. within the Admiralty. Page 6 of 16. or. indemnified by the bond of ''JON DOE''. ( xv ) that the party does. or. ( xviii ) that the Saving To Suitors Clause does. have the right to seek a common-law remedy within the admiralty. does not. under the common law. does not. does not. in his document(s). ( xx ) that adjudication for the case will. does not. ( xxii ) that the party does. ( xvii ) that the Saving To Suitors Clause does. ( xiv ) that the party does. include and fortify. ( xix ) that the party does. USC Title 28-1333 (1). the only real party in interest acting as contributing beneficiary who has put any value into ''JON DOE''. or. unequivocally declare that he seeks a ''Common-Law Remedy'' within the Admiralty.demonstrate diversity and controversy which are such in the Constitutional sense. proprietary right to the certified title known as ''JON DOE''. is not. or. or. does not. have an inherent. harm the public. have the right to petition for declaratory judgment relating to the case. ( xxiii ) that the party is. does not. or. provide the right of a common-law remedy in all cases where the common law is competent to give it. will not. viz ''the Saving To Suitors Clause". . or. or. does not. or. with no blending of equity.

and / or the like thereof. become a fraudulent instrument. or. equitable consideration. in breech of any and all such alleged instruments for failure of trust relationship. entitled to any and all interpleaded funds relating to ''JON DOE''. terms of trust. be brought forward. or. or. the only inherent. there is no case. or. ( xxxi ) that if the party tries to void a trust. ( xxix ) that the Erie doctrine does. ( xxx ) that notwithstanding any and all assumed trusts. legitimate claimant to any and all equity attaching to ''JON DOE''. ( xxvii ) that the party does. because of a missing element and is prevented from doing so. which is being used against him. does not. or. agreement. or. require the original contract. full disclosure. and / or. does not. not a copy. terms of trust. implied. agreement. have record or / nor evidence that the Respondent has put value into ''JON DOE''. Page 7 of 16. does not. constructed. trust relationship]. unsigned. or. ( xxvi ) that the Respondent does. . adhered.( xxiv ) that the party is. is not. the Respondent is. invisible. ( xxviii ) that a court at law does. or. or. is not. does not. or. agreement. or. be entered as evidence. or. or. contracts. agreements. mandate – Where there is no contract [agreement. is not. signed. such instrument does. does not. ( xxv ) that the party is. contract. have the right to demand any ''original '' contract.

is not. or. Page 8 of 16. abrogated by the Respondent on 12/15/2010. or. ( xxxv ) that the party's Constitutionally-protected and guaranteed 1st-Amendment Right to be heard by the court is. is not. or. ( xxxiv ) that the party's Constitutionally-protected and guaranteed 4th-Amendment Right.'' is. ( xxxvii ) that the party's 5th-Amendment-protected and guaranteed arraignment is. in derogation to the Constitution. is not. waived by the party. doing business within the jurisdiction and venue of the court. in derogation to the 6th-Amendment-protected and guaranteed Rights to fully understand the accusation and define / challenge jurisdiction / venue. abrogated by the Respondent on 07/21/2010. been / currently. a statute of limitations on fraud. or. is not. or. or. is not. ( xl ) that pursuant to the FRCP. which states '' no Warrants shall issue. is not. Rule 52. but upon probable cause. by entering a plea of ''Not Guilty'' for the party. tantamount to estoppel via acquiescence.( xxxii ) that there is. or. ( xxxviii ) that the Respondent's obstruction of the party's arraignment is. has / is not. is not. . is. ( xxxix ) that the Respondent's practice of law from the bench. ( xxxiii ) that the Respondent has / is. or. or. the Respondent's corporate silence / non- response to the party's affirmed declarations is. is not. obstructed by the Respondent on 12/15/2010. ( xxxvi ) that the party's 5th-Amendment-protected and guaranteed arraignment is.

an abrogation of the party's 4th-Amendment Right to establish probable cause. . does not.( xli ) that the Respondent's failure to answer the party's motion(s) is. 6th-Amendment Right to define and challenge jurisdiction. and. comport to the requisite uniform three-year statute of limitations provided within the Admiralty. or. are not. or. have the right to challenge jurisdiction at any time. is not. ( xlvi ) that the Respondent's claim is. ( xliii ) that Gwinnett County is. in direct contravention to the United States' abolition of ''Debtors' Prison'' in the year 1833. the proper venue / jurisdiction to file / hear such alleged claim. is. ( xlviii ) that the Respondent's ''Request to Charge'' is.A. is not. 5th-Amendment Right to due process of law. or. in derogation to the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. or. ( xliv ) that the party does. or. 19-6-15 are. ( xlii ) that the Respondent's failure to respond to the party's challenge to jurisdiction. is not. or. ( xlvii ) that the Constitutionally-mandated guidelines found within O. as declared in the party's affirmed affidavits of truth and nunc-pro- tunc objections and demand for probable cause via fact-finding entered in the court.G. is not. is not. or. or. Page 9 of 16. in derogation to Article-III and Article-IV of the Constitution.C. ( xlv ) that the Respondent's claim does. does not.

the Constitution. contract or agreement. federal. does not. and therefore is withstanding. is notwithstanding. local. or. or. the Uniform Commercial Code in Book 1 at Sections 207 and 308. or. the party does. . does/do not. and.in derogation to the equal protection clause of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. intentionally. ( xlix ) that the Respondent's claim is. accept the liability associated with the ''compelled benefit of privilege'' pursuant to any and every unrevealed / presumed commercial trust. and. and in harmony with the Uniform Commercial Code. reserve and exercise all Rights and Remedy as provided by way of such that are unlimited to the party's UCC-1 Financing Statement. ( lii ) that reservation and exercise of the same does. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. agreement. and. that the party has not entered into knowingly. and / or the like thereof. in derogation to the common law. is not. ( li ) that pursuant to the same. . international. House Joint Resolution 192. the party does not. does not. and / or. the 13th Article of Amendment to the Constitution. et cetera . contract. state. or. . serve notice upon all multi-jurisdictional. administrative agencies and government instrumentalities. 15 Statutes At Large. ( l ) that the party's affirmed declaration(s) does/do. will not. reserve his Common Law / Constitutional Rights and Remedy not to be compelled to perform under any trust. voluntarily. that. the Saving To Suitors Clause. Page 10 of 16. or.

'' ''subject. does not. comport to equity law / civil law. entitling the party remedy by trial according to the course and usage of the COMMON LAW. and the like. Page 11 of 16. or. release the party from any and every unrevealed / presumed trust. does not. contract / agreement does. ( lvi ) that the Respondent's presumed trust. employing an Article-III judge bound by ''the Supreme Law of the Land.'' ''resident of the commonwealth.'' ( liv ) that reservation and exercise of the same does. or. does not. .( liii ) that reservation and exercise of the same does. contract / agreement. or. relieve the party from any and every presumption. charging the party as a so-called 14th-amendment ''citizen / person.'' corporate officer / agent / representative / member / partner / employee / fiction / transmitting utility / franchisee / ens legis / stramineus homo (straw-man) / dummy / juristic person / libellee / debtor / obligor / accommodation party / surety / trustee / beneficiary / and/or all the like thereof. or. unequivocally expatriate the party from the Respondent's jurisdiction. comport to the common law / trust law. trust. such as that which is found within the Respondent's ''Request to Charge''. indictment. presentment. does not. accusation.'' ''person of inherence and / or incidence. ( lvii ) that the Respondent's presumed trust. ( lv ) that waiving ''the benefit of privilege'' does. or.'' ''resident. contract / agreement does. and / or all the like thereof. does not.

fictional person. termed. does not. contract / agreement does. the party does. does not. contract / agreement does. incorporated. sentient men and women. ( lxii ) that with knowledge of the fact that all such entities are not living. comport to admiralty law. '' a meeting of the minds. form. or. i. ''Agreement to act or be named as Trustee or Beneficiary / Acceptance. in any way.'' 2. unequivocally declare that Jon: Doe is in no way to be construed.'' by all involved parties. contract / agreement does. thought of.'' 3. does not. ''The implied or assumed actions / signatures by all involved parties.. or. does not. nor.'' ( lxi ) that pursuant to the FRCP. legal fiction. as a corporate person. ( lx ) that the Respondent's presumed trust.( lviii ) that the Respondent's presumed trust. make express and explicit claim and affirmation to the living. not excluding full disclosure.e. ''Trustee – Beneficiary relationship / Offer. or. with express and explicit claim and affirmation that the party is Page 12 of 16. nor. breathing.. the party does. nor. means. contain all the necessary elements used in constituting such instruments. whose Creator is the party’s Heavenly Father. and with knowledge of the fact that ''assumption'' and ''presumption'' may prevail unless rebutted or explicitly denied. comport to the Uniform Commercial Code. shape. Rule 52. or.g. e. . ( lix ) that the Respondent's presumed trust. 1. or. ''Benefit of Fiduciary / Equitable Consideration for all involved parties. does not.'' 4.

flesh-and-blood man. a ''United States citizen''. ( lxiv ) that the party is. a non-resident alien with respect to the federal zone of the United States government. an inherent. or.S. is not. as such is more accurately couched. or. a non-resident citizen adhering to federal citizenship. a ''term of art'' known as a ''citizen of the United States''.'' ( lxvi ) that the party is.. a sovereign American Citizen of these several states of the Union. a so-called 14th-amendment municipal franchisee. a Secured-party Creditor.a self-aware. territories.'' nor any other form of ''corporation.'' ''franchisee. agreed to in the year 1777 and ratified in the year 1781. indivisible from the divine soul. one of the sovereign American People of Posterity. (b) under contract. subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal zone of the U. sentient. does not. a resident alien. a/k/a. inherent to the Heavenly Creator. etc. is not. enclaves. government. or. ( lxv ) that the party is.. exclusively within the common-law jurisdiction. . a Citizen of the United States as such term is defined within the course and usage of the Constitution. or one of its States. Page 13 of 16. or. 2nd class citizen of the United States government. 1st Class state Citizen. ''a statutory slave.e. i. which is tantamount to a federal citizen of the District of Columbia (as the two are synonymous). successfully rebutt the presumptions that the party is: (a) incorporated. (c) trustee/beneficiary relationship. and is not a goverernmentally-created ''person of inherence or incidence. or.'' ( lxiii ) that the party does. ''the United States of America'' as first declared within Article-1 of the Articles of Confederation. is not.

as entered in the court. are. such rebuttle does. ( lxxi ) that an affidavit of petition for declaratory judgment is. a ''Claimant'' ''in personam''. or.'' ( lxx ) that the party in the case does. does not. . or. substantiate a set of facts in support of a claim which would entitle him to relief. ( lxix ) that the party's relationship to Respondent is. with facts of law or overriding Article-III Supreme Court rulings. point-by-point. grant the Respondent consent to jurisdiction. is not.( lxvii ) that the party does. prejudice the lawful validity of all other statements or claims not properly rebutted or invalidated. ( lxxvi ) that all of the party's documents in the case. ( lxxii ) that any and all statements or claims in the party's affidavit of petition for declaratory judgment are. does not. ( lxxv ) that the clerk of the court is. does not. ( lxxiii ) that if so rebutted. unsubstantiated blanket-allegations of frivolity. or. or. are not. a ''vessel'' as documented under USC Chapters 121 and 123 at Title 46 of The Public Vessel Act. is not. ''cargo'' as documented under the Bills of Lading Act. is not. required to be answered point-by-point. is not. or. or. or. are not. or. Page 14 of 16. ''at arm's length. ( lxxiv ) that the court is. acting in good faith and in accord with the course and usage of the judiciary powers of the Constitution when it arbitrarily and capriciously invokes unwarranted. or. ( lxviii ) that the party in the case is. pursuant to facts of law or overriding Article-III Supreme Court rulings. required to be properly rebutted. point- by-point. or. is not.

NOTARY SEAL: My Commission Expires: _______________________________. UCC 1-§308. . ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NOTARY: – JURAT – Date:_____________________________. Witnessed by my hand and official seal. 2013. before me. Executor Office. known to me (or proved to me via satisfactory evidence of identification) to be the sentient living man whose name is subscribed upon this instrument. by:_____________________________. STATE OF GEORGIA ) ) COUNTY OF GWINNETT ) On the___day of________________. DATE:____________________________. JON DOE. appears Movant. Jon: Doe / Movant. Sui Juris. Notary Signatory. Estate. __________________________________.________________________. and affirms to me that he executes the same in his authorized capacity. All Rights Reserved. Page 15 of 16. Notary. Jon: Doe. Executor Office.

Without Prejudice. Executor Office. ) AFFIDAVIT OF PETITION FOR Respondent(s). IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JON DOE–Assignor. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have. S.C.C. by:__________________________. ) CONTRACT. IN COMMON LAW. Sui Juris. 20___. . P. for the use of ) CASE NO. ) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. FRAUD. U. [30303-3361] PHONE: [404] 215-1655.. GEORGIA. ATLANTA DIVISION.. Served this Affirmed – MOTION FOR FINDINGS. RUSSELL FEDERAL BUILDING. W. S. Claimant in personam. d/b/a/ JAMES N. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. Jon: Doe© / Executor. ANTITRUST. ) File On Demand (Claimant Waives Fee). et al. at arm's length. 75 SPRING STREET. Vs. with all rights reserved. ATLANTA. by way of U.: ______________________. Jon: Doe–Assignee. S. 1-§308. RICHARD B. HATTEN. Respectfully presented. Hatten. In Care Of: James N. ) ) IN ADMIRALTY. on this ___ Day of _____________. Certified Mail Number – ======================== (place the 20-digit number here) ======================== To: CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Page 16 of 16.

and the ''Federal Question Statute'' at Title 28 USC §1331 – In Regarding: escheat by way of collection in rem and Constitutional challenge to STATE codes. etc. statutes. ANTITRUST. COERCION. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). FRAUD. administrator. Vs. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JON DOE–Assignor. §308-5. ) CONTRACT.. . federal witness. IN COMMON LAW. rules.'' seeking a ''Common-Law Remedy'' within the Admiralty via the ''Saving To Suitors Clause'' at Title 28 USC §1333. Sui Juris.'' a Claimant in personam and expressly not a ''plaintiff.. for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. et al. procedures. Party Creditor. Sui Juris. ) Claimant in personam. §103-6. at-arm's-length. regulations. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE OF ''APPEAL'': COMES NOW Jon: Doe. federal witness.'' standing in unlimited commercial liability as a sovereign American / state Citizen and expressly not a ''federal citizen'' – a/k/a – ''citizen of the United States. also hereinafter ''Affiant. Affiant. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona. ) IN ADMIRALTY.'' a real party in interest appearing nunc-pro-tunc via special visitation and expressly not via ''general appearance. 13-00000 – Doe–Assignee. ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. DURESS. with enunciation of Page 1 of 6.'' a Secured-Party Creditor. in propria persona and expressly not '' pro se. state Citizen. ) ESTOPPEL. on and for the public record. Secured.

§103-6. CASE NO. Sui Juris.''. viz ''JON DOE—Assignor. the truth. File On Demand. and are. at-arm's-length. FRAUD. CONTRACT. which preceded the Page 2 of 6. 2013. ESTOPPEL. Subsequently. 519. and said ''appeal'' is hereby presented along with any and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. Affiant's factual allegations within this text are therefore accepted on their face as true. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. IN COMMON LAW.'' those who are unschooled in law will have the court look to the substance of the ''appeal'' rather than in the form. ANTITRUST. wherein the court has directed that regardless if Affiant's ''appeal'' be deemed ''in-artfully plead. 2013. Claimant Waives Fee Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. Secured-Party Creditor. to the best of Affiant's ability. STATE OF GEORGIA INC. IN ADMIRALTY. DURESS.. §308-5. 13-00000-E. but rather interpreted liberally so as to accommodate any and all such plausible implications gathered regarding ''the case''. filed on or about January 11. federal witness. Claimant in personam. Affiant. correct. therefore Affiant's ''appeal'' is not required to meet the same strict standards as that of a ''licensed'' attorney. 2013. S.principles stated in Haines v Kerner.. . state Citizen. et al. Vs. Respondent(s). in propria persona. and received by Affiant on or about May 8. COERCION. at 404 U. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. complete and not misleading. Affiant's ''appeal'' should not be construed narrowly. judgment rendered and entered on May 6. for use of Jon: Doe—Assignee.

and entered by the district court on October 23.district court's ruling on Affiant's Motion For Findings. 2013. 2013. pursuant to the FRAP (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure). which respectively provide that – ''An appeal permitted by law as of right from a district court to a court of appeals may be taken only by filing a notice of appeal with the district clerk within the time allowed by Rule 4. . Rule 52 (b). unlimited to Rules 3 (a) (1) and 4 (a) (4) (A) (ii). 2013. and – ''If a party timely files in the district court any of the following motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion: (ii) to amend or make additional factual findings under Rule 52 (b). THEREFORE AFFIANT DOES hereby and herewith formally notice the appellate court of the United States. At the time of filing. These rules indicate that a notice of appeal may be filed within thirty (30) days after ruling on the aforesaid motion has been entered. eleventh circuit. on May 21.''. filed pursuant to the FRCP. the appellant must furnish the clerk with enough copies of the notice to enable the clerk to comply with Rule 3 (d). received by Affiant on or about October 25. whether or not granting the motion would alter the judgment ''. Page 3 of 6.

and are. (4) that ''all'' of Affiant's declarations are true. and. . are hereby and herewith formally identified. Notice to Agent(s) is Notice to Principal(s). Further Affiant Saith Not. Page 4 of 6. via this ''NOTICE. filed in the district court by Affiant. (II) Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. and. to the best of Affiant's ability.'' for the purposes of allowing them to expound and fortify the position of Affiant's ''appeal:'' (I) Motion For Findings. VERIFIED AFFIRMATION: Affiant presents this affidavit point-by-point via verified affirmation of declaration: (1) that Affiant is the age of majority. correct. (III) Any and ''all'' Addenda / Attachments to the Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. (2) that Affiant is competent for stating the first-hand facts and knowledge contained herein. named hereunder. the truth. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS. complete and not misleading. (3) that Notice to Principal(s) is Notice to Agent(s).

All Rights Reserved. Executor Office. and acknowledges to me that he administers and executes the same in his authorized capacity.______________________. Executor Office. Jon: Doe / Executor / Affiant. 2013. Jon: Doe. and that by his acknowledgment. as shown by this instrument. . Jon: Doe. Notary Signatory. Estate. Notary. DATE:_________________________. JON HENRY DOE. appears Affiant. Page 5 of 6. before me. and do not County of Gwinnett ) constitute adhesion nor alter Affiant's status in any manner. Signed:______________________________. UCC 1-§ 308. JON HENRY DOE. Sui Juris. who is known to me and is the living man whose name is scribed upon this instrument. by:_____________________________. VERIFICATION OF NOTARY: – JURAT – Date:_____________________________. Witnessed by my hand and official seal. NOTARY SEAL My Commission Expires:___________________________. Estate. Executor Office. is currently administrating to the aforesaid estate on behalf of the office executing this instrument. Republic of Georgia state) Notice: Requisition for notarial services provided below are ) authored by Affiant for verification purposes only. On the____day of_________________.

IN COMMON LAW. Page 6 of 6. S. et al. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. GEORGIA. Sui Juris. ATLANTA DIVISION. 2013. by:_________________________.. ) ESTOPPEL. FRAUD. §103-6. In Care Of: James N. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. ANTITRUST. ) CONTRACT. §308-5. ATLANTA. on this__Day of _________________. RUSSELL FEDERAL BUILDING.. ) IN ADMIRALTY. UCC-1 § 308. Jon: Doe© / Executor. with all rights reserved. Affiant. DURESS. Hatten. RICHARD B. Without Prejudice. P. Certified Mail Number – ======================== ======================== To: CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have. HATTEN. by way of U. state Citizen. at-arm's-length. W. Served this – AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE OF ''APPEAL''. . ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. S. d/b/a/ JAMES N. Secured. S. Vs. 75 SPRING STREET. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). ) Claimant in personam. for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. Executor Office. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JON DOE–Assignor. federal witness. Party Creditor. [30303-3361] PHONE: [404] 215-1655. 13-00000 – Doe–Assignee. COERCION. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona. Sui Juris. Respectfully presented. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES.

at-arm's-length. . et al. ch. § 342. and. DURESS. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona. 20. S. COERCION. 404 U. Sess.'' a Claimant in personam and expressly not a ''plaintiff. federal witness. Haines v Kerner .. (1998). ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. §308-5. 1. Boag v McDougall. Spencer v Doe. (ii) that Affiant is competent for stating the first-hand facts and knowledge contained herein. FRAUD. FIRST CONGRESS. Party Creditor. Green v Bransou.'' a real party in interest appearing nunc-pro-tunc via special visitation and expressly not via ''general appearance. (1998). 519 (1972). 1789. (iii) that Page 1 of 5. for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). ) ESTOPPEL. whereby it is herewith held via verified affirmation of declaration: (i) that Affiant is of majority age. federal witness.'' a Secured-Party Creditor. Secured. ANTITRUST. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. Sui Juris. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JON DOE–Assignor. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. ) CONTRACT. in propria persona and expressly not ''pro se. ) IN ADMIRALTY. IN COMMON LAW. Vs. Affiant. AFFIDAVIT OF ''MOTION FOR'' FILING ''DOCKET'' ENTRIES AND ADMITTANCE OF LAYMAN'S ''PLEADINGS'' NOTWITHSTANDING WANT OF FORM: COMES NOW Jon: Doe. proceeding as a ''layman'' without unfettered counsel pursuant to the principles enunciated within The Judiciary Act of September 24. §103-6. state Citizen. 13-00000 – Doe–Assignee. also hereinafter ''Affiant''. (1997).'' standing in unlimited commercial liability as a sovereign American / state Citizen and expressly not a ''federal citizen'' – a/k/a – ''citizen of the United States. ) Claimant in personam. administrator Sui Juris.

a layman. does substantiate a set of facts that are in support of a claim which would entitle him to relief. defects or want of form in such ''pleadings'' or course of proceedings whatsoever. Page 2 of 5. in propria persona and expressly not proceeding ''pro se''. 2013 (see attached). on or about December 9th. Rule 25 (4) provides: The clerk must not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not presented in proper form as required by these rules or by any local rule or practice. and that the court shall proceed and give judgment according as the right of the cause and matter in law shall appear unto it. confusion of legal theories. (vi) that FRAP. the court is obligated to find for Affiant 's claims and declarations despite Claimant's any-and-every failure to cite proper legal authority. for defect or want of form in said ''pleadings'' and/or course of proceedings regarding the case in hand. without regarding any imperfections. poor syntax and sentence construction.Claimant is a layman proceeding without unfettered counsel. the ''clerk'' is a ''vessel'' and the Claimant's ''pleadings'' are ''cargo''. . and Claimant's unfamiliarity with ''pleading'' requirements. (vii) that pursuant to The Public Vessel Act and The Bills of Lading Act. AFFIDAVIT OF REASON FOR ''MOTION:'' Claimant's [-''Appellant's''] ''pleadings'' are returned. undocketed. unfiled. (iv) that Claimant is an administrator Sui Juris. unadmitted and undetermined. (v) that since the court can reasonably read Claimant's ''pleadings'' to state valid claims and declarations upon which the Claimant could prevail and since Claimant.

point-by-point. presented to said court via said clerk. Claimant ''presents'' ''all'' of his ''pleadings'' / ''papers'' ''with all rights reserved'' and ''Without Prejudice'' pursuant to UCC-1 § 308. (ii) that Claimant does not 'submit' his ''pleadings'' nor has Claimant ''submitted'' [sic] any ''papers''. and. VERIFIED AFFIRMATION: Affiant presents this affidavit point-by-point via verified affirmation of declaration: that notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal. correct. Page 3 of 5. and. henceforth recognize: (i) that Claimant [-''Appellant''] is an administrator Sui Juris. be henceforth accepted. (iii) that any and ''all'' of Claimant's [-''Appellant's''] ''pleadings'' and/or ''proceedings''. to the best of Affiant's ability. eleventh circuit. but rather. and. ''proceeding'' nunc-pro-tunc in propria persona via special visitation as a layman without unfettered counsel. the clerk of said court. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. that Claimant [-''Appellant''] is expressly not -. the truth. admitted and determined in harmonious accord with the laws. .a ''Plaintiff '' [-''Appellant''] proceeding ''pro se'' via ''general appearance''. complete and not misleading. are true. codes and principles thereby and herewith formally set forth and invoked pursuant to the authorities cited above and at pages 1 and 2 of this instrument. filed. rules. AFFIDAVIT OF REDRESS AND REMEDY SOUGHT: Claimant [-''Appellant''] asks that the appellate court of the United States. Further Affiant Saith Not. and that ''all'' of Affiant's claims and declarations. and are. docketed.

UCC 1-§ 308. Jon: Doe. Signed:______________________________. Page 4 of 5. Date:___________________________. 2014. Notary. Republic of Georgia state) Notice: Requisition for notarial services provided below are ) authored by Affiant for verification purposes only. by:_____________________________. Estate. VERIFICATION OF NOTARY: – JURAT – Date:_____________________________. All Rights Reserved. Executor Office. and that by his acknowledgment. is currently administrating to the aforesaid estate on behalf of the office executing this instrument. Notary Signatory.______________________. appears Affiant. Executor Office. Estate. JON HENRY DOE. Executor Office. On the____day of_________________. Sui Juris. . Jon: Doe. Jon: Doe / Executor / Affiant. Witnessed by my hand and official seal. NOTARY SEAL My Commission Expires:___________________________. as shown by this instrument. JON HENRY DOE. and do not County of Gwinnett ) constitute adhesion nor alter Affiant's status in any manner. and acknowledges to me that he administers and executes the same in his authorized capacity. before me. who is known to me and is the living man whose name is scribed upon this instrument.

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JON DOE–Assignor, for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. 13-00000 –
Doe–Assignee, at-arm's-length, Sui Juris, ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee –
in propria persona, state Citizen, Secured- ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308, §308-5, §103-6,
Party Creditor, federal witness, Affiant, )
Claimant in personam, ) IN ADMIRALTY, IN COMMON LAW,
) CONTRACT, ANTITRUST, FRAUD,
Vs. ) ESTOPPEL, DURESS, COERCION,
)
STATE OF GEORGIA INC., et al, ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO
Respondent(s). ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:

This is to Certify that I have, on this __ Day of _______________, 2014, Served this –

AFFIDAVIT OF ''MOTION FOR'' FILING ''DOCKET'' ENTRIES AND ADMITTANCE
OF LAYMAN'S ''PLEADINGS'' NOTWITHSTANDING WANT OF FORM;

by way of U. S. P. S. Certified Mail Number –
========================

========================
To:
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT;
In Care Of:
John Ley, d/b/a/ JOHN LEY—Office Of Clerk Of Court,
ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING,
56 Forsyth Street, N. W.,
Atlanta, Georgia. [30303]
Telephone #: [404] 335-6184.

Respectfully presented, with all rights reserved;
Without Prejudice, UCC-1 § 308.

Sui Juris; Executor Office, by:_________________________.
Jon: Doe© / Executor.

Page 5 of 5.

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JON DOE–Assignor, for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. 13-00000 –
Doe–Assignee, at-arm's-length, Sui Juris, ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee –
in propria persona, state Citizen, Secured- ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308, §308-5, §103-6,
Party Creditor, federal witness, Affiant, )
Claimant in personam, ) IN ADMIRALTY, IN COMMON LAW,
) CONTRACT, ANTITRUST, FRAUD,
Vs. ) ESTOPPEL, DURESS, COERCION,
)
STATE OF GEORGIA INC., et al, ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO
Respondent(s). ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:

This is to Certify that I have, on this __ Day of _______________, 2014, Served this –

AFFIDAVIT OF ''MOTION FOR'' FILING ''DOCKET'' ENTRIES AND ADMITTANCE
OF LAYMAN'S ''PLEADINGS'' NOTWITHSTANDING WANT OF FORM;

by way of U. S. P. S. Certified Mail Number –
========================

========================
To:
John Nathan Deal, d/b/a/ JOHN NATHAN DEAL—CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER;
In Care Of:
203 STATE CAPITOL,
Atlanta, Georgia. [30334]
Telephone #: [404] 261-1776.

Respectfully presented, with all rights reserved;
Without Prejudice, UCC-1 § 308.

Sui Juris; Executor Office, by:_________________________.
Jon: Doe© / Executor.

Page 5 of 5.

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JON DOE–Assignor, for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. 13-00000 –
Doe–Assignee, at-arm's-length, Sui Juris, ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee –
in propria persona, state Citizen, Secured- ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308, §308-5, §103-6,
Party Creditor, federal witness, Affiant, )
Claimant in personam, ) IN ADMIRALTY, IN COMMON LAW,
) CONTRACT, ANTITRUST, FRAUD,
Vs. ) ESTOPPEL, DURESS, COERCION,
)
STATE OF GEORGIA INC., et al, ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO
Respondent(s). ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:

This is to Certify that I have, on this __ Day of _______________, 2014, Served this –

AFFIDAVIT OF ''MOTION FOR'' FILING ''DOCKET'' ENTRIES AND ADMITTANCE
OF LAYMAN'S ''PLEADINGS'' NOTWITHSTANDING WANT OF FORM;

by way of U. S. P. S. Certified Mail Number –
========================

========================
To:
Samuel Scott "Sam" Olens, d/b/a/ SAMUEL SCOTT OLENS—OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
In Care Of:
40 CAPITOL SQUARE, S. W.,
Atlanta, Georgia. [30334]
Telephone #: [404] 656-3300.

Respectfully presented, with all rights reserved;
Without Prejudice, UCC-1 § 308.

Sui Juris; Executor Office, by:_________________________.
Jon: Doe© / Executor.

Page 5 of 5.

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JON DOE–Assignor, for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. 13-00000 –
Doe–Assignee, at-arm's-length, Sui Juris, ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee –
in propria persona, state Citizen, Secured- ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308, §308-5, §103-6,
Party Creditor, federal witness, Affiant, )
Claimant in personam, ) IN ADMIRALTY, IN COMMON LAW,
) CONTRACT, ANTITRUST, FRAUD,
Vs. ) ESTOPPEL, DURESS, COERCION,
)
STATE OF GEORGIA INC., et al, ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO
Respondent(s). ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES.

AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ''PERSONS''

AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT:

Pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 26.1, Affiant hereby and herewith formally files

this certificate and makes his statement in harmony with ''all'' affirmed claims and

declarations in the case made by Affiant; and said statement is made under protest,

with all rights reserved, without prejudice, pursuant to UCC-1 §308, §308-5, §103-6.

*NOTICE: The title known as ''JON DOE'' is not under public commercial

contract, incorporated, nor entrusted to the public, nor is it available for the use

of any government agencies, instumentalities, municipalities, corporations, and / or

''all'' the like thereof, without the express written consent of Jon: Doe,

Executor Office, JON HENRY DOE, Estate, as said title is the private property

of the private estate known as the JON HENRY DOE Estate, secured and

perfected pursuant to UCC-1 Financing Statement No. 045-2011-000000, with

11th Cir. R. 26.1 – Page 1 of 5.

ID # and Stock Symbol unknown). *The Christian appellation to which Affiant answers is Jon: of the Doe Family. Affiant is not under public commercial contract. as construed in harmony with the UCC. which exists solely for private usage and purposes only.] Security Agreement No. incorporated. 13-00000. nor in relations with any public trust. (Corp. *Furthermore. JOHN NATHAN.'' Affiant's affirmed declarations are reiterated by way of the tenet – "No man can be compelled to incriminate himself. of the for-profit corporation(s) known as: (THE) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. Executor Office. et al. *Jon: of the Doe Family. 26. in breech of the Uniform Commercial Code. as is previously affirmed. JHD-000000-SA coupled thereto and pursuant to the Affidavit of Publication for Copyright Notice of the aforesaid title. and. 11th Cir. R. . is unwarranted. in addition to being Affiant's property. Affiant's name is unique and is not given to any other. [CASE NO. Also note that. JON HENRY DOE.1 – Page 2 of 5. which is unauthorized by Jon: Doe. Affiant has no ''last name. Estate. STATE OF GEORGIA INC. John Nathan. et al. doing business as and holding the office of: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. is copyright infringement and commercial piracy." INTERESTED ''PERSONS:'' Deal. *JON DOE©. DEAL. JON DOE Vs. Any and ''all'' use of the title known as ''JON DOE''.

Rule 52. [CASE NO. 26. complete and not misleading.1 – Page 3 of 5. legal fiction. and are. with express and explicit claim and affirmation that Affiant is a self-aware. breathing. nor thought of as. . to the best of Affiant's ability. shape nor form. (v) that ''all'' of Affiant's declarations contained herein are true. indivisible from the divine soul. corporation. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Affiant does hereby and herewith unequivocally declare that Jon: Doe is not. (iii) *that pursuant to the FRCP. ''person'' may be construed according to several references – not excluding 22 USC §1621 . a corporate person. means. incorporated. goverernmentally-created ''person of inherence or incidence. 11th Cir. R. et al. and with knowledge of the fact that ''presumption'' may prevail unless rebutted or explicitly denied. Further Affiant Saith Not. termed.'' nor any other form of corporation – regarding the word/term of art i. (iv)*that with knowledge of the fact that all such entities are not living. JON DOE Vs. inherent of the Heavenly Creator. or the Government of the United States.Definitions: For the purposes of this subchapter – (a) The term ''person'' shall include an individual. and is not a ''person''. 13-00000. Affiant hereby formally makes express and explicit claim and affirmation to the living. the truth.] Affiant presents this affidavit point-by-point via verified affirmation of declaration: (i) that Affiant is the age of majority. flesh-and-blood man. in any way. whose Creator is Affiant’s Heavenly Father. nor. correct. and is in no way to be construed.e. partnership. (ii) that Affiant is competent for stating the first- hand facts and knowledge contained herein. sentient men and women. sentient. fictional person. STATE OF GEORGIA INC.

appears Affiant. 2014. UCC 1-§ 308. as shown by this instrument. Notary Signatory. Executor Office. STATE OF GEORGIA INC. 13-00000. All Rights Reserved. 11th Cir. Estate. Signed:______________________________. Date:___________________________. Witnessed by my hand and official seal. JON HENRY DOE. . is currently administrating to the aforesaid estate on behalf of the office executing this instrument. Jon: Doe / Executor / Affiant.______________________. by:_____________________________. JON HENRY DOE. NOTARY SEAL My Commission Expires:___________________________. who is known to me and is the living man whose name is scribed upon this instrument. On the____day of_________________.] VERIFICATION OF NOTARY: – JURAT – Date:_____________________________. Executor Office. R. Jon: Doe. 26. Jon: Doe. Notary. Executor Office. [CASE NO. and that by his acknowledgment. Estate.1 – Page 4 of 5. and do not County of Gwinnett ) constitute adhesion nor alter Affiant's status in any manner. before me. Sui Juris. Republic of Georgia state) Notice: Requisition for notarial services provided below are ) authored by Affiant for verification purposes only. et al. JON DOE Vs. and acknowledges to me that he administers and executes the same in his authorized capacity.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have. by:_________________________. Atlanta. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). Respectfully presented. DURESS.. 11th Cir. S.1 – Page 5 of 5. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. ) IN ADMIRALTY. Sui Juris. ) CONTRACT. et al. ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. federal witness. Secured. [30303] Telephone #: [404] 335-6184. . on this __ Day of _______________. by way of U. §308-5. ) ESTOPPEL. Georgia. state Citizen. IN COMMON LAW. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. UCC-1 § 308. 2014. Without Prejudice. at-arm's-length. Executor Office. Served this – AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ''PERSONS'' AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. N. Affiant. ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. P. Party Creditor. ) Claimant in personam. Jon: Doe© / Executor. ANTITRUST. Certified Mail Number – ======================== ======================== To: CLERK OF THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Sui Juris. FRAUD. W. In Care Of: John Ley. 56 Forsyth Street. ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING. Vs. with all rights reserved. S. 26. d/b/a/ JOHN LEY—Office Of Clerk Of Court. §103-6. 13-00000 – Doe–Assignee. for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. COERCION.. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JON DOE–Assignor. R.

§308-5. for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. by:_________________________. federal witness. at-arm's-length. Vs. COERCION. Party Creditor. Affiant. 13-00000 – Doe–Assignee.. Respectfully presented. Jon: Doe© / Executor. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). IN COMMON LAW. Certified Mail Number – ======================== ======================== To: John Nathan Deal. ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. by way of U.1 – Page 5 of 5. 11th Cir. Without Prejudice. Sui Juris. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JON DOE–Assignor. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have. FRAUD. 26. Atlanta. et al. . UCC-1 § 308. Secured. DURESS. Served this – AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ''PERSONS'' AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona. on this __ Day of _______________. ) Claimant in personam. P. with all rights reserved. ANTITRUST. ) ESTOPPEL. S. ) IN ADMIRALTY. R. §103-6. Sui Juris. Georgia. Executor Office. d/b/a/ JOHN NATHAN DEAL—CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ) CONTRACT. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. S. In Care Of: 203 STATE CAPITOL. state Citizen. [30334] Telephone #: [404] 261-1776. 2014.

Executor Office. Without Prejudice. FRAUD. P. Atlanta. for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. Served this – AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ''PERSONS'' AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. et al. R. S. ) ESTOPPEL. 13-00000 – Doe–Assignee. on this __ Day of _______________. at-arm's-length. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES.1 – Page 5 of 5. by way of U. with all rights reserved. UCC-1 § 308. Jon: Doe© / Executor. d/b/a/ SAMUEL SCOTT OLENS—OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have. IN COMMON LAW. [30334] Telephone #: [404] 656-3300. Georgia. S. Affiant. 11th Cir. §103-6.. COERCION. ANTITRUST. DURESS. Secured. Party Creditor. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona. S. . by:_________________________. In Care Of: 40 CAPITOL SQUARE. 2014. ) Claimant in personam. Sui Juris. ) CONTRACT. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JON DOE–Assignor. 26. §308-5. Certified Mail Number – ======================== ======================== To: Samuel Scott "Sam" Olens. Vs. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. Respectfully presented. federal witness. Sui Juris. ) IN ADMIRALTY. W. state Citizen.

a layman proceeding without unfettered counsel.. Suwanee. [30024] Telephone #: [555] 867-5309. STATE OF GEORGIA INC. Claimant in personam. state Citizen. Affiant. in propria persona. Secured-Party Creditor. . In Care Of: Thomas Jefferson. 13-00000 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ JON DOE–Assignor. No. Georgia. [-''Appellee''] ________________________ Petition For Review On Appeal From The District Court Of The United States Northern District Of Georgia ________________________ ''BRIEF'' OF CLAIMANT [-''APPELLANT''] ________________________ Jon: of the Doe Family. Respondent(s). in propria persona and expressly not pro se. et al. appearing nunc-pro-tunc via special visitation and expressly not via general appearance. 12 Bee-Free Drive. federal witness. for use of Jon: Doe–Assignee. [-''Appellant''] Vs.. at-arm's-length. Sui Juris. Administrator Sui Juris.

[-''Appellant''] Vs. Claimant in personam. Secured-Party Creditor. federal witness. Georgia. state Citizen. W. 13-16035 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ JACK LINGE–Assignor. a layman proceeding without unfettered counsel. et al. In Care Of: C. Cagle.'' appearing nunc-pro-tunc via special visitation and expressly not via general appearance. Respondent(s).. in propria persona. Administrator Sui Juris. for use of Jack: Linge–Assignee. [30024] Telephone #: [555] 867-5309. STATE OF GEORGIA INC. at-arm's-length. [-''Appellee''] ________________________ Petition Presented For Review On Appeal From The District Court Of The United States. Northern District Of Georgia. No. in propria persona and expressly not ''pro se. Suwanee. ________________________ ''BRIEF'' OF CLAIMANT [-''APPELLANT''] _______________________ Jack: of the family Linge. Affiant. 12-B Free Drive. Atlanta Division. . Sui Juris..

'' seeking a ''Common-Law Remedy'' within the Admiralty via the ''Saving To Suitors Clause'' at Title 28. Secured. COERCION. in propria persona and expressly not '' pro se. ) ESTOPPEL. statutes. § 342. and Haines v Kerner . state Citizen. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona.'' a Secured-Party Creditor.. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. ) CONTRACT. 1. 519.'' standing in unlimited commercial liability as a sovereign American/state Citizen and expressly not a ''federal citizen'' – a/k/a – ''citizen of the United States. §103-6. Affiant. ch.. Vs. also hereinafter ''Affiant.. 404 U. §308-5. on and for the public record.. et al. Sui Juris. DURESS. federal witness. Party Creditor. for use of Jack: ) CASE NO.) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. 20. ) IN ADMIRALTY. and the ''Federal Question Statute'' at Title 28. USC § 1331 – In Regarding: escheat by way of libel in rem and Constitutional Challenge to STATE codes. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. etc.'' a real party in interest appearing nunc-pro-tunc via special visitation and expressly not via ''general appearance. FRAUD. procedures. IN COMMON LAW. federal witness. regulations. rules. ANTITRUST. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JACK LINGE–Assignor. FIRST CONGRESS. Sess. etc. AFFIDAVIT OF ''APPELLANT'S BRIEF'' PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: COMES NOW Jack: Linge. 13-16035 – Linge–Assignee. wherein it is Page 1 of 32. at-arm's-length.S.'' a Claimant in personam and expressly not a ''plaintiff. USC § 1333. with enunciation of principles stated in Judiciary Act of 9-24-1789. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). ) Claimant in personam. . administrator Sui Juris.

'' those who are unschooled in law will have the court look to the substance of the petition rather than in the form. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. Affiant's petition should not be construed narrowly. DURESS. . Vs. at-arm's-length. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Sui Juris. Secured-Party Creditor. CASE NO. correct. Claimant in personam. Respondent(s). §103-6. ESTOPPEL. in propria persona.. et al. Affiant's sovereign-administerial-ambassadorial-diplomatic-immunity is claimed/issued. CONTRACT. IN ADMIRALTY. STATE OF GEORGIA INC. 1 Page 2 of 32. Affiant.e. Subsequently. his factual claims and declarations are presented and accepted on their face as true. complete and not misleading.. ANTITRUST. i. and said petition is hereby presented along with any and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. federal witness.'' AFFIDAVIT OF BASIS FOR MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONAL BASES: The lawful un-a-lien-able status of Affiant is a major issue in the case. competent for stating the first-hand facts and knowledge contained herein. COERCION.directed that regardless if Affiant's petition be deemed ''in-artfully plead. IN COMMON LAW. for use of Jack: Linge-Assignee. 13-16035 – File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee Pursuant To UCC-1 §308.. and are to the best of Affiant's ability the truth. state Citizen. therefore Affiant's petition is not required to meet the same strict standards as that of a licensed attorney. and that Affiant is the age of majority. but rather interpreted liberally so as to accommodate any and all such plausible implications gathered regarding ''the case. FRAUD.'' viz: ''JACK LINGE-Assignor. §308-5.

''7 The controversies brought before the federal judiciary. 3. Respondent(s). and said union's central governing body. known as the Constitution for the united states of America.'' viz – ''the first ten (10) amendments to the contract held between the sovereign People/estates. et al. territories. circa 1791 to date. Cl. 17 nor Art. also hereinafter ''STATE('s)'' or ''corporate fiction. objections and averment. enclaves.. Sec.''3 (3) a citizen nor ward of any corporate- commercial de facto ''STATE''/agency..''2 (2) under the so-called ''14th amendment. I.'' stem not solely from the STATE ''court's'' ''conviction'' in that case. as is erroneously asserted by the district court.5 but rather. et al. . IV. otherwise known as ''the commerce clause. subdivisions.8 but rather. Notwithstanding the STATE's non-response to Affiant's numerous affirmed declarations.. some of which reference the ''criminal charge'' arrogated by STATE OF GEORGIA INC.4 (4) nor is Affiant under the jurisdiction of any corporate-commercial de facto government. Affiant is a non-resident alien with respect to the federal zone of the United States government and its districts. Affiant references said ''criminal charge'' in his affidavit of petition for declaratory judgment as one of various reasons for establishing the federal judiciary's subject-matter jurisdiction over the controversies in hand.6 therefore Affiant is not regulated under Art. Affiant is not: (1) a ward nor ''citizen of the United States. the union of the several states.'' Pursuant to the same..and is protected/guaranteed under ''the Constitution and its Honorable Bill of Rights.9 such self-evident reasoning is based upon the plain fact that there are Page 3 of 32. Cl. Sec. 2. et al. 8.

"An Act to facilitate Judicial Proceedings in Adjudications upon Captured Property. since said ''criminal charge'' is NOT a crime under the common law13 ─ that the STATE.'' or Commercial/Military Law.14 forcefully. i.e. also known as ''the law of the water. and for the better Administration of the Law of Prize. also known as ''the law of the land.e.18 Circa 1861. since Affiant's want of jurisdiction/venue is not answered by the STATE. while usurping the doctrines of estoppel via acquiescence and peremptory mandamus..20 Affiant's conclusion that the STATE re-venues him into a quasi maritime-admiralty- Page 4 of 32. . 10 and. further historical research shows congress placed the military under admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to The Law of Prize and Capture. (1) Common Law.two jurisdictions/venues within which a ''criminal accusation'' may be heard. i. (2) Maritime-Admiralty Law. and.12 and.''19 This Act forms the current basis for the Military Code of Justice. Since Affiant expressly does not confer jurisdiction/venue to the STATE. allegedly ''empowered'' via Respondent(s)'s misuse of the commerce clause and the culmination of merging civil and maritime-admiralty laws under the Uniform Commercial Code in the year 1966..15 illegally16 and unlawfully17 re-venues Affiant out from the common-law jurisdiction and into that of a quasi maritime-admiralty-military-civil administrative ''tribunal'' of commerce.11 Affiant concludes ─ by way of the STATE's usurpation of Affiant's un-a-lien-able Constitutionally-protected-and-guaranteed status and rights.'' which is protected and guaranteed by way of the Honorable Bill of Rights.

these united states of America. Section 4 of the aforesaid Constitution provides that The United States shall guarantee to every State in this union a republican form of government. Notwithstanding the fact that Article IV. . The federal judiciary shall have original jurisdiction of ''all'' civil actions Page 5 of 32. yellow-tasseled-and-fringed flag represents an Article-I forum. pursuant to the UCC and Affiant's acceptance of the court's affirmation to support the Constitution.21 which is not found in nor recognized by books and authorities referencing flags of the world's nations. de jure. nor does it represent the operation of any ''republican form of government. Affiant suggests that such maritime-admiralty. the district court's position in ''the case'' constitutes – a clear breech of covenant! In my nation. national republic known as these united states of America.22 and does not represent the organic. whereas the very essence of a republican form of government necessitates the People's unfettered. Publici Sui Juris access to a court of competent jurisdiction.'' Thus.23 the district court's contention that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction in ''the case'' is not merely erroneous.military-civil administrative ''tribunal'' of commerce is further buttressed by the STATE's courtroom display of a maritime-admiralty-styled yellow-tassel-and-fringe mutilation of the American flag. under Article III of the Constitution. the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts is not precluded when pertaining to matters of controversy which are such in the Constitutional sense. which serves the commercial-legislative-administrative-military operation of a hypothecated foreign democracy/corporate plutocracy.

. exclusive of the courts of the States. where the common law is competent to give it.''27 These facts of history and law move or remand Affiant out of the Article-I forum and into Article-III "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.. saving to suitors. – "… the United States. where the common law is competent to give it. page 88. within their respective districts.29 and... i. (a) saving to suitors.24 Furthermore. of: (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.. the right of a common law remedy. as well as earlier. or treaties of the United States. in all cases. laws.25 The Federal Statutes Annotated. saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled. . the right of a common law remedy. in all cases. and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land.''26 In the modern codification of the 'saving to suitors' clause. Vol. as well as upon the high seas. apply diversity of citizenship to state Citizenship and a State or United States citizen verses a foreign Citizen. (2) Courts of competent jurisdiction – Modern usage of the [saving to suitors] clause.arising under the Constitution."28 The older reading of the saving to suitors clause adheres to two valuable points: (1) This remedy is "common law" as of 1789 – no blending equity. congress admits it cannot change the original intent of the clause. (2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize. The States went bankrupt in 1933 via Page 6 of 32. 9.. provides: ''. .e.. federal courts shall have original jurisdiction.

32 Maritime Commercial Transactions under the UCC are indicative of the Federal Common Law of Admiralty. in [e]state court or on common-law side of federal court. also known as ''The Erie Doctrine.'' also known as ''corporate policy. . the common law was quietly ''shelved. while under "saving to suitors" clause of section 1333. Exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts under 28 USC section 1333 is limited to maritime causes of action begun and carried on in rem. leaving men and women the [e]state – the court of competent jurisdiction.30 In the year 1938.33 whereby the federal courts adopt the UCC Rules in formulating the Federal Common Law. and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation than are expressly given by the incorporating act. a government never exercises its sovereignty.'' which is the impetus for ''The Clearfield Doctrine. i. force or color of law. may also bring suit.e. It acts merely as a corporator. the federal courts are given subject- matter jurisdiction to enforce substantive maritime-admiralty law (reverse Erie) over acts involving matters of corporate-STATE commerce and/or corporate policy." – The Supreme Court of the United States.31 "As a member of a corporation..'' while ''public policy.'' wherefore regardless of public-policy.34 Page 7 of 32.governor's convention. suitor who holds in personam claim that might be enforced by suit in personam under admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts.'' was inextricably imposed upon ''citizens of the United States'' pursuant to the Erie v Tompkins decision. at his election.

.''45 Whereas the controversies in hand are of the Constitutional. are enforced via corporate ''policy (police) officers.''42 whereby the ''person'' having been ''charged'' is presumed incorporated and under contract. thus no civil or criminal cause of action. and.'' aka corporate policy.e. The reason why the FRCP. diversity of Citizenship.37 ''Codes'' and ''statutes. there is no case. libel in rem. escheat. breech of contract. In order for this corporate-commercial enterprise to work.43 Pursuant to the Erie Doctrine: where there is no contract.'' can arise lest there be a contract. fraud. copyright. Rule 52 applies in both civil and criminal actions with equal force and effect. treaties. . there is always a ''presumption'' that: the estate is abandoned. i. and is therefor arrogated. Common and Commercial sense.44 Within the corporate-STATE's quasi maritime-admiralty-military-civil administrative ''tribunal'' of commerce. federal subject-matter jurisdiction may be found under Constitutional Law. e. usurpation of Constitutionally-protected- and-guaranteed status and rights. is because criminal is always civil in nature. antitrust. Common Law and/or Maritime-Admiralty Law/Uniform Commercial Code. statute of limitations. color of law. the ''judge''41 operates under a ''presumption'' of commercial ''law.46 Page 8 of 32.. such as a ''criminal charge. laws.''38 Any ''person''39 having ''business'' before the ''court''40 may step forward and be heard. Trust Law. Since the Erie Doctrine.g. etc. that the responding party is a ''CORPORATION. Trust. the corporate-STATE35 is arrogating ''entitlement''36 to pursue its pecuniary ambition via a system of re-venue. a contract exists. while his private estate is assumed to be abandoned..

only to be dissolved and refastened contingent upon Ethic of Service v. (ix) Incorporation/Commercial intercourse. Craving for Gain. AFFIDAVIT OF COURSE. (viii) Terms of art/Re-venue. (v) Contract. (iii) Inherent rights. Court denies motion on 10/23/13. alleging lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. and can express with accuracy only that which resounds true to heart. The court dismisses the same on 05/06/13. (vii) Jurisdiction/Venue. DISPOSITION AND NATURE OF ''THE CASE:'' 01/11/2013. AFFIDAVIT OF THE CLAIMS [''ISSUES''] DECLARED FOR REVIEW: (i) Estate/Administration/Trust. Affiant is a layman. (vi) Laws/Treaties. Within the sundry course and usage of the varying scope and degrees by which the vast myriads of man-contrived ''laws'' are adhered. (iv) Citizenship. Affiant seeks to protect the estate against unwarranted claims. . (ii) Un-a-lien-able status. Final. The remedy sought takes the form of an affidavit of petition for declaratory judgment. Page 9 of 32. Affiant files a motion for findings on 05/21/13.

great. great. . great. men can exit out-from a free society. men are free so long as they are recognized as men. (2) Freedom. i.47 In order for men to enter into a society. whereas – Laws of The Creator are omnipotent. Whether a Citizen or not. great. All rights/status flow from freedom. No man is superior nor inferior to another. and. there must be a covenant between those men that since all men are free. and.: (1) freedom. no man nor ''person'' has the right to arbitrarily and capriciously take another man's freedom. No man nor ''corporation'' has the freedom to arbitrarily and capriciously take another man's rights/property. arrival 1714─and exercises his rights and duties in accord with the ancient principles of administration to the Linge estate. (3) FREEDOM! Men can enter into a free society. AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO CLAIMS AND DECLARATIONS [''ISSUES'']: The Creator endows all men with freedom. arrival 1816.e. great. such agreement guarantees a free society. great. great grandson of Jost: of the family Ling. men can exercise their freedom while in a free society. *AFFIDAVIT OF SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMS [''ARGUMENTS''] (See ADDENDUM) Page 10 of 32. Affiant is the eldest living male─son of Gordon: of the family Lingg. and. That some men do not respect and adhere to the ancient principles is of no consequence. great great grandson of David: of the family Gordon. and prevail in any and every circumstance. and that the laws and treaties of that society are designed to protect men's three (3) most-precious gifts.

said ''Claims and Declarations'' are prima facie facts. … One who claims or asserts a right. the party who complains or sues in a personal action and is so named on the record. taken on their face as true. and is authorized and admitted to defend the action. e. correct.. demand or claim51 … In admiralty practice. I can call an apple an orange. CLAIMANT. As used in escheat proceeding. In accord with the ancient principles.' FURTHER DISCOURSE: PLAINTIFF. the district court seems to assert – 'Whereas tomatoes might be a fruit. I Affiant is a ''Claimant in personam. A person who lays claim to property seized on a libel in rem. Publici Sui Juris and under operate of verified affirmation of declaration comes now Affiant's ''Claims and Declarations'' which are hereby and herewith formally presented in the affirmative. complete and not misleading. persons interested in the estate as heirs50. Page 11 of 32. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. therefore. in accord with the limit of time prescribed by law and the doctrines of estoppel via acquiescence. and.52 Black's 4th. pursuant to facts of positively-enacted laws or overriding Article-III Supreme Court rulings. unless properly rebutted or invalidated point-by-point. A person who brings an action.''48 therefore the district court's contention that Affiant is a ''Plaintiff ''49 is erroneous. are the truth.g. . AFFIDAVIT OF ''APPELLANT'S'' CLAIMS AND DECLARATIONS [''ARGUMENTS'']: Pursuant to course and usage of common law.

''53 therefore the district court's assertion that Affiant proceeds ''pro se''54 is erroneous. not under legal disability to act for one's self. Having capacity to manage one's own affairs. PERSON. such as a corporation. not under any legal disability. 'apples and oranges. Black's 4th. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us. for the purposes of society and government. real or imaginary. Black's 7th. i. In one's own proper person. An 'artificial person' or legal entity created by or under the authority or laws of a state. CORPORATION. Persons are divided by law into natural and artificial. who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. IN PROPRIA PERSONA.e. An entity. which are called corporations or bodies politic. created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being. Black's 1st. in propria persona. possessing full social and civil rights. . artificial persons are such as are created and devised by human laws. or the power of another.' FURTHER DISCOURSE: PRO SE.. An association of persons created by statute as a legal entity. a being. or guardianship. Of his own right. and therefore is the admitted-authorized-administrator to said estate and its claims and declarations in condemnation of STATE's escheat and ''prize'' seized on a libel in rem. II Affiant comes via ''Sui Juris.Affiant lawfully holds the inherent office for executor of the Linge estate. The law treats the corporation itself as a person that can sue and be sued. ARTIFICIAL PERSON. Page 12 of 32. Black's 6th. In person. SUI JURIS.

The theories by which this mode of legal operation has developed.57 therefore.''From the earliest times. has been justified. . Affiant grants the federal judiciary in personam jurisdiction over the corporate fiction and its ultra vires actions. No doubt. And none the worse for it. all have had their share in the law's response to the ways of men in carrying on their affairs through what is now the familiar device of the corporation. the law has enforced rights and exacted liabilities by utilizing a corporate concept – by recognizing. lest they be abused and fall in their service to reason.''56 Therefore Affiant does not simply ''proceed'' ''pro se. juristic persons other than human beings.''55 ''But all instruments of thought should be narrowly watched. III Affiant's petition is for reason and purpose of disseminating verification of affirmed claiming and declaring. philosophic notions.'' nor does Affiant arbitrarily grant jurisdiction. ''Metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched. However. are the subject matter of a very sizable library. i.e. economic pressures. Attribution of legal rights and duties to a juristic person other than man is necessarily a metaphorical process. the district court's contention that Affiant's petition is a ''complaint''58 is erroneous.' Page 13 of 32.. that is. The historic roots of a particular society. 'apples and oranges. he does not grant in personam nor any jurisdiction to any public-municipal-corporate-commercial agency/administration over the private matters and affairs of Affiant and/or the estate.'' or ''in person. Whereas the estate's property is seized on a libel in rem. qualified and defined.

to assert. which cannot legally be denominated "criminal cases. One brought to recover some civil right. In those states having a Code of Civil Procedure. and is designed for the recovery or vindication of a civil right or the redress of some civil wrong. The one form of action for enforcement or protection of private rights and prevention or redress of private wrongs."62 In Code Practice.60 CIVIL ACTION. the complaint is the first or initiatory pleading on the part of the plaintiff in a civil action.72 cause of suit or cause of action. In civil practice. "Civil action" implies adversary parties and an issue. comprehensive word.68 a pretense. .73 challenge of property or ownership of a thing which is wrongfully withheld.74 challenge of Page 14 of 32. A broad. to insist.64 CLAIM. One which seeks the establishment.67 a demand. recovery. At Common Law. n. or redress of private and civil rights.65 CLAIM. a right or title.61 Civil suits … include all cases. To demand as one's own.66 To state.63 It may also be brought for the recovery of a penalty or forfeiture. It corresponds to the declaration in the common-law practice.70 an assertion. It may embrace or apply to a call. v. FURTHER DISCOURSE: COMPLAINT.59 Its purpose is to give defendant information of all material facts on which plaintiff relies to support his demand. to urge.71 both the principal amount of judgment and interest thereon. or to obtain redress for some wrong not being a crime or misdemeanor.68 an action on account. both at law and in equity.

As regards adverse possession. IV The so-called ''application'' to proceed ''in forma pauperis'' is not signed. Black's 1st. . Cod. RIGHT AND TITLE. Affiant waives the benefit of privilege for paying the filing fee.88 Furthermore. claiming jurisdiction or demanding judicature in cause. 3. 51. 3.''87 that is to say.81 means by or through which claimant obtains possession or enjoyment of privilege or thing. 2. renunciare—[it is a rule of the ancient law that] all persons shall have liberty to renounce those privileges which have been conferred for their benefit.75 Claims ex delicto as well as ex contractu. 1. claim of land as one's own to hold it for oneself. but rather.86 (emphasis added) Black's 4th. Max. Id. 699. with ''all'' rights reserved.80 legal claim.83 CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP.85 CLAIM OF COGNIZANCE OR OF CONUSANCE. claim of title and claim of ownership are synonymous.79 legal capability to require a positive or negative act of another person.77 But not all valid "claims" are "debts. 29. right.'' Page 15 of 32.90 and conversely is not ''submitted. omnes licentiam habere his quæ pro se indulta sunt."78 existing right. wherefore Affiant's petition is expressly presented. the district court's allegation that Affiant's petition was ''submitted'' [sic] for ''frivolity determination …''89 is erroneous. An intervention by a third person.84 Claim of right. not excluding ''without prejudice.82 valid claim. which plaintiff has commenced out of the claimant's court. Broom.76 Debt.something as right. as is authored ''by'' Affiant under UCC-1 § 308.

(d) that he is not a corporation. in other words: 'Hear ye. has the un-a-lien-able status/inherent right to unfettered. without imposition of a tax on the use of the estate's own court. employee. a native inhabitant/Citizen within the de jure republic known as these united states of America. and that such access is recognized and provided without prejudice. (g) that the ''criminal charge'' alleged is not a crime under Page 16 of 32. hear ye!' V The estate is claiming: (1) that notwithstanding the fact that Affiant files numerous verified pre-trial publici sui juris declarations in STATE ''court. FURTHER DISCOURSE: It is self-evident that Affiant. nor incorporated. (b) that he is not a citizen. Publici Sui Juris access to a court of competent jurisdiction. THE UNITED STATES. private inhabitant. resident nor subject of the corporations known as GWINNETT COUNTY. .''91 affirming: (a) that he is a layman appearing without unfettered counsel in propria persona by way of special visitation.. et al. Affiant's purpose in holding his court is for reason of full disclosure or public dissemination of the verified claims and declarations asserted and affirmed via the estate. sovereign entity. (e) that as a non- corporate. he is without the statutory jurisdiction of the ''court.'' (f) that he is exclusively within the common- law jurisdiction. (c) that he is not a party to the contract nor the summons. GEORGIA.

(k) that he does not give consent for the ''judge'' to enter a plea.'' (o) that said title is claimed under protest pursuant to UCC-1 § 207. (i) that he does not give consent for the court to move forward without proof of jurisdiction. Page 17 of 32.'' (t) that he does not give consent for the STATE to meddle in his private commercial affairs. 045-2011-000150. does not subject a secured party to liability in contract or tort for the debtor´s acts or omissions. JNL-051689-SA and perfected pursuant to UCC-1 Financing Statement No. (s) that pursuant to GCC-11 § 9-402: ''Secured party not obligated on contract of debtor or in tort – The existence of a security interest. . (r) that he is the secured party listed on said Financing Statement and Security Agreement. or authority given to a debtor to dispose of or use collateral. § 308. (m) that his affidavit is a challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction regarding the STATE's unverified claim/statutory charge. (p) that he does not grant the STATE consent to file a claim against the certified title known as ''JACK LINGE. (h) that the statute(s) in question are vague and ambiguous.. (u) that pursuant to UCC-1 § 308. (l) that his inherent.'' (q) that said title is secured pursuant to Security Agreement No..the common law. un-a-lien-able common-law status and rights are protected and guaranteed under both federal and state constitutions. (n) that he is merely the authorized representative for the registered title known as ''JACK LINGE. (j) that he does not give consent for the court to move forward without arraignment. without more.

and. (2) and despite the fact that Affiant does not ''stand mute. liabilities ensue as result of such ultra vires actions. (y) that notice to agent is notice to principal. nor does Affiant give the ''judge'' power of attorney to enter a plea. and. he does not. state. (x) that unless the STATE's unverified claim/statutory charge is verified within the time prescribe by law. § 103-6. Etc.. (b) PLEADS: Not Guilty This 22nd day of March.. 2011 – Defendant [sic] x Refused To Sign – R (Robert) W (Wayne) Mock (the ''judge'' signed)'' Page 18 of 32. will not. (v) that pursuant to the Erie doctrine—where there is no contract—there is no case. notice to principal is notice to agent. (z) that his STATE-certified notary verification of the STATE's corporate non-response is tantamount to estoppel via acquiescence. (w) that receipt of his verified declarations is formal notice to cease and desist. .'' nor waive formal arraignment. the STATE proceeds by falsely asserting:92 (a) ''The defendant [sic] named herein Waives formal arraignment. accept the liability associated with the "compelled benefit'' of any unrevealed commercial agreement. he reserves his common-law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or agreement that he has not entered into knowingly. and that reservation of the same serves notice upon all administrative agencies of government—(inter)national. local—that. voluntarily and intentionally. and. and. and.

''94 Therefore. If they act beyond that authority. the venue of a prosecution for the offense of abandonment is in the county where the minor child first becomes dependent upon persons other than the parent for support.'' ''arrest warrant.'' is already.'' ''criminal charge. – ''[We reverse on the ground that] In Georgia.'' any 'fruit born of that tree.e. pursuant to the ''unclean hands doctrine. by contaminant of conveyance. and this even prior to reversal.(3) Furthermore."96 Thus. their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. due to the inescapable fact that the estate simply seeks to declare that which is ─ ''null and void ab initio'' ─ as such. they are not voidable. the district court's contention ─ that ''Plaintiff's [sic] amended complaint [sic] is [nothing more than] a challenge [sic] of Plaintiff's [sic] criminal conviction and sentence …''97 ─ is erroneous.. . but simply void.95 and that. Page 19 of 32. i. the Respondent(s)'s ''venue/jurisdiction. and even though the alleged ''offense'' occurs in FULTON COUNTY and not GWINNETT.93 the corporate-STATE ''court'' wantonly pursues its pecuniary ambition via illegally/unlawfully ''railroading'' the estate into the GWINNETT COUNTY venue. quasi maritime-admiralty-military-civil administrative ''tribunal'' of commerce.' such as a resultant ''conviction'' and subsequent ''sentence. into an Article-I. null and void ab initio – "Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them.'' etc. in addition to being forcefully and unlawfully re-venued from a court of common law. and certainly in contravention of it. are stemming from malfeasance.

as well as any/every attachment coupled hereto. and/or persons thereof involved directly and/or indirectly with the Respondent via any and every nexus or relationship acting therewith. the addendum to said petition. VI In addition to assertions of ''corporate-commercial acts'' declared via the estate's claims. provides that – ''… Affiant does hereby formally declare that Respondent's corporate-commercial acts are ultra vires and injurious by willful and gross negligence. is hereby and herewith made a part of this petition. . at page 131 of 136. and/or corporate agencies. wherefore footnote ''2'' asserts ─ ''… as best as this Court can determine.98 the ''Affirmation'' for the same.'' and ─ ''… Plaintiff [sic] requests that this Court nullify ''Respondent's jurisdiction.'' (emphasis added) Page 20 of 32. …''.' Specifically. Plaintiff's [sic] amended complaint [sic] 'only' asserts that declaratory judgment be entered against 'the State of Georgia. the district court's assertion ─ that ''… Plaintiff's [sic] amended complaint [sic] seeks a declaratory judgment that [only] the State of Georgia2 is barred …'' ─ is erroneous. thus incurring liability as the respondent superior upon those unlimited to any and all federal.''100 (emphasis added) Therefore. and that the ''Respondent(s)'' named therein is a corporate fiction. as is found in the caption of Affiant's Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment at page 1. …''99 In turn. beginning at page 21 of 136. state and local municipalities. provides – ''… that the addendum. Plaintiff's [sic] amended complaint [sic] requests that a 'singular' ''Respondent'' be ''barred …''.

However. as best as it can via its frivolous.'' [which means ''and others''] Respondent(s). complete and not misleading. Affiant's petition should not be construed narrowly. but rather interpreted liberally so as to accommodate any and all such plausible implications gathered. to the best of Affiant's ability.. Affiant's factual allegations within this text are therefore accepted on their face as true. that ─ ''STATE OF GEORGIA INC. narrow applique´ of semantics. .''101 (emphasis added) Here. the estate clearly invokes ─ ''… principles stated in Haines v Kerner. at 404 U.''… Therefore. and therefore seems to infer lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as result. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Subsequently. therefore Affiant's petition is not required to meet the same strict standards as that of a ''licensed'' attorney. and are. 519. this Court construes Plaintiff's [sic] amended complaint [sic] to name 'the State of Georgia' as the 'sole' defendant [sic] in this action. and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if Affiant can substantiate no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.S. correct. the truth. the district court determines. wherein the court has directed that regardless if Affiant's petition be deemed ''in-artfully plead. ''et al.''102 (emphasis added) Page 21 of 32. starting at page 1 of 136 in said petition.'' those who are unschooled in law will have the court look to the substance of the ''pleadings'' rather than in the form. and said ''pleadings'' are hereby presented along with any and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom..'' is none other than ─ ''the State of Georgia'' only.

that the estate's claim of cognizance or conusance.'' cited page 1. policies.. grounds and attachments therein asserted. inferred and implied throughout the entirety of said petition. doctrines.. is for the purpose of demanding jurisdiction or judicature on the grounds that the Respondent(s). et al. FURTHER DISCOURSE: Since the ultra vires pecuniary actions are wantonly commenced out of the Claimant's court by ''STATE OF GEORGIA103 INC. treaties. even to the layman... statutes. Respondent(s). thus. rules. as well as the Respondent(s)'s concedendo proprie to the same. it seems implausible that the district court should construe ''all'' of the estate's claims and declarations as 'solely' regarding the de jure State of Georgia. as well as that which is found within the numerous and various laws. corporate-fiction(s)-at-large. citations.. et al. et al. and.. are ultra vires. seizure. also herein referenced as corporate-STATE or STATE('s). it is self-evident that the estate's claims and declarations do not 'solely' name the sovereign republic known as ''the State of Georgia'' or Georgia state. but rather. the corporate fiction(s) named in the estate's claims as ''STATE OF GEORGIA INC. corporate-commercial actions outside the Claimant's court. libel in rem.104 it is inescapably clear. procedures. as is asserted in the caption at page 1. is commencing its pecuniary. treatise. .' Furthermore. and therefore its charges. codes.'' is affirmatively Page 22 of 32. points. escheat.. declarations. claims. at page 131 of the addendum to the aforesaid petition. regulations. etc. STATE OF GEORGIA INC. procedures. in other words: 'out of bounds.. decisions. et al.

by way of: ''et al. .'' which is Latin for – ''and others. these terms may be used in the singular while also denoting the plural. The party who contends against an appeal. Page 23 of 32.g.'' page 1. In equity practice. An association─(singular) of persons─(plural)… Black's 4th (emphasis added). should be construed representative of the plural. In admiralty. thus. Whereas this concept is embraced and noted at the caption of ''the case. the party against whom relief or recovery is sought in an action or suit. RESPONDENT. such notation is recognized for emphasizing inclusion and NOT exclusion of the plural. the use of the ''(s)'' in ''Respondent(s). e. ''the people's republic'' represents one and all. ─ (2) CORPORATION. i. The party upon whom a libel in admiralty is served. Brown.' DEFENDANT.couched as the ''Respondent(s).. ─ (1) such term as ''the people'' is used to describe a single body of more than one. The person defending or denying.. the terms ''Respondent'' and ''Respondent's. Congruent to the foregoing.'' which is erroneously alleged by the district court. as they are meant to be liberally interpreted to the end that justice not be found the slave to grammar. in turn.107 Black's 4th.''105 and is expressly not named as ''defendant. e. The party who makes an answer to a bill or other proceeding in chancery.e. One who answers or is security for another.g.'' for all intents and purpose regarding ''the case'' in extenso. Brown. In appellate practice. In the civil law.'' and. a fidejussor.'' when reasonably determined by way of their most plausible and obvious use and intent.106 Once again – 'apples and oranges.

109 (7) that any and every claim commenced against ''JACK LINGE'' is a claim against the estate. 045-2011-000150. JNL-051679-CN. and. Page 24 of 32. UCC-1 Financing Statement No. (4) that all matters and affairs of any and every heir to the estate. Verified Copyright Registration No.108 the estate is claiming: (1) that the estate is not and was never abandoned. VII Pursuant to the ancient principles. JNL-051689-SA. and is PIRACY! The estate is the real party in interest and the Respondent(s) is the corporate fiction. which is without the jurisdiction and venue of the estate's court. the secured. (8) that any and every claim against the estate which is without the jurisdiction and venue of the estate's court is unauthorized. (5) that pursuant to Security Agreement No. Citation of the ''Rooker-Feldman'' doctrine is without merit in ''the case. (2) that the estate is private. (6) that the authorized administrator to said private estate is the secured party. are private. is unwarranted. . (3) that all matters and affairs of the estate are private. of both majority and minor age. (9) that any and every unauthorized claim commenced against the estate. certified title known as ''JACK LINGE'' is the private property of the private estate.110 commencing its unauthorized corporate-commercial libel in rem without the jurisdiction/venue of the Claimant's court. as admitted via STATE's summons and court documents.'' therefore the district court's assertion that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the unwarranted corporate-commercial libel in rem against the estate is erroneous.

successfully overcomes any/every presumption that it is and/or ever was: (a) abandoned. such numerous verified affirmation is coupled with the estate's UCC Filings under GCC-11 § 9-402.111 Furthermore. ratifying the severance of any and every nexus or relationship between the estate and any and every corporate-commercial de facto office of STATE. FURTHER DISCOURSE: The estate. (b) incorporated. and that said filings are not rebutted within the limit of time prescribed by law. the district court erroneously presumes congruence between the estate's petition and those cases it cites as being subject to the ''Rooker-Feldman doctrine. via its verified affirmation for numerous and various claims and declarations. The ''Rooker-Feldman doctrine'' is applicable where the participants in a case are rightfully-presumed and/or unrebutted corporate ''persons'' under contract. (c) under public/governmental contract. said filings thereby withstand and enable the doctrines of estoppel via acquiescence. which are public records tendered by way of Secretary of State Kemp. Page 25 of 32. its determination that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the corporate-STATE's ultra vires acts is also erroneous. as well as any and every successor to that office. (d) relative to any/every form of public/governmental trust. . who therefore can not enjoy inherent protections/guarantees asserted via the Bill of Rights. as affirmed via STATE-certified notary verification of corporate non-response.112 and thus are unquestionably bound by the corporate-commercial codes and statutes of a state.'' therefore. Notwithstanding the estate's voluminous documentation to the contrary.

2013. as well as those attachments filed thereafter. Upon filing said affidavit of petition. on or about January 11th. are hereby and herewith formally presented and admitted to the court of appeals. . for reason of said clerk's complaint. nor does the district court's use or construction of said term affect the presentation and/or admittance of any and every one of said petitions' attachments in any way. 2013. eleventh circuit. (3) any and every attachment coupled to the original 14''-legal- sized petition. Therefore. the district court's clerk complains that the estate's petition is drafted on 14'' legal-size paper. form nor manner. as well as that of any and every document pertaining to the foregoing. along with various documentation thereto attached for the purpose of fortifying the same. and is not applied to said petition's substance. presents the district court with his petition redrafted on 11''-sized paper. Page 26 of 32. is restricted in its application to said petition's form only. Subsequently. filed on or about 01/11/2013. (2) the district court's frequent use of the term ''amended. on or about January 16th. Affiant. along with a few additional attachments thereto coupled. shape. pursuant to the filing of this affidavit of ''appellant's'' claims and declarations.''113 as used re the estate's petition. VIII The estate is claiming: (1) that it files its Affidavit of Petition for Declaratory Judgment. and though said clerk does file said petition on or about said day.

114 AMENDMENT. whereas such devices as these are found to serve and protect no legitimate interest in the pursuit of truth.115 (emphasis added) Black's 4th. the use of ''terms of art'' and/or invocation of their construction. To improve. To change for the better by removing defects or faults. and supplementing the same with all first-hand facts and knowledge necessary in finding its conclusions based upon the complete record. Therefore. facts and knowledge – is not merely frivolous. certified title known as ''JACK LINGE. registered. inherent.'' (4) that it is entitled to any and all Page 27 of 32. IX The estate is claiming: (1) that it holds the sole. proprietary right to the secured. . any and every attempt to bar said attachments or diminish their scope and usage in any way. but. shape.'' (2) that it is the only real party in interest.g. facts and knowledge by way of their occlusion. form or manner – e. serves to obstruct and beguile the pursuit of truth. FURTHER DISCOURSE: It is self-evident that the estate's presentation and admittance of said attachments is for the sole and solemn reasoning and purpose in providing its court the whole truth.. rather to the contrary. un-a-lien-able. AMEND. An amelioration of the thing without involving the idea of any change in substance or essence. (3) that it is the only legitimate claimant to any and all equity attaching to ''JACK LINGE.

. nor any other right. Page 28 of 32.'' (6) that it believes no such record nor evidence exists. The Respondent(s)'s ultra vires and injurious pecuniary ambitions cause the son's flesh-and-blood body to be seized and held as collateral for the ransom. the Respondent(s)'s enforcement of such contracts conveys – unlawful use of fraudulent instruments! AFFIDAVIT OF SUMMATION: Inheritance is the gift of honor and support given by a patriarch to his son. ''Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges'' (When the republic is at its most corrupt. there is no case. to ''JACK LINGE. any and every contract alleged by the Respondent(s) is unwarranted. 1 in 4 people have been incarcerated. (8) that where there is no contract. The father's son is liened in name and freedom. Such gift is meant for the provision and status of the family.interpleaded funds relating to ''JACK LINGE. (7) that a court of law requires the original contract be entered as evidence. Not only in such libel is the family maligned in its repute. thus.'' (5) that it has no record nor evidence the Respondent(s) has a proprietary right. the most precious of attributes handed down and held by the family is its name. the laws are most numerous) There are in excess of 100 million ''laws'' written. When the unwarranted claim against the estate is re-venued out of the Claimant's court. Aside from freedom. it is commenced via the unauthorized commercial use of the family's name. (9) that due to missing elements.

their failure cannot change the Constitution for Affiant. he is the authorized administrator to the estate. it does not suffice to say that because there have been hundreds. whereas the people's depth of comprehension may be likened to birds skimming for bugs along the surface of the water. both foreign and domestic. as such. should somehow fortify the deficiencies in the district court's position. and the same holds true for all ill-considered court decisions. and he enjoys Constitutionally-protected- and-guaranteed unfettered access to his court of competent jurisdiction in his Page 29 of 32. or did so perfunctorily. shying too far away from the deeper currents and undertows to know. and. even on a grand scale.'' – Mahatma Gandhi. Within the republic – ''Even if you are a minority of one. Even so. be they pirates or corporations. Where the ''law'' is concerned. Even if millions of litigants never questioned the validity of the Respondent(s). care or dare where they are tending. Affiant holds the office for executor. . the marine biologist must dive deep in order to discover the secrets beneath the surface. thousands. without presenting proper documentary proof of the facts of record. the truth is still the truth. or even millions of cases decided by the corporate-STATE ''courts'' arrogating and usurping the administration of the private estates. that complacency. and is blessed with the unalienable status and inherent rights to protect the estate's interests against all interlopers.

." – Thomas Jefferson. Page 30 of 32. et al. The courts are bound by oath to support him by way of Constitutional mandate.exercise of such rights and status.. Respondent(s) is/are unauthorized and unwarranted in the arrogation and usurpation of the private office(s) for administrator/executor of said private estate. II The admitted authorized administrator/executor to said private estate known as – Jack: of the family Linge is hereby/herewith formally invoking CLAIM OF COGNIZANCE OR CONUSANCE. AFFIDAVIT OF CONCLUSIVE DECLARATION OF REDRESS AND REMEDY SOUGHT: I The private estate herein named convenes its common-law court in condemnation of its private property being seized as prize on a libel in rem pursuant to Respondent(s) commencing unwarranted escheat/seizure out of the Claimant's court. . and are thereby required to review all of the evidence herein presented and measure all of the facts proving violations of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution. ''… for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. III STATE OF GEORGIA INC.

et al. . IV Respondent(s)'s unauthorized/unwarranted administration to said private estate is in derogation from the common-law jurisdiction/venue of the Claimant's court. Page 31 of 32. V In accord with the claims and declarations hereby and herewith set forth in harmony with doctrines of quo warranto and the limit of time prescribed by law Respondent(s) fail(s) to transmit verified written delegation of authority to cause said private estate any and every action commenced out of the Claimant's court. VII In harmony with doctrines of estoppel via acquiescence and peremptory mandamus STATE OF GEORGIA INC. VI In accord with the claims and declarations hereby and herewith set forth in harmony with doctrines of quo warranto and the limit of time prescribed by law Respondent(s) fail(s) to transmit verified written delegation of authority to proceed via escheat and/or commence seizure for the Claimant's private property... Respondent(s) is/are hereby and herewith formally barred from any and ''all'' administration to the private estate herein named.

. and. correct. VERIFIED AFFIRMATION: Standing in unlimited commercial liability. and are. out of the Claimant's court by the Respondent(s) et al. the truth. (5) that ''all'' claims and declarations herein contained. nothing but the truth. Affiant affirms point-by-point: (1) that Affiant is the age of majority. are true. commenced/commencing/entered/entering out of the Claimant's court. (2) that Affiant is competent for stating the first-hand facts and knowledge contained herein. to the best of Affiant's ability. commenced/entered/rendered/etc. Respondent(s) is/are hereby and herewith formally barred from placing against said private estate any/every claim/warrant/charge/accusation/indictment/arraignment/action/proceeding/et al. is hereby and herewith formally declared and rendered null and void ab initio. VIII In harmony with doctrines of estoppel via acquiescence and peremptory mandamus STATE OF GEORGIA INC. (3) that notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal. . et al. Page 32 of 32. IX In accord with the claims and declarations hereby and herewith set forth nunc pro tunc under operate of verified affirmation of declaration and peremptory mandamus any/every claim/warrant/charge/accusation/plea/verdict/conviction/judgement/order/sentence/et al. the whole truth. (4) that ''all'' addenda/attachments are hereby/herewith made a part of this commercial truth affidavit. complete and not misleading.. point-by-point.

'' thereby creating a constitutional republic—''a more perfect union''—with express enumeration. *ADDENDUM—AFFIDAVIT OF SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMS [''ARGUMENTS'']: Affiant operates under verified affirmation of declaration: (1) that he is a native inhabitant within the de jure national republic known as these united states of America. 1776. by way of the immortal ''Declaration of Independence. and. . subject. (5) that Affiant is a private people of posterity. and. district. as created circa Aug. governed. circa 1791 to date. (6) that ''all'' of said estate's non-commercial matters and affairs are private. aka ''the federal zone. by the original ''Constitution for the united states of America. an American sovereign Citizen-Principal in good standing & behavior. (8) that the estate has never engaged in Interstate. territory.'' under which ''all men are created equal. (2) that he is not a resident. et al. citizen nor ward of the District of Columbia. ''all'' of the estate's commercial matters and affairs are private. 2nd. enclave.'' (3) that he is a nonresident alien with respect to the federal zone. administrator to a private estate which exists exclusively within the private sector of society. (7) that unless the estate resides within the federal zone and/or conducts the majority portion of its business with a government entity. subdivision.'' and as ordained.. and that of the organic united states of America. Page 1 of 12. established. guarantee. nor that of any State. of the federal government. (4) that he is a non-combatant diplomatic sojourner of the Kingdom of the Creator. Minister-Ambassador and dominium-inhabitant of the estate. for ''all'' Divinely-created and inherently- un-a-lien-able freedom/status/rights. protection.

Page 2 of 12. . agency nor trust. etc. nor consenting to servitude. without Affiant's consent nor that of his ancestors.'' (17) that the de jure republic known as 'Georgia state' is within the geographic boundaries of the common-law/trust-law jurisdiction. etc. rights and property are now hypothecated under deception and tort as collateral for the "emergency" of the United States. (14) that the "Doctrine of Necessity" expressly overrides any "Doctrine of Contribution" the estate may have ever participated in as continuity for absolute survivor-ship. (10) that Affiant is an end user/administrator.. maritime. trustee. submitting. admiralty adventure for profit under a policy of limited liability for the payment of debts. public officer/employee. (16) that the de jure republic known as 'Georgia state' is a signatory to the Constitution for the united states of America. (11) that the estate is wrongly presumed to be a franchise/public trust/surety. (15) that Affiant is not a franchisee. exchanging sweat equity for goods and services. (12) that the estate's status. volunteering. therefore not intentionally entering into. nor become a joint tort-feasor as participant in part of a "tontine scheme" of voluntary joint mercantile. circa 1791 to date. of any governmental or public unit. (9) that the estate has never intended to incur limited liability. utilizing the only option available as currency within the public and private sector. otherwise known as ''the Constitution. surety. (13) that a further "taking" would be a continuance of inequitable practices.Intrastate or International Commerce for profit and trade without payment of the assessment.. nor any "compelled benefit of privilege" that may otherwise be alleged.

Section 4. (23) that such reservation of rights is exercised ''without prejudice. (20) that Art. or. (19) that the federal government operates within the geographic boundaries of the common-law/ trust-law jurisdiction. 4 of the Constitution guarantees to every state in this union a republican form of government. Affiant has the right. (21) that pursuant to Article III. §308-5. the federal courts have original Article- III jurisdiction of ''all'' civil actions arising under the Constitution. or treaties of the United States. of the Constitution. to unfettered access to a court of competent jurisdiction. §308-6. (25) that pursuant to the ''saving to suitors'' clause. . among others. (27) that a declaratory judgment is the legal determination of a court as to the legal position of litigants where there is doubt as to their position in law. laws. and it forms legally-binding preventive adjudication by which a party involved in an actual. the federal courts have original Article-III jurisdiction in ''all'' civil cases of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. (26) that the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act is provided under both federal and state law. legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and Page 3 of 12. (22) that such unfettered access does not exclude the right to waive the filing fee via filing his claim on demand pursuant to UCC-1.(18) that the federal government is a signatory to the Constitution. and Article IV. §308. 2. Sec.'' (24) that pursuant to the ''federal question'' clause. IV. Sections 1. §103-6. not excluding any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize. possible.

other equitable reliefs and declarations. relief is historically related to. (37) that he seeks a ''Common-Law Page 4 of 12. duties or obligations. Section 2 of the Constitution. Respondent(s) re-venues its actions against the private estate and commences unwarranted. (30) that in addition to Affiant's inherent status meeting the ''diversity of Citizenship'' clause provided at Article III. (29) that the Declaratory Judgment Act provides exercise of Article-III judiciary to cases of diversity and controversy which are such in the Constitutional sense. (28) that relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act is available when such remedy is sought in the sense of a federal right. (34) that such matters are demonstrative of diversities and controversies in the Constitutional sense. of one or more parties in a civil dispute.affirm the rights. . (36) that he fortifies his document(s) pursuant to Title 28. controversy or diversity. behaves in legal terms similarly to. (35) that Affiant has the right and duty to petition for declaratory judgment relating to the claims. (32) that Claimant condemns Respondent(s)'s seizure of the estate's private property. and although generally a statutory rather than equitable remedy in the United States. USC §1333 and §1331. arrogated administration to the private estate via escheat/libel in rem out of the Claimant's court. Affiant is the real party in interest and the Respondent(s) is a corporate fiction. (31) that in addition to usurpation of un-a-lien-able status and rights protected and guaranteed under the Constitution and Amendments. and. (33) that all of Respondents' actions commenced out of the Claimant's court are null and void ab initio. status.

acting as contributing beneficiary. agreement or terms of trust.'' (47) that he has no record nor evidence the Respondent(s) has put any value into ''JACK LINGE.'' (51) that he believes no such record nor evidence exists. with no blending of equity. not a copy. which is being used against him. be brought forward. (42) that the court is indemnified by the bond of ''JACK LINGE.'' (50) that he has no record nor evidence the Respondent(s) has any right to ''JACK LINGE.'' (44) that he is the only real party in interest.Remedy'' within the Admiralty. Page 5 of 12. secured.'' (48) that he denies the Respondent(s) has put any value into ''JACK LINGE.'' (49) that he denies the Respondent(s) has a proprietary right to ''JACK LINGE. (39) that the saving to suitors clause provides original cognizance and culpability of the United States government to protect all rights and status of all seizures on land.'' (43) that Affiant holds the un-a-lien-able. under the common law. (52) that he formally demands any ''original '' contract. proprietary right to the certified title known as ''JACK LINGE. .'' (46) that he is entitled to any and all ''interpleaded funds'' relating to ''JACK LINGE.'' (45) that he is the only inherent. legitimate claimant to any and all equity attaching to ''JACK LINGE. (41) that adjudication for Affiant's petition will not harm the public. (40) that Affiant has the right and duty to seek a common-law remedy within the admiralty. (38) that the saving to suitors clause provides the right of a common-law remedy in all cases where the common law is competent to give it. who has put any value into ''JACK LINGE.

[agreement nor terms of trust. is currently. agreement or terms of trust be entered as evidence. implied. agreements or trusts signed. (55) that notwithstanding any and all assumed contracts. there must be: (a) proof of a flesh-and-blood victim. doing business within the jurisdiction and venue of the court. and. and do not provide grounds for criminal charge. Respondent(s) is in breech of any and all such alleged instruments due to failure of full disclosure and/or equitable consideration.'' and wantonly brings its ultra vires and injurious criminal charge to bear upon Affiant— Jack: Linge—the secured party—administrator to the estate—the real party in interest. unsigned. agreement or trust because of a missing element and is prevented from doing so. (58) that the Respondent(s) has been. . and. and/or the like. such becomes a fraudulent instrument. (54) that under the Erie doctrine – where there is no contract. invisible.] there is no case. (60) that estate heirs' matters are private to the estate. adhered.(53) that a court of law requires the original contract. (b) proof that the crime alleged was committed Page 6 of 12. unwarranted claim against the estate in the name of the secured. certified title known as ''JACK LINGE. Respondent(s) files its unverified. (59) that despite GCC-11 § 9-402 and Affiant's declarations. constructed. objections and averment. (61) that in order to prove a ''crime'' has occurred. (56) that if a party tries to void a contract. which clearly show a perfected security interest and clearly delineate the distinct division between the registered title known as ''JACK LINGE'' and the secured party. (57) that there is absolutely no statute of limitations on fraud.

V. is being. (71) that Respondents' failure to answer Affiant's claims/declarations is in derogation from Amd. ultra vires and injurious. . (63) that pursuant to the warrants clause provided at the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. VI. protected and guaranteed rights to not ''understand'' (stand under) the accusation. and that the ''person'' sought for arrest committed or is committing the crime alleged. as is declared in Affiant's affidavits of truth and nunc-pro-tunc Page 7 of 12. (62) that notwithstanding the issuance of a groundless ''criminal charge'' and subsequent ''bench warrant. I. Respondent(s) is a for-profit. (72) that Respondent(s)'s failure to respond to Affiant's challenge to jurisdiction. protected and guaranteed arraignment is obstructed by Respondent(s) on 12/15/2010. IX of the Constitution. (68) that Respondent(s)'s obstruction to Affiant's arraignment is in derogation from the 6th-Amd. Rule 52. no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. and to define/challenge jurisdiction/venue.' (66) that Affiant's protected/guaranteed 1st-Amendment right to unabridged speech in ''court'' is usurped by Respondent(s) on 12/15/2010. and is not the sovereign. Respondent(s)'s corporate silence/non-response to Affiant's claims/declarations is tantamount to estoppel via acquiescence. (65) that STATE OF GEORGEA INC. (64) that probable cause requires a showing that a crime has been. corporate-commercial enterprise. (69) that without Affiant's power of attorney. Respondent(s)'s practice of law from the bench is unwarranted. (67) that Affiant's 6th-Amd. committed. or. IV. et al.maliciously or intentionally.'' Affiant is arrested and incarcerated. (70) that pursuant to FRCP. de jure republic known as 'state of Georgia' or 'Georgia state.

right to know the nature and cause of the accusation and define/challenge jurisdiction/venue. 5th- Amd. . (74) that Affiant has the right to challenge jurisdiction at any time. Book 1. (80) that the Respondent(s)'s ''Request to Charge'' is in derogation from the equal protection clause of the 5th Amd. (82) that Affiant's affirmed declarations reserve and exercise all rights and remedy as provided via such that are unlimited to Affiant's UCC-1 Financing Statement. 6th-Amd. the Federal Question Clause. at Page 8 of 12.C. the 6th Amd.A. to. trust and commercial laws. (77) that Respondent(s)'s claim is in direct contravention to the United States' abolition of ''Debtors' Prison'' in the year 1833. the Saving To Suitors Clause.G. the Uniform Commercial Code.G. and. 15 Statutes At Large. to the Constitution. the Constitution. (81) that Respondent(s)'s claim is in derogation from common. to the Constitution. § 19-10-1 is vague and ambiguous. and. (78) that the federally-mandated guidelines found within O. §19-6-15 are in derogation from the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the 5th Amd. IV Sec. (79) that O. (76) that Respondent(s)'s claim does not comport to the requisite uniform three-year statute of limitations provided within the Admiralty. the 13th Article of Amendment to the Constitution. and violates Art.objections and demand for probable cause via fact-finding entered in the ''court. 4 of. is not the proper jurisdiction/venue to file/hear such alleged claim. (75) that Affiant challenges jurisdiction prior to trial. right to due process and equal protection of the law.'' is in violation of 4th-Amd.C.A. (73) that GWINNETT CO. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. right to establish probable cause. House Joint Resolution 192.

(83) that pursuant to the same. intentionally. and/or. local. agreement. and. accusation. contract.§308 and §103-6. such as that which is found within Respondent(s)'s ''Request to Charge. state. that Affiant has not entered into knowingly. and. and. voluntarily. (84) that reservation and exercise of the same serves notice upon all multi-jurisdictional.'' ''resident. employing an Article-III judiciary bound by ''the Supreme Law of the Land. Affiant reserves his Common Law/Trust Law/Constitutional Rights and Remedy not to be compelled to perform under any trust.'' corporate officer / agent / representative / member / Page 9 of 12. and in harmony with the Uniform Commercial Code. that.. international. .'' (86) that reservation and exercise of the same automatically and immediately releases Affiant from any and every unrevealed/presumed trust. will not. trust. and/or the like thereof. Affiant does not. charging Affiant as a so-called 14th-amendment ''citizen/person.'' ''person of inherence and/or incidence. entitling him remedy by trial according to the course and usage of the common law. etc. contract/agreement.'' (87) that waiving ''the benefit of privilege'' auto- matically/immediately relieves Affiant from any and every presumption. administrative agencies and government instrumentalities/bodies politic. and/or all the like thereof.'' ''subject. and the like. (85) that reservation and exercise of the same unequivocally expatriates Affiant from the Respondent(s)'s jurisdiction. federal.'' ''resident of the commonwealth. contract or agreement. accept the liability associated with the ''compelled benefit of privilege'' pursuant to any and every unrevealed/presumed public/governmental trust. indictment. presentment.

contract/agreement does not comport to the common law/trust law. legal fiction. . nor. ''Agreement to act or be named as Trustee or Beneficiary / Acceptance. i.g. operating and enforcing such instruments. and with knowledge of the fact that ''assumption'' and ''presumption'' may prevail unless rebutted or explicitly denied. and is in no way to be construed. (89) that the Respondent(s)'s presumed trust. contract/agreement does not comport to equity law. fictional Page 10 of 12. executing. ''Benefit of Fiduciary / Equitable Consideration for all involved parties.'' 3.'' (93) that pursuant to the FRCP. Affiant unequivocally declares that Jack: Linge is not. contract/agreement does not comport to the Uniform Commercial Code.'' 2. (88) that the Respondent(s)'s presumed trust. ''Trustee – Beneficiary relationship / Offer. – 1. (90) that the Respondent(s)'s presumed trust. Rule 52. e. contract/agreement does not comport to admiralty law. not excluding full disclosure. as a – corporate person.'' by all involved parties. thought of.'' 4.partner / employee / fiction / transmitting utility / franchisee / ens legis / stramineus- homo (straw-man) / dummy / juristic person / libellee / debtor / obligor / ward / accommodation party / surety / trustee / beneficiary / and/or ''all'' the like thereof.. (91) that the Respondent(s)'s presumed trust. (92) that the Respondent(s)'s presumed trust. '' a meeting of the minds.e. contract/ agreement does not contain all of the necessary elements required in lawfully and legally constituting. ''The implied or assumed actions / signatures by all involved parties. termed.

''the united States of America. (c) party to a public trust/beneficiary-trustee relationship. territories. nor manner.e.'' as is first declared within Article-1 of the Articles of Confederation. government. (b) under public/STATE contract. means. sentient men and women. (96) that Affiant is: an inherent 1st Class state Citizen.'' as such term is defined within 1:2:2.'' ''franchisee. et al. (94) that with knowledge of the fact that all such entities are not living. subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal zone of the U. (97) that Affiant is not: a resident alien. and is not a goverernmentally-created ''person of inherence or incidence. whose Creator is Affiant’s Heavenly Father.person. agreed to in the year 1777 and ratified in the year 1781.'' (95) that Affiant successfully rebutts the presumptions that Jack: Linge is: (a) incorporated. shape. nor incorporated in any way. a ''term of art'' known as a Page 11 of 12. a non-resident alien with respect to the federal zone of the United States government. i. 1:3:3 and 2:1:5 of the Constitution. a sovereign American People of Posterity.. districts. a/k/a a so-called 14th-amendment municipal franchisee. a sovereign American Citizen to these several states of the union. nor one of its States. 2nd-class citizen of the United States government.. inherent to the Heavenly Creator. Affiant makes express and explicit claim and verified affirmation to the living.'' nor any other form of ''corporation. sentient. form. . a ''Citizen of these United States. flesh-and-blood man. with express and explicit claim and affirmation that Affiant is a self-aware.S. indivisible from the divine soul. breathing. enclaves. a Secured-party Creditor.

point-by-point. unsubstantiated blanket-allegations of frivolity.' Page 12 of 12. are ''cargo.'' (102) that Affiant substantiates a set of facts in support of a claim which would entitle him to relief. USC Chapters 121 and 123 of the 'PublicVessel Act.'' which is tantamount to a federal citizen of the District of Columbia. (106) that the court is not acting in good faith and in accord with the course and usage of the judiciary powers of the Constitution when it arbitrarily and capriciously invokes unwarranted. (99) that Affiant does not grant Respondent(s) jurisdictional consent. pursuant to positively-enacted law or overriding Article-III Supreme Court rulings. with facts of positively-enacted law or overriding Article-III Supreme Court rulings. (104) that any and every statement. (107) that the clerk of the court is a ''vessel.'' as documented at Title 46. . such rebuttle does not prejudice the lawful validity of all statements/claims/declarations not properly rebutted or invalidated. nor is he a non- resident citizen subject to federal citizenship.'' (101) that Affiant is a ''Claimant in personam. (103) that an affidavit of petition for declaratory judgment is required to be answered point-by-point. as such is more accurately couched. as filed with the court. declaration and claim in Affiant's affidavit of petition for declaratory judgment is required to be properly rebutted. (105) that if so rebutted. ''a statutory slave.''citizen of the United States. point-by-point.'' as documented under the 'Bills of Lading Act.'' (98) that Affiant is exclusively within the common-law jurisdiction. (100) that Affiant's relationship to Respondent(s) is ''at arm's length.'' a/k/a ''United States citizen. nor. as the two are synonymous.' (108) that all of Affiant's documents in the case.

All Rights Reserved. by:_____________________________. VERIFICATION OF NOTARY: – JURAT – Date:_____________________________. Further Affiant Saith Not. Date:___________________________. Witnessed by my hand and official seal. who is known to me and is the living man whose name is scribed upon this instrument. UCC-1 § 308. Republic of Georgia state) Notice: Notarial services provided below are authored by ) Affiant for verification purposes only. will continue. Executor Office. and that by his acknowledgment. before me. Signed:______________________________. On day ____ of _________________. Jack: Linge. Sui Juris. Notary. appears Affiant. Estate. and do not constitute County of Gwinnett ) adhesion nor alter Affiant's status in any manner whatsoever. Jack: Linge / Executor / Affiant. and acknowledges to me that he executes and administers the AFFIDAVIT OF ''APPELLANT'S BRIEF'' PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT in his authorized capacity. Page 1 of 2. 2017. Jack: Linge. . and. NOTARY SEAL My Commission Expires:___________________________. affirms to me that he has been. Estate. JACK LINGE. JACK LINGE. is currently. as shown by this instrument. Notary Signatory. ______________________. administrating to the aforesaid private estate on behalf of the office executing this instrument. Executor Office. Executor Office.

) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have. d/b/a/ JOHN LEY—OFFICE OF CLERK OF COURT. Jack: Linge© / Executor. Respectively presented. ) Claimant in personam. P. 2017. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JACK LINGE–Assignor. ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona. Secured. ) ESTOPPEL. N. by:_________________________. for use of Jack: ) CASE NO.. IN COMMON LAW. ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. Sui Juris. Affiant. ) CONTRACT. with all rights reserved. Certified Mail Number – ======================== ======================== To: THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. on this day ___ of _______________. at-arm's-length. FRAUD. §103-6. In Care Of: John Ley.. [30303] Telephone #: [404] 335-6184. S. UCC-1 § 308. Georgia. 56 Forsyth Street. ANTITRUST. federal witness. state Citizen. Served this – AFFIDAVIT OF ''APPELLANT'S BRIEF'' PETITION FOR DECLARATORYJUDGMENT. Executor Office. Sui Juris. Atlanta. Page 2 of 2. by way of U. et al. S. ) IN ADMIRALTY. DURESS. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC.. Vs. 13-16035 – Linge–Assignee.) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. Party Creditor. . COERCION. Without Prejudice. W. §308-5.

Without Prejudice. Certified Mail Number – ======================== ======================== To: John Nathan Deal. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona. Respectively presented. ANTITRUST. Georgia. by way of U. by:_________________________. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). S. COERCION. UCC-1 § 308. Sui Juris. 13-16035 – Linge–Assignee. IN COMMON LAW.. for use of Jack: ) CASE NO. with all rights reserved. [30334] Telephone #: [404] 261-1776. federal witness. Affiant. d/b/a/ JOHN NATHAN DEAL—CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ) IN ADMIRALTY. §103-6. ) Claimant in personam. §308-5. Executor Office. DURESS. Jack: Linge© / Executor. ) CONTRACT. Vs. Served this – AFFIDAVIT OF ''APPELLANT'S BRIEF'' PETITION FOR DECLARATORYJUDGMENT. P. state Citizen. ) ESTOPPEL. 2017. Sui Juris. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JACK LINGE–Assignor. Page 2 of 2. S.) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. Atlanta. et al. FRAUD. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC.. on this day ___ of _______________. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have. Secured. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. at-arm's-length. Party Creditor. In Care Of: 203 STATE CAPITOL. .

Atlanta. ) Claimant in personam. FRAUD. S. with all rights reserved. for use of Jack: ) CASE NO. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have. §308-5.. on this day ___ of _______________. §103-6. Jack: Linge© / Executor. In Care Of: 40 CAPITOL SQUARE. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona. ) IN ADMIRALTY. Sui Juris. ANTITRUST. ) CONTRACT. Respectively presented. Executor Office. by:_________________________. Sui Juris. S. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. COERCION. ) ESTOPPEL. Affiant. Without Prejudice. Certified Mail Number – ======================== ======================== To: Samuel Scott "Sam" Olens. W. at-arm's-length. UCC-1 § 308. 13-16035 – Linge–Assignee. Georgia. Secured. Vs. state Citizen. by way of U. [30334] Telephone #: [404] 656-3300. Served this – AFFIDAVIT OF ''APPELLANT'S BRIEF'' PETITION FOR DECLARATORYJUDGMENT. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JACK LINGE–Assignor. S. d/b/a/ SAMUEL SCOTT OLENS—OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). IN COMMON LAW. et al. P.) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. Page 2 of 2. Party Creditor. .. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. 2017.. federal witness. DURESS.

GCC-11 § 1-203.Y. Case No. 287.Ed. The following case law represents affirmation of these two classes of citizenry.' The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the [federal] jurisdiction of the United States [government].. USC §1732. 163 – ''The Bible is law to be applied Nationally. e. 'All persons born or naturalized [residents of D. Doctrines of Estoppel – Acquiescence.." N.S. §1. Titus – Dominion and Property. ''The rights of Citizens of the states.'' filed on or about 01/11/13..'' In re the treatise entitled: ''Biblical Principles Of Law. Law of the Record – Apostille – Affidavit Of Political Status – Act Of State – Reaffirmation of Character – Renunciation of Unlawfully-Attempted Expatriations. "The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th -amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual [state] Citizens (See Slaughter House cases." Elk v Wilkins. v. affirmed 16 S. as such. Old/New Testament – Divine Law – 380 U.E. a person who is "completely subject" to the jurisdiction of the federal government [such as a citizen of the District of Columbia. and. Case: 3-08 CR 089 N Petition and challenge to jurisdiction 3. former slaves.S. and.459 (1873). Virtually any legal concept stated by the courts concerning a 14th-amendment citizen is operative upon all federal citizens. immigrants after the Civil War] in [the federal zone of] the United States [government] and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. 14.S. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES: 1. pg.p..C. ¶ 23. In other words.S. 101.]. 1226.'' by Herbert W. "The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. . 15 Statutes at Large. The Good Faith Oxford Doctrine – Moral Obligation." Jones v Temmer. it does not protect those rights which relate to state Citizenship. Duty of Performance or Enforcement – Peremptory Mandamus. "There are. Ed.. 307 U.Y. Elk v Wilkins is a 14th-amendment case. 112 U. Ct. 505. 224. 41 L. ¶249. Title 22. all federal citizens must be. (16 Wall. – "The persons declared to be [federal] citizens are.g. 394 (1873)). 496. 141 N. "… the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action by the privilege and immunities clause [of the 14th amendment].) 36.S. Susan B. are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. 479.. the concept of which [as denoted by use of the term ''second-class citizen''] is true concerning all federal citizens. v." Hague v CIO.'' U. see attachments entitled: ''MISCELLANEOUS ATTACHMENTS''. former slaves. by their very definition. re Merriam. then. 21 L. 36 N. The Holy Bible. UCC-1 § 103-6. 83 U. 520 Volume 20 of Corpus Juris Secundum at 1758. 1073. They stand as they did before the adoption [sic] of the fourteenth amendment. the Bill of Rights.2 2. Anthony. 94. Supp. immigrants after the Civil War]. this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government. under our Page 1 of 24. etc. 839 F. 102 (1884). and are fully guaranteed by other provisions [e. but completely subject.g. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. Instead.

Ed.'' Pannill v." United States v Cruikshank. republican form of government.'' Ruhstrat v People. 252 (1935). Ledbetter. Possibly no better reason for this fact exists than such citizens were not thought of when the judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted. "We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. 160 Ala. ''A person who is a [federal] citizen of the United States [government] is necessarily a citizen of the particular [de facto] State in which he resides. 590 (1940). ''. 83 U.S.2d 573. [federal] citizens of the District of Columbia were not granted the privilege of litigating in the federal courts on the ground of diversity of citizenship. is not within the language of the Constitution. "The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another.'' Alla v. and each has citizens of its own. and those belonging to the Citizens of each state as such. a [federal] citizen of the United States [government]. 296 U. 252 F. v. "… rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state Citizenship. ''There is a distinction between [federal] citizenship of the United States [government] and Citizenship of a particular [de jure] state.'' State v. 327 (1874) headnote 8.'' Madden v Kentucky. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the [de jure] state the highest exercise of its sovereignty – the right to declare who are its Citizens. ''The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made Negroes [federal] citizens of the United States [government].'' Du Vernay v. two classes of citizens.. But a person may be a Citizen of a particular [de jure] state and not a [federal] citizen of the United States [government]. who is not a Citizen of any [de jure] state. 48 So. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other.. Roanoke. but in any event. 21 L. one of the United States [government] and one of the state. 823. ''A person may be a [federal] citizen of the United States [government] and yet be not identified or identifiable as a Citizen of any particular [de jure] state. one [a federal citizen] of the United States [government] and the other [a state Citizen] of the [de jure] state.p.. Fowler.. Carter. and thereby created two classes of citizens. and a Citizenship of a state.S. 48 Ind.788 (1909). 92 U. "It is quite clear. Ann. 155. 56 S. 6 S. and [federal] citizens of the [de facto] State in which they reside. "There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the [federal] citizens of the United States [government] as such. 83. 57 N. … [federal] citizens of the United States [government] … were also not thought of. (16 Wall. 394 (1873).S. 910. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others. 41 La. 914.. Ct. (1949) headnote 5. then.E. ..'' Slaughter-House Cases. 380. 542 (1875).3 Page 2 of 24. 404. Kornfeld. 84 F.'' Colgate v Harvey. that there is a [federal] citizenship of the United States [government]. 41.Supp. Ed. and a person may be the former without being the latter. 61 So. 602 (1889). 309 U.'' Cory et al.'' Gardina v Board of Registrars of Jefferson County. 84 L.S. which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.) 36.

position or status existing under a claim or color of right such as a deputy county clerk. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful. 1968. 1868 – An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States: Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people. 223. 133 Tex. Sup. DE FACTO.Supp. School Dist.R.2d 1138.. C.p.. 240 U. Annoni v.L. Frank Brushaber is a "nonresident alien" because he lives and works outside the United States territories. indeed. 218 Minn.App. 778. 227. of any officers of this government which denies. Marckel Co..M.2d 513. 187 Minn..E.71 A. 255.2d 255." as is reflected in Treasury Decision 2313 (T. 246 N. 573. 1. liberty. trustee. 186 S. 15 Statutes at Large.N. 2313). Brushaber v.W.. enclaves.W.2d 781. judge. 515. D. 115.2d 926. 1145. Brandon. instruction. Mitchell v. 181 Misc. 604. 217 N.2d 778. 47 F. 41 N. Thus. The federal government concludes that Frank Brushaber is a [de jure] state Citizen. McDonald v. 113.W. actually. 1968. Bias Nadal's Heirs. corporate office. That any declaration. 29 N. 373.W. Afton.Y.Y. 496.'' taken mostly in part from the research of the Honorable Judge L. Perez (see attached).E. enacted by Congress July 27th. restricts. Gaylor. No. 140 Fla. depositary.App. Colden. subdivisions. impairs. Ebeling v. Zitzow.. In re the treatise entitled: ''The Unconstitutional 14th Amendment.E. State v. DE FACTO GOVERNMENT. he is a "nonresident alien. Ridout v. Armspach. Wortham v. Common School Dist..2d 605.C. Itasco County. opinion. 494. ¶ 249. No. 499. 161 Tenn. Petition of Board of Fire Com'rs of Columbia-Litchfield Fire Dist. 133 Fla.S. – Black's Fourth Edition. court. 605. 182 So. 192 So. Symons v.A. Independent Rural Telephone Co. 314 Ill.2d 491. 327. Bishop's Harbor Drainage Dist. 157 P.2d 239. People ex ref. police officer. 4. Union Pacific Railroad Company. 797. in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.S.C... – Black's Fourth Edition. 430. § 1. v. 407.. 49 N.3.3 5. pg. 257. order. 128 S. 41 N. grand jury. over which the United States Congress has exclusive jurisdiction granted by the Page 3 of 24. 794.S. Heron v.D. 36 N. App. at least temporarily.W.3 4. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.p. State ex rel. 830.W. 606. Walker. H.C. Eaker v.. 224. officer. . Municipal Bond & Mortgage Corporation v. and the pursuit of happiness. 619. 428.Y. 30 S. Howell. 1 (1916). 783. guardian. fire district commissioner. In re Wohl's Estate. and that under the law.. Puerto Rico. or decision. State. deputy clerk of court. 17 N. In re Hillmark Associates. v. 241. et al. indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life. 106 Ind. 94 F. 62.Y. is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.3 6.p.2d 323. corporation. in reality. Mo. 62 S.2d 777. 197 S. East Chicago State Bank. 73 of Butler County. 305. 930. 173 Minn. or questions the right of expatriation. Malone v.. 448. deputy sheriff. an office. In fact. 248. 15 N.S. 693.

1. The Foriegn Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA): Title 28.S. Clause 2. shareholder. it confers no rights. and Article 4. I. (c) The 'United States' includes all territory and waters. 118 U.'' Miranda v Arizona. *Also see the U. agent. (d) A 'commercial activity' means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act. But the people. . affords no protection. in Luther v Borden. (e) A 'commercial activity carried on in the United States by a foreign state' means commercial activity carried on by such state and having substantial contact with the United States.p. 17 of the Constitution – D.. resident inhabitant or domiciled in any corporation. Constitution. 8.3 7. an officer. (b) An 'agency or instrumentality of a foreign state' means any entity – (1) which is a separate legal person. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act. Sec. Title 28. as inoperative as though it had never passed. subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 12 Led 581: ''…The government are but trustees acting under derived authority [of the sovereign American People of posterity] and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. Page 2 of 5 Page 4 of 24. or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof. Case 1:13-cv-0116-SCJ. 48 U.. might take away what they have delegated and intrust to whom they please. … The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure. Legislation enacted by Congress applicable to the inferior courts in the exercise of the power under Article III of the Constitution cannot be affected by legislation enacted by Congress under Art. 384 U. of the U. "Where rights secured by the constitution are involved. rather than by reference to its purpose.'' Norton v Shelby County. Code. it is in legal contemplation. corporate or otherwise. continental or insular. entitled ''Order''. surety.S. franchise or fiduciary agent. Section 8. it creates no office. authorities at Article 1. USC § 1604 – Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act.. Filed 05/06/13. it imposes no duties. USC § 1603 – For purposes of this chapter – (a) A 'foreign state'.3 8.S. .. Section 3. Clause 17.'' "An unconstitutional act is not law.13 defines this as – '' . S. Supreme Court. nor created under the laws of any third country. and (2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof. Document 7.p.S. CI. as the original fountain. 436.''. except as used in section 1608 of this title. a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter. includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection (b). 425. Title 11 at p.C. . and (3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (d) of this title. there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

IX – secure in personal-effects/inherent rights clauses. et al. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment.'' see p. Constitution.3 and Rule 32.4 14. V – due process/equal protection/self incrimination clauses. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment.. objections and averment.3 9..p.'' filed on or about 01/11/13. see attachments entitled ''ARTICLE V''.6 (b). Mangum v STATE. 187. Articles: III – civil claim in rights/status/laws/debtors' prison/treaties/diversity of Citizenship/civil claim in maritime-admiralty/statute of limitations/estoppel/fraud clauses.'' By William C. – October 2000 – Vol. Bates v State. 238 Ga. 2 / Cover Story: ''Why Georgia's Child Support Guidelines Are Unconstitutional. 2007. App. Page 5 of 24.4 12. Under U. objections and averment.p. containing STATE-certified notary verification of STATE's non- response to Affiant's affirmed declarations. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. see attachment entitled ''ARTICLE V''. the law places no greater duty of support on a divorced father than on one who is not divorced. ''. – ''Plaintiff's'' [sic] amended ''complaint'' [sic] is a ''challenge'' [sic] of ''Plaintiff's'' [sic] ''criminal conviction'' … . IV – republican form of government/govern by law. therefore. 520. 166 Ga. ''Plaintiff'' [sic] requests that this Court ''reverse'' [sic] or otherwise invalidate his ''conviction'' … '' (emphasis added). 6..'' Page 4 of 5 – ''Here.p. 421. 91 Ga.'' Calvin v Calvin. App. 746 (Ala. May 25. Bray v STATE.p.'' (b) STATE's false allegation that Affiant ''waives'' the arraignment. containing affirmed declarations.2d 745.'' filed on or about 01/11/13. Amendments: I – freedom of speech/religion/petition clauses.S. Supreme Court of Georgia.....4 11.. CR-05-1846. 777. Attorney at law. . This is correct. (c) STATE's illegal ''entry of plea. See case record containing (a) STATE-certified recording of ''arraignment. Akins.p. 31 of 136: Georgia Bar Journal. (2) stood ''mute'' at the ''arraignment. Poole v State of Alabama.'' Logue v STATE.'' filed on or about 01/11/13... App.'' (5) gave consent for the ''judge'' to enter a plea on his behalf. ''Counsel for the defendant contend that since abandonment of a minor child was not a criminal offense under the common law that the statutes making abandonment a criminal offense are to be strictly construed since they are in derogation of the common law and also because they are penal in nature. Affiant never: (1) entered a plea. No.. Poole's claim is sufficiently pleaded to satisfy the pleading requirements in Rule 32.3 10.. and his factual allegations [as expressed by way of Affidavit] were unrefuted by the State.p.. they must be accepted as true.4 13. 620 So.. IV – warrants/seizures clauses. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment.'' (4) was represented by ''counsel..'' (3) waived the ''arraignment. 94 Ga.'' see attachments entitled ''ARTICLE II'' and ''ARTICLE III''. VI – nature of accusation/vague and ambiguous laws/proof of jurisdiction clauses.

Crim. App.1992) ''When the State does not respond to a petitioner's allegations, the
unrefuted statement of facts must be taken as true.'' Smith v State, 581 So.2d 1283,
1284 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) In addition, his claim is not precluded by any of the
provisions of Rule 32.2. Because his claim is not barred, is sufficiently pleaded,
and is unrefuted by the State, Poole is entitled to an opportunity to prove his claim.
Ford v State, 831 So.2d 641, 644 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) ''Once a petitioner has
met his burden of pleading so as to avoid summary disposition pursuant to Rule
32.7 (d), Ala. Rule Crim. Procedure, he is then entitled to an opportunity to present
evidence in order to satisfy his burden of proof.'' Plaintiff refutes none of these
facts. We accept them as true. Carlile v Snap-On-Tools, 271 Ill. App.3D 833, 834,
648 N.E.2d 317 (1995) – unrefuted facts accepted as true for purposes of appeal –
Court must treat all unrefuted allegations as true – Stancle v State, 917 So.2d 911
(Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ''When no evidentiary hearing is held [on a motion for post-
conviction relief], a movant's allegations are accepted as true unless they are
conclusively refuted by the record; the appellant has alleged a facially sufficient
claim for relief which is not refuted by the record.'' Thurman v State, 892 So.2d
1085 (Fla.2d DCA 2004). The trial court granted RMC's motion for summary
judgment... The court noted that the affidavit was evidence... while Gassner did not
offer any evidence to the contrary. Based on this, the court concludes that –
''[RMC's] evidence goes unrefuted and must be accepted as true, leaving no issue of
fact... '' Gassner v Raynor Manufacturing Company, United States Court of
Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 675 F.2d 116 (Case No. 2-10-0180); etc....p.4
15. Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2D 1138, 1145...p.4
16. ''[We reverse on the ground that] In Georgia, the venue of a prosecution for the
offense of abandonment is in the county where the minor child first becomes
dependent upon persons other than the parent for support.'' Fairbanks v STATE, 105
Ga. App. 27; Waits v STATE, 138 Ga. App. 513; Woolf v STATE, 113 Ga. App. 412;
Browning v STATE, 139 Ga. App. 91; Nelson v STATE, 77 Ga. App. 255; Turner v
STATE, 56 Ga. App. 488; York v STATE, 52 Ga. App. 11; etc....p.4
17. ''Once jurisdiction is challenged it must be proven by the plaintiff.'' Hagans v
Lavine, 415 U.S. 533; ''The mere good-faith assertions of power and authority have
been abolished.'' Owens v CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, 445 U.S. 622;
"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v
Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250; "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; 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 Rule (60) (b) (4). Honneus v Donovan,
93 F.R.D. 433, 436-37 (1982) affd, 691 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1982)); "The law provides
that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven."

Page 6 of 24.

100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980); "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." Basso v Utah
Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 910; "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)); "Court must
prove, on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted."
Lantana v Hopper, 102 F.2d 188; Chicago v New York, 37 F. Supp. 150; "Once
challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v
Medical Examiners, 94 Ca.2d 751 (211 P2d 389); "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)); "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; "There is
no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v U.S., 474 2D 215; "The burden
shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v Lambert, 469 F.2d 416;
''Where jurisdiction is denied and squarely challenged, jurisdiction cannot be
assumed to exist 'sub silento' but must be proven.'' Hagans v Lavine, 415 U.S. 528,
533, N5; etc....p.4
18. FRD – Vol. 9, 02/28/1966, 07/01/1966, pg. 183, 203; Title 18, USCA § 2331; Title
28, USCA § 2072, § 2073...p.4
19. The Insurrection & Rebellion Act of August 6, 1861; The Law of Prize and
Capture; i.e., "An Act to facilitate Judicial Proceedings in Adjudications upon
Captured Property, and for the better Administration of the Law of Prize,'' March
25, 1862...p.4
20. Title 10, USC sections 7651-7681...p.4
21. Title 4, USC Chapter-1 – The flag: § 1, § 2, § 3...p.5
22. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment,'' filed on or
about 01/11/13, p. 63/136: ''Remarks in Congress as recorded in the Congressional
Record;'' United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993, Vol. 33, page
H-1303 – Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House, entitled:
''The Bankruptcy Of The United States;'' In re treatise entitled: ''The Declaration Of
InterDependence: Web Of Deceit'' By John Nelson, based on SENATE REPORT
NO. 93-549, Etc., RE: The United States is Bankrupt (see misc. attachments)...p.5
23. UCC-1 §103-6: ''The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains
in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in
harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to
abrogate the Common Law … The code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law
action.'' §308: ''Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights – (a) A

Page 7 of 24.

party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or
assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does
not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice,"
"under protest," or the like are sufficient. (b) Subsection ''(a)'' does not apply to an
accord and satisfaction. Any expression indicating intention to reserve rights is
sufficient such as ''without prejudice,'' ''All Rights Reserved,'' ''Without Prejudice
UCC1-308,'' or ''Under Protest UCC1-308.'' §308-5: ''Form of Reservation – The
code does not impose any requirement as to the form of the reservation, other than
it be explicit.'' §308-6: ''Reservation by conduct – Although UCC1-§308 authorizes
the making of an express reservation, it is not to be deduced that there is no
reservation of rights unless that section is followed. To the contrary, when the
conduct of a party clearly shows that he has not waived any rights, the act that there
was no express reservation as authorized by UCC1-§308 is not significant.'' GCC-
11 §9-402: ''Secured party not obligated on contract of debtor or in tort – The
existence of a security interest... or authority given to a debtor to dispose of or use
collateral, without more, does not subject a secured party to liability in contract or
tort for the debtor´s acts or omissions.'' §2A-311: ''Priority subject to subordination
– Nothing in this article prevents subordination by agreement by any person
entitled to priority.'' §3-501: ''Presentment – (2) Upon demand of the person to
whom presentment is made, the person making presentment must: (i) Exhibit the
instrument; (ii) Give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on behalf
of another person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so; and (3) Without
dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom presentment is made may: (i) Return
the instrument for lack of a necessary endorsement; or (ii) Refuse payment or
acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the
instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule.'' §1-106:
''Remedies to be liberally administered – (1) The remedies provided by this title
shall be liberally administered to the end that the aggrieved party may be put in as
good a position as if the other party had fully performed but neither consequential
or special nor penal damages may be had except as specifically provided in this title
or by other rule of law. (2) Any right or obligation declared by this title is
enforceable by action unless the provision declaring it specifies a different and
limited effect.'' §1-203: ''Obligation of good faith – Every contract or duty within
this title imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement.''
*See Article VI of the United States Constitution re ''… bound by oath …''...p.5
24. Title 28, USC §1331 – Federal question: The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States...p.6
25. Title 28, USC §1333 – Admiralty, maritime and prize cases...p.6
26. Hone Ins. Co. v North Packet Co., 31 Iowa 242 (1871)...p.6
27. The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution
Page 8 of 24.

of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated – Analysis and
Interpretation, 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1, Diversity of Citizenship, U.S.
Government Printing Office, document 99-16, p. 741...p.6
28. Delovio v Boit, and many subsequent cases Re: The Huntress, etc., showing
revenue causes under the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States in
Article-III judiciary...p.6
29. Bennett v Butterworth, 52 U.S. 669...p.6
30. Lavergne v Western Co. of North America, Inc. (La) 371 So.2d 807 (1979)
(superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Cramer v Association Life Ins.
Co, (La App 1st Cir) 1990 La App LEXIS 1937).'' 2 Am Jur 2d ADMIRALTY §122
(Footnote 9)...p.7
31. Clearfield Trust Co. v U.S., 318 U.S. 363 (1943) and United States v Kimbell
Foods, 440 U.S. 715 (1999)...p.7
32. Bank of the United States v. Planters' Bank of Ga., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 904
(1824); CERTIFICATE. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the
record of the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Georgia, and on
the questions in said cause, on which the Judges of the said Circuit Court were
divided in opinion, and was argued by counsel: On consideration whereof, this
Court is of opinion, 1. That the averment in the declaration in said cause, are
sufficient in law to give the said Circuit Court jurisdiction in said cause. 2. That, on
the pleadings in the same, the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment. All which is
ordered to be certified to the said Circuit Court.CC | Trans. By
Public.Resource.Org...p.7
33. INTERPOOL LTD v CHAR YIGH, 890 F.2D PG. 1453 (1989)...p.7
34. Under the FRCP, this is laid out in volume 324, pg. 325 of the FRD (Federal Rules
Decisions)...p.7
35. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment,'' filed on or
about 01/11/13, see attachments entitled: ''ARTICLE I/VI/VIII/IX/X/XIV/XV; II;
III; V; VII/XII; MISCELLANEOUS ATTACHMENTS'' re: corporate-STATE's use
of ''ALL-CAPS CORPORATE TITLE'' on court documents; e.g., charge, summons
to appear, plea, court order, etc.; When brought into Court by its Corporate name,
its existence as a Corporation is admitted – Mud Creek Drain Co. V State, 43 Ind.
157; Johnson v Gibson, 73 Ind. 282; Ewing v Robeson, 15 Ind. 26; Callender v
Railroad Co, 11 Ohio St. 516; Com. Ins. Etc. Co. v Taylor, 8 S.C. 107; compare the
foregoing cases to Ware v St. Louis Bagging & Rope Co., 47 Ala. 667...p.8
36. ENTITLE. In its usual sense, to entitle is to give a right or title. Felter v. McClure,
135 Wash. 410, 237 P. 1010, 1011. To qualify for; to furnish with proper grounds
for seeking or claiming. Fitts v. Terminal Warehousing Corporation, 170 Tenn. 198,
93 S.W.2d 1265, 1267. In re Graves, 325 Mo. 888, 30 S.W. 2d 149, 151.
In ecclesiastical law. To entitle is to give a title … – Black's Fourth Edition, 1968.

Page 9 of 24.

37. ''When the complaint is lodged by the government for a fine, fee, tax or duty, all of
which are revenue (''re-venue''), they are imposed only on Corporations.'' Colonial
Pipe Line Co. V Triangle, 421 U.S. 100 (1975)...p.8
38. People ex ref. Mitchell v. Armspach, 314 Ill.App. 573, 41 N.E.2d 781; Eaker v.
Common School Dist. No. 73 of Butler County, Mo.App., 62 S.W.2d 778, 783...p.8
39. PERSON. Persons are divided by law into natural and artificial. Natural persons
are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial persons are such as are created
and devised by human laws, for the purposes of society and government, which are
called ''corporations'' or ''bodies politic.'' Black's 1st. ''From the earliest times, the
law has enforced rights and exacted liabilities by utilizing a corporate concept– by
recognizing, that is, juristic persons other than human beings. The theories by
which this mode of legal operation has developed, has been justified, qualified, and
defined, are the subject matter of a very sizable library. The historic roots of a
particular society, economic pressures, philosophic notions, all have had their share
in the law's response to the ways of men in carrying on their affairs through what is
now the familiar device of the corporation. Attribution of legal rights and duties to
a juristic person other than man is necessarily a metaphorical process. And none the
worse for it. No doubt, ''Metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched.'' – Cardozo,
J., in Berkey v. Third Avenue R. Co., 244 N.Y. 84, 94. ''But all instruments of
thought should be narrowly watched, lest they be abused and fall in their service to
reason.'' U.S. v. SCOPHONY CORP. OF AMERICA, 333 U.S. 795; 68 S. Ct. 855;
1948 U.S.; PERSON. n. Latin – persona; signifying primarily a mask used by
actors on the stage. Webster's 1828. A name composed in all capital letters is a
corporate ''TITLE.'' Note: A proper name appearing in all caps (look at your birth
certificate, social security card, driver's license, bank statement, utility bill,
passport, marriage license, etc.), not excluding the corporate title of a ''STATE,'' e.g.,
''STATE OF GEORGIA,'' falls outside the rules of English; i.e., proper grammar
authorizes the use of a capitalized letter for a very limited number of well-defined
uses only, such as the initial letter of a proper name. Regarding the all-caps title
replacing the names of States, men, women, and, children, no lexical authority has
come forth in reference to the meaning of nor reason for corrupting the true names
of all States, men, women, and, children. Using the juristic artifice known as ''legal
fiction,'' proper-noun names have been corrupted via the all-capital-letter ''TITLE''
ascribed by the de facto government, creating artificial persons existing in
contemplation or by force of law alone. See also: corporation, legal-fiction,
artificial-person, straw-man, dummy, etc., aka: Capitis diminutio maxima - The
highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition
was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It
swept away with it all rights of Citizenship and all family rights. Blacks 1st...p.8
40. Marckel Co. v. Zitzow, 218 Minn. 305, 15 N.W.2d 777, 778...p.8
41. Annoni v. Bias Nadal's Heirs, C.C.A. Puerto Rico, 94 F.2d 513, 515...p.8
Page 10 of 24.

Erie Railroad Co.. unless and until the evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its non-existence. 498 Southwest 2nd. 292 N.'' Dr.W. First Judiciary Act.Ed. Louisiana Revised Statutes.'' ''A presumption is a rule of law. 260. thus. An entity.S. statutory or judicial. 557 P.-Waco 1981. Black's 6th.p. they are imposed only on Corporations.'' Colonial Pipe Line Co. a presumption means that the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact presumed per FRCP 52. September 24. 77. 510. Tompkins.L. The law treats the corporation itself as a person that can sue and be sued.8 43. Page 11 of 24. legal person. 895. 630. 100 (1975). juristic person.8 44. CORPORATION.1.S. all of which are revenue. 304 U. "The failure of an adverse party to deny under oath the allegation that he is incorporated [is acquiescence to such and thus becomes part of the official record].. Art. no Writ).. Eads v Marks. V Triangle. tax or duty.. Pepper Co. ''Plaintiff plead defendant was a corporation..p. such fact was established. An 'artificial person' or legal entity created by or under the authority or laws of a state. persons interested in the estate as heirs. demand or claim. In the Commercial Law of all States.2d 464. 301 – Agreement by Acquiescence: Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states – ''…a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proof [see 556 (d)] of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption. ARTIFICIAL PERSON.2d 257. 249 P. 2D 1161. real or imaginary. 110.50 'The Conqueror.48 In re Peers' Estate.'' Van Wart v Cook. 17 S. created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being. fee. Chapter 20. 165. As used in escheat proceeding.8 45. Federal Rules of Evidence. 234 Iowa 403..49 Weisgerber v. 1482.W. G27.Ct. v. 429 – Corporation existence is presumed unless affidavit of denial is filed before trial.. . by which the finding of a basic fact gives rise to the existence of presumed fact until presumption is rebutted. In admiralty practice. ''When the complaint is lodged by the government for a fine. who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. 421 U. Defendant did not deny by verified pleading pursuant to rules [Texas Rules of Civil Procedure] 52 and 83… that it was not a corporation. a being. 1st CONGRESS. v Crow.8 46.D.W. Sess.S.. 128 A. – Black's 7th. Arizona Revised Statutes: Title 47 §1201 (31) – ''Presumption" or "presumed" means that the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact presumed unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence. 166 U.2d -894. p.. 41 L. A person who lays claim to property seized on a libel in rem. An association of persons created by statute as a legal entity. One who claims or asserts a right.42. and is authorized and admitted to defend the action. – Also termed fictitious person. R.p. CLAIMANT." Galleria Bank v Southwest Properties. 1789.R.p. 64 (1938). 70 N. 465 (Tex App. 12 N.. 937. Workmen's Compensation Bureau. 621 S. such as a corporation.

which plaintiff has commenced out of the claimant's court. duress. 10. antitrust. section 3729 (a) (7). negligence. The Admiralty Extension Act 46 U. 9 Cranch. including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract. Bentzon.e. rule. contract.S. 191. The Admiralty. or regulation made by the president under the authority of this act..A. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such. The suits in Admiralty Act 46 U.p. 11. An intervention by a third person. misrepresent- ation. bankruptcy. Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar. claiming jurisdiction or demanding judicature in cause. Claimant v.S. … as determined by the administering authority. patent. the principles of law and equity. The Bills of Lading Act title 49 U. in the space to the right of the center of the first page. military. The Holy Bible – Old/New Testament. consular. . Appendix sections 781-790. One need only make the demand in his briefs to the court. Divine Law – Page 12 of 24.C. A suitor therefore has the right to be tried at common law.C. 6. The False Claims Act of title 31 U.S. and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto. fraud. eminent domain. mistake. Boyle. whether or not further relief is or could be sought. upon the filing of an appropriate pleading. and (2) the nature of the action. estoppel. fraud. maritime and Prize cases title 28 section 1333 (1) (2). unless displaced by particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. principal and agent. 28 USC § 2201– Creation of remedy: (a) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction.. 4.A. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act title 28 sections 1602-1611. there shall be placed (1) the case number. Title 50 Appendix section 7 (c) sole relief & remedy under the trading with the enemy act & (e) No person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in pursuance of any order. shall supplement its provisions. etc. .A. The Public Vessels Act 46 U. Chapter 147 section 14706. any court of the United States. Black's 4th. or other validating or invalidating cause.Ed. Supplementary to general principles of law applicable. In re the treatise entitled: ''Biblical Principles Of Law. . (3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States. 9.S. 3 L. (B) residences in foreign States and the land appurtenant or ancillary thereto irrespective of ownership. coercion. Titus – Dominion and Property. The following provide remedy under the common law within the admiralty: 1.A. securities. 2. even though the case comes under a maritime jurisdiction. may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of title 39 sections 1-908 & 3621-3691.'' by Herbert W.C. 8. Appendix sections 741-752. irrespective of ownership (A) the premises of the United States diplomatic.701.. 7.. such as admiralty. The Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States title 18 section 7 (1) – a citizen of the United States is a vessel.C. 5.C.S. Section 740. The Lanham Act of title 15 section 1125 (a). opposite the caption of the case. 3. i. Black's 4th.A. CLAIM OF COGNIZANCE OR OF CONUSANCE.8 47.

. Boyle. Law of the Record – Apostille – Affidavit Of Political Status – Act Of State – Reaffirmation of Character – Renunciation of Unlawfully-Attempted Expatriations.. 26 Minn.. Document 7.Y.. Ct.. Henry. 9 Cranch... Doctrines of Estoppel – Acquiescence.11 51. Bopst v. of United States.. 229 S.. Title 22. 932. See court record re: Case 1:13-cv-0116-SCJ.13 56. Third Avenue R. 57 Atl.S.p.Y..14 63.'' filed on or about 01/11/13. 150..p. Weisgerber v. Welford v.12 54. ¶ 23.p.. 68 S.11 53. 1482.. claiming and declaring.p. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment.p.11 49.p. Code N. Parsons.. 246. 165. Cosgriff.p. 110. G27. 66 N. see ''Claimant'' in caption of filing. 234 Iowa 403. Fenstermacher v. Workmen's Compensation Bureau.. 630. Ohio.. 317. Williams.p.p. § 69..13 57. 12 N. Fox v. 510. UCC-1 § 103-6.'' Page 1 of 5 and page 2 of 5. 128 A.2d 478. 127 Miss.p.. 191.Ct.13 58.'' filed on or about 01/11/13. entitled ''Order. Co. v. 812. see attachments entitled: ''MISCELLANEOUS ATTACHMENTS. 504. 479.R. 703.14 64.'' '' … all Men are created equal. Cardozo.. 166 U.. State. 555.. 244 N. 895. 1948 U.S... Document 7. in the nature of a claim and declaration.Ed.S. Equitable Life Assur.14 62. 333 U.. 25 P. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. The Good Faith Oxford Doctrine – Duty of Performance or Enforcement. that they are endowed by their Creator with certain un-a-lien-able Rights. see ''in propria persona''. D. Bentzon. Pennsylvania Co.p. Hill v. 94. 474. Moral Obligation – Peremptory Mandamus.. Filed 05/06/13.11 52. In re Peers' Estate.13 59. 798.Y.C. 70 N.L. 796.p... 142. J.p.2d 930. 133 P. 224. 287 Mo.10 48. v. 596.J.2d -894. 1 N.W.14 66.14 60.. McMath v. 3 L.W. SCOPHONY CORP.11 50. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. Document 7.'' filed on or about 01/11/13.W. 41 L. 380 U. 813. p.. ¶ 249. 64 Idaho 448.. re ''Plaintiff''.12 55.'' filed on or about 01/11/13. 84.W.14 61. 292 N. re ''pro se''.14 65.. Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar. See court record re: Case 1:13-cv-0116-SCJ.. Wheeler v. 83.p.2d 593. §1.S. entitled ''Order....Ed.p..D. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment.p.S.. GCC-11 § 1-203. . 701. 17 S. Havard. re ''complaint''. USC § 1732.'' Page 1 of 5. 15 Statutes at Large. page 1 of 136.. 2 N. pg. § 141. 937. Claimant v.p... in Berkey v. U. . Filed 05/06/13.'' Page 1 of 5. Filed 05/06/13. 89 So.'' – Thomas Paine (emphasis added) . entitled ''Order.p. Code N. 'The Conqueror.W.. See court record re: Case 1:13-cv-0116-SCJ. 19 Or.Eq.14 Page 13 of 24. 855. 795. 1 F.. Wheeling Traction Co.p. 163 – ''The Bible is law to be applied Nationally''. page 1 of 136.. 211 Minn. OF AMERICA. Soc.

. 700.A.14 74. maritime and prize cases. 1060. showing revenue causes under the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States in Article-III judiciary. Civ. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Tennessee Consol.M. 142 P. 201 Wis. 893. and many subsequent cases Re: The Huntress. 104 P. v. 91 A.Y. Miller. E.. C. Tanner.2d 452. 245.p.'' filed on or about Page 14 of 24. Diversity of Citizenship..p. Chapter 20.p. Douglas v.A. Delovio v Boit.. 254..14 73. 351 Mo.. Ritter v. p.15 81.p. 297 P. 554. of North America.W. Beasley..2d 442. 669. 931..E. 564. Article III. In re Heim's Estate. 230 N. (La App 1st Cir) 1990 La App LEXIS 1937).. judgment.15 82. September 24.C. 576.2d 557.14 72. 193 S. Delfosse Const. Hone Ins..S. 438. 31 Iowa 242 (1871). 700.C.14 71. Albuquerque Gas & Electric Co. 149. Lavergne v Western Co. Pennsylvania.2d 459. 1020. 343.. App. Tex.15 84.2d 572.14 75.15 78. 494.'' 2 Am Jur 2d ADMIRALTY §122 (Footnote 9) . an account.Y. Thecker. Mutual Ben. Cl. 11 N.p. City of Rock Springs v.... Co. 178 Ga.Ed. 173 S. Also see: Title 28.. 40 Cal. 642..p. Powell v. 273 P. Link. Potter. 741.S.2d 807 (1979) (superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Cramer v Association Life Ins.p.2d 134. 596.W. App. 163 Misc... 773. 47 N.15 87. 247. Moulding-Brownell Corporation v. document 99-16.. 908. Williams.. 377. D. Coal Co.R. Kocourek... 911.p. Best's Estate. 1. State Banking Co.p.2d 375. Revised and Annotated – Analysis and Interpretation..15 80.Va. 1 N. 231 Iowa 480. v NorthPacket Co.15 86. Uintah State Bank v.14 68.L. 267 P.E. Government Printing Office.. Inc. 172 S.. 52 U.W..p. 108.. 39 Wyo. Co.. 484. Ajax. 138...S.. 7.2d 1019. 29 N. 9 N. Black's 4th.14 69.15 77. 114 F..D..67. Sturm.E. (La) 371 So.15 85.C.W.. Peters v.. In re Heinemann's Will. Orenberg v. Lawrence v. 1789. The Constitution of the United States of America. 2 N. The First Judiciary Act. v..p. Kansas City. 563. 47. .. 434.. 698. 10 L. C. U. 186 S. 217 Ind.. 3 N.p. 615. 1087. Miller.. 254. 79 U. Jural Relations.. Ewing v.. Health & Accident Ass'n. 922.6.p. Bennett v Butterworth.E. 143 F. 461. 455. 581.p. 291 Ill... 73 N.2d 1084.S.p. 147.2d 6:36.. Hinton. 245.15 76. C.2d 442.15 79. 243. USC § 1333 – Admiralty. 254. 91 Cal. 16 Pet.W. Williams v.p. Mellus v. 446. 791. 2d Ed. Co. 184 Ga. Tanner v. Prigg v. Jennings v.p. Coleman v. In re Stratman's Estate. 558.Y. 1982. Loucks. 896.14 70.15 83. 166 Misc. § 2. 40 Ala...2d 550.S. 68.p.p. Lawrence v. 454.. Gillund. 2 N. page 77. In re court record of ''Application to proceed in forma pauperis. 329. App.Y.p. Jacobson v. 77 Utah. 117 F. App. etc.2d 919. 42.App. 297 N.

513. 27. see ''File On Demand (Claimant Waives Fee)''. court records and affidavits. 11 .. 56 Ga.p..p. page 135 of 136. the doing of an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful.. (b) Subsection ''(a)'' does not apply to an accord and satisfaction. Any expression indicating intention to reserve rights is sufficient such as ''without prejudice. see attachments entitled: ''ARTICLE V''. App. York v STATE.'' Page 1 of 5. MALFEASANCE. ill conduct.15 89... App.. To the contrary. 412. Turner v STATE.18 93. court required to dismiss in forma pauperis''. see attachments entitled: ''ARTICLE II'' and ''ARTICLE III''. Comprehensive term including any wrongful Page 15 of 24.. App. 255. App. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment." "under protest.p.15 88. 488. re ''fed. the doing of an act which person ought not to do at all or the unjust performance of some act which the party had no right or which he had contracted not to do. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. 138 Ga. original document reflects Affiant's authority under UCC-1 §308 re: without prejudice.'' ''All Rights Reserved.'' and not ''submitted''. 139 Ga.. App..p.. Merriam-Webster. page 1 of 136. ''Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights– (a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. 91. as is confirmed in attachments entitled: ''ARTICLE I/VI/VIII/IX/X/XIV/XV'' – confirming 07/2005 residence via school records.''. mal·fea·sance.15 91..p. See court record re: Case 1:13-cv-0116-SCJ.'' filed on or about 01/11/13. Woolf v STATE.19 94. it is not to be deduced that there is no reservation of rights unless that section is followed. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment.p. other than it be explicit.'' or ''Under Protest UCC1-308.." or the like are sufficient. App. 01/11/13. 77 Ga. 113 Ga. Evil doing. the act that there was no express reservation as authorized by UCC1-§308 is not significant. when the conduct of a party clearly shows that he has not waived any rights. Nelson v STATE.'' §308-5: ''Form of Reservation– The code does not impose any requirement as to the form of the reservation.'' §308-6: ''Reservation by conduct– Although UCC1-§308 authorizes the making of an express reservation.16 92.'' filed on or about 01/11/13.'' ''Without Prejudice UCC1-308. see prosecutors affidavit stating the offense alleged began on July of 2005 while residing in FULTON COUNTY and not GWINNETT COUNTY.p. see ''presented. Document 7. .'' filed on or about 01/11/13. Browning v STATE.. the commission of some act which is positively unlawful.. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment.p. Filed 05/06/13.'' filed on or about 01/11/13.19 95.. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. Waits v STATE.. Fairbanks v STATE.'' filed on or about 01/11/13. noun – law: illegal or dishonest activity especially by a public official or a corporation. 105 Ga. App. Such words as "without prejudice. entitled ''Order.15 90. 52 Ga.

2d 751 (211 P2d 389). 505 F..S. See case record containing (a) STATE-certified recording of ''arraignment. "An unconstitutional act is not law..2d. 945 (540 12 L. 533. Filed 05/06/13. entitled ''Order. re: ''the addendum is made a part of petition''.. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. Melo v U. it creates no office. 255..2d 1 (1st Cir. as inoperative as though it had never passed. 100 S. 384 U. re ''[nothing more than] challenge to criminal conviction and sentence''. 48 U. 436-37 (1982) affd. 910.. 445 U. App. See Affiant's unanswered challenges to jurisdiction attached in ''ARTICLE V''.R. (c) STATE's illegal/unlawful ''entry of plea'' (attached in court record).S. 250. 138 Ga. pg..'' filed on or about 01/11/13. "Where rights secured by the constitution are involved. 118 U. ''[We reverse on the ground that] In Georgia.20 99. 56 Ga.'' (b) STATE's false allegation that Affiant ''waives'' the arraignment. 622. York v STATE. Ct. Luther v Borden. Knabb v. 93 F. et al. Woolf v STATE. 436.g.S. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA (1985)). Waits v STATE. Joyce v U.2d 1046. 1189 (1850)). Affiant did not: (1) enter a plea.19 98.S. Browning v STATE. 27. App. 113 Ga. Rosemond v Lambert. App. App. 488. 1189 (1850))... e.20 100. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. re: ''STATE OF GEORGIA INC. In re court record. 474 2D 215. Honneus v Donovan.'' Fairbanks v STATE. Owens v CITY OF INDEPENDENCE.. affords no protection. 105 Ga. 89 P. See case record re: Case 1:13-cv-0116-SCJ.'' (5) give consent for ''judge'' to enter plea on his behalf. 77 Ga.'' filed on or about 01/11/13.p.20 Page 16 of 24. see attachments confirming lack of jurisdiction.''. etc. with no power that is not delegated'. 52 Ga.S.. it imposes no duties.Ed. App. . 102 F.'' (3) waive the ''arraignment.2d 188.. Hagans v Lavine.p. Chicago v New York.'' Page 2 of 5..p. 478 So.D.S..19 96. interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duties.p.p.'' (4) proceed via ''counsel. 91. 433. WILLIAMSON v BERRY. 691 F.2d 906. 8 HOW.. 150. Turner v STATE.. App. 415 U..2d 416. 675.. 11. 131 of 136. it is in legal contemplation. Document 7. (2) stand ''mute'' at the ''arraignment..Ed.'' Miranda v Arizona. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. 513.. 425. 469 F. Supp. 1048 – Black's Fourth Edition. State ex rel.S.2d 1026. 139 Ga. 1968. App. Hill Top Developers v Holiday Pines Service Corp. the venue of a prosecution for the offense of abandonment is in the county where the minor child first becomes dependent upon persons other than the parent for support. conduct that affects. 198 Wash. 1. 8 HOW. 412. 1170. page 1 of 136. page 21 of 136. 37 F. Lantana v Hopper. Stuck v Medical Examiners. re: ''Respondent's corporate-commercial acts …'' . 495 F. Frater. Basso v Utah Power & Light Co. it confers no rights. Respondent(s).19 97.p. 94 Ca. Maine v Thiboutot. there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. 945 (540 12 L. 1982)).'' filed on or about 01/11/13.'' Norton v Shelby County. Nelson v STATE. 1170. WILLIAMSON v BERRY. 12 Led 581: 'government are trustees.

re: ''petition should not be construed narrowly'' . 157. V State. Cas. 26. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. etc. 175 S. see attachments entitled: ''MISCELLANEOUS ATTACHMENTS. Louis Bagging & Rope Co. re Respondent(s) is a ''defendant''..C.'' filed on or about 01/11/13. 15 Statutes at Large. Law of the Record – Apostille – Affidavit Of Political Status – Act Of State – Reaffirmation of Character – Renunciation of Unlawfully-Attempted Expatriations. 11 Ohio St. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. re: ''Respondent(s)'' is not named as a ''defendant'' . compare the foregoing cases to Ware v St. 73 Ind. § 1.p. 516. ¶ 249. MISCELLANEOUS ATTACHMENTS'' re: corporate-STATE's use Page 17 of 24.p.. 940.. II.. 2. When brought into Court by its Corporate name.p. Document 7.23 106. V.'' filed on or about 01/11/13. MISCELLANEOUS ATTACHMENTS'' re: corporate-STATE's use of ''ALL-CAPS CORPORATE TITLE'' on court documents...'' filed on or about 01/11/13.21 103. See court record re: Case 1:13-cv-0116-SCJ.p..22 104.'' filed on or about 01/11/13. The Good Faith Oxford Doctrine – Duty of Performance or Enforcement.101. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. Callender v Railroad Co. 6 Ind.g. The Holy Bible – Old/New Testament. summons to appear. III. 224. Johnson v Gibson.24 109. e. 672. 43 Ind. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment.. 15 Ind. Dig. see attachments entitled: ''ARTICLE I/VI/VIII/IX/X/XIV/XV.E.22 105.... 942. 282. Brower v.. Divine Law – 380 U. Ins. Duncan. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. Ann. see attachments entitled: ''ARTICLE I/VI/VIII/IX/X/XIV/XV.. GCC-11 § 1-203. Wellis.'' filed on or about 01/11/13. 8 S. USC § 1732. 107.'' Page 3 of 5.'' filed on or about 01/11/13.23 108. 6. In re the treatise entitled: ''Biblical Principles Of Law. 265 Mo.. II. Moral Obligation – Peremptory Mandamus. 323. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment.'' filed on or about 01/11/13.p. 47 Ala. Filed 05/06/13. VII/XII.all Men are created equal. in footnote # 2. its existence as a Corporation is admitted – Mud Creek Drain Co. III.p. Document 7.21 102. entitled ''Order. 33 N. 26.. Titus – Dominion and Property. see attachments entitled: ''ARTICLE V''.'' – Thomas Paine (emphasis added). Filed 05/06/13. page 1 of 136.'' Page 3 of 5.. Etc. plea.23 107. page 1 of 136. V.. Co.p. v Taylor. See court record re: Case 1:13-cv-0116-SCJ. App.'' by Herbert W.. that they are endowed by their Creator with certain un-a-lien-able Rights..W. UCC-1 § 103-6. court order. Doctrines of Estoppel – Acquiescence.p. . 667.. 163 – ''The Bible is law to be applied Nationally''.. Barker v..24 110. ¶ 23. re: overall corporate-commercial nature of petition. Ewing v Robeson.. charge. 8.S..'' ''. Com.. Title 22.p. re: ''lack of subject-matter jurisdiction''. pg. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. State ex inf. entitled ''Order. 1916 D1. VII/XII.

state or federal." Western Turf Assn.Supp. that corporations were ''persons'' rather than ''artificial persons. held that corporations were ''persons'' instead of ''artificial persons.. 667. summons to appear.S. Mo. 516. Callender v Railroad Co... 26. Nee.25 113. 18 F. Also see United States v Mine Workers. etc. .." See Vermont Supreme Court building. 107.C. 330 U. 15 Ind. its existence as a Corporation is admitted – Mud Creek Drain Co. Artificial persons are not recognized. In re court record of ''Affidavit Of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. We are of the opinion that it does.p.. published in New York in 1886 by Banks & Brothers Publishers. and written by J.'' was not a formal ruling of the court. applies to these corporations.p. of ''ALL-CAPS CORPORATE TITLE'' on court documents. 282. Bancroft Davis.. 8 S. which protects the privileges and immunities of Citizens of the United States against being abridged or impaired by the law of a state.. 1096. that: ''The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. 442 U.. 343 Mo. No court decisions. 667. 157. Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court: ''.. Ins. Filed 10/23/13.S. v Taylor. breathing sentient beings. entitled ''Order. Filed 05/06/13. C.. 258. Document 7...'' Wilson v Omaha Tribe.27 Page 18 of 24. 653. 589.g.. ". Ewing v Robeson.'' filed on or about 01/11/13. protected nor guaranteed by the Bill of Rights..2d 1. Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite told Delmas and his two colleagues. See court record re: Case 1:13-cv-0116-SCJ. [However. Etc.p. v.. Louis Bagging & Rope Co. statutes employing the terms ''person'' and ''corporation'' are ordinarily construed to exclude the sovereign man or woman.27 115. When brought into Court by its Corporate name. plea.p. Co. As railroad attorney Sanderson and his two colleagues watched. 3. a corporation cannot be deemed a Citizen within the meaning of the clause of the Constitution of the United States.'' The Supreme Court did not rule in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company on the issue of corporate personhood.C. No laws have been passed by Congress granting that corporations should be treated the same under the Constitution as living.] This written statement.S. 43 Ind.26 114. 11 Ohio St. 359. but was reportedly a simple statement by its Chief Justice.. Document 7.24 111. charge.25 112. Cross v. recorded by the court recorder.p.. Volume 118 of United States Reports: Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court at October Term 1885 and October Terms 1886. the attorneys for the opposing party. e. in common usage.p..'' See court record re: Case 1:13-cv-0116-SCJ. 594. which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. entitled ''Order''. Van Deusen v. Johnson v Gibson. 73 Ind.'' with an equal footing under the Bill of Rights as ''humans. 125 S. Supreme Court’s Reporter. D. Ruth.. compare the foregoing cases to Ware v St. Greenberg. court order. 47 Ala. 204 U. V State.W.. Com. see attachments entitled: ''ARTICLE V''.

187 Minn.2d 778. showing revenue causes under the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States in Article-III judiciary. Wellis.p. (1949) headnote 5.4. v. Supreme Court of Georgia... 249 P.4 Cardozo.App..8. 323.8 Bank of the United States v. 576.C.8 Du Vernay v....24 Douglas v.p. v U... 244 N.W..15 Cross v.p... 150.19 Brushaber v..2d 906.2.p. 52 U.. 516.p. etc. 746 (Ala.W. 2.p. 101.15 Clearfield Trust Co. 40 Ala. 1 (1916).. 908. 187. App..24 Calvin v Calvin.. 351 Mo..23 Browning v STATE.3. 39 Wyo.8. 18 F. 318 U..S.Supp.2d 745. Puerto Rico. 8 S.. 669.p.8 Ebeling v. no Writ).S.p. v Crow. 139 Ga.... 273 P. 163. 238 Ga.. 112 U..4..W.p. J..2d 572.p. 48 Ind.3 Annoni v.p. Williams. Ins. 783.S.7 Basso v Utah Power & Light Co.p...7...22. 100 (1975)..S. 240 U..p...4 Bennett v Butterworth.1992).. Co. (9 Wheat) 904 (1824). 594.. 246 N. Supp...4 Brower v. Kornfeld..22..p.S. 421.S... 260.. 147. 363 (1943).E..p. Independent Rural Telephone Co..27 Delovio v Boit.S. 465 (Tex App..2d 573. 494. Co. 621 S. 33 N. Third Avenue R.3 Eads v Marks. 11 Ohio St.p..Supp. Beasley..3 Cramer v Association Life Ins. 94 F.E. D. 254..2d 513. 166 Ga.. 823.p. 37 F.Y..S. 796.. 296 U.p... App.p. Co. App.14 Dr. Dig.. .10.C. 648 N. C.p.p. 8.2d 257.p.3 Elk v Wilkins.14 Bray v STATE. 61 So. 56 S. 421 U.. 252 (1935).p. App. 6.24 Com. 287 Mo.15 Divine Law – 380 U.3 Colonial Pipe Line Co. 495 F.. Ct.15 Alla v.p. Common School Dist..p.. 404. 6 Ind. in Berkey v.p.. 84 F.-Waco 1981. 84.6. v Taylor. 798.2d 464. CASES ALPHABETICALLY ARRANGED: 2 Am Jur 2d ADMIRALTY §122 (Footnote 9)...8. Planters' Bank of Ga.8. 173 S. 515. 73 of Butler County... 271 Ill.p. (La App 1st Cir) 1990 La App LEXIS 1937). Ledbetter.7.7 Coleman v. 22 U. 91.p...3 Page 19 of 24. 910. Sturm. 94.. 911.19 City of Rock Springs v.15 Bopst v. Mo.. 62 S.2d 317 (1995). Nee. and many subsequent cases Re: The Huntress. No. Etc.4 Chicago v New York.p. 327 (1874) headnote 8. 94. Kansas City. 373..p. 589. 102 (1884).A.4. 229 S.14 Colgate v Harvey..p.S.8 Eaker v. 620 So. App.19 Bates v State..p.p.C. 672.p. Pepper Co.. Mo.3.6. 834.W. 604.3 Callender v Railroad Co.13 Carlile v Snap-On-Tools..3D 833..p.W. Crim. 317. Union Pacific Railroad Company. V Triangle..... Bias Nadal's Heirs..24 Cory et al. Carter. 107.

p. 474 2D 215.. 135 Wash. 605. 484. 528.p.S. 57 Atl. App.. 433.4.p. (La) 371 So. Co. 25 P.N..S. of North America.W. Terminal Warehousing Corporation.2d 641. 3 N.4.3 Gassner v Raynor Manufacturing Company.4. 839 F. Tompkins..14 In re Wohl's Estate.19 Felter v.. 15 Ind. 890 F.. 73 N..8..Y.. App. 504. 7. 231 Iowa 480......8.. 893.p. 247.p.. 166 Misc. 184 Ga..2d 930..E. Cosgriff.14 Galleria Bank v Southwest Properties. 19 Or.4 Fox v. Mutual Ben.p..2d 807 (1979).8.p. 436-37 (1982) affd.14 Hill Top Developers v Holiday Pines Service Corp.. 519.S. Tanner..14 In re Heinemann's Will. 93 S.W.. 49 N.19 Hague v CIO.2d 134...4 Hagans v Lavine.2d 1265. 243...21 Heron v.19 Hone Ins...p.. 26.2d 188..W.8 In re Heim's Estate... 237 P.. 446 . 282.15 Johnson v Gibson. 31 Iowa 242 (1871).. 1226. 606.. 138.3 Joyce v U.p.M. . 415 U. 150. Sixth Circuit.24 Ewing v.. Crim.S..p. 691 F..1. 151. 201 Wis. 895. Supp..22...p.D.p.. Gaylor. 555.p.15 Lantana v Hopper. 108.p. 163 Misc...p. 133 P.p.4. 930. 1010. 2D 149. 64 Idaho 448.p.14 Jennings v.. 27.. State. 66 N.8 Ford v State. 307 U.R. 297 N.C.24 Jones v Temmer.2d 926.4..3 Hill v. 11 N. Jural Relations. S.p.15 Honneus v Donovan. 498 Southwest 2nd.. 2001).15 Page 20 of 24.p. 1982)) . 1011. 533..7 Jacobson v.p..p.2d -894. 64 (1938).S.p.p. 30 S. 304 U.22.3 In re Peers' Estate.8 Ewing v Robeson. 896. D. 48 So.p.. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA (1985)).19 In re Graves.. 1453 (1989).. 831 So.. 234 Iowa 403.W. 93 F. Henry. 773.p.S. 698... 2-10-0180). 644 (Ala.3 INTERPOOL LTD v CHAR YIGH. 932..p.19 Lavergne v Western Co. 170 Tenn. Health & Accident Ass'n.. v. 198.. 642...2d 239. 62. 73 Ind. 325 Mo. 404 U.14 Fitts v.2d 442... 230 N.4. 155. 2d Ed. 102 F.p. 791.. 1 N. 520 Volume 20 of Corpus Juris Secundum at 1758.6.. 105 Ga. 12 N.15 In re Hillmark Associates.8 Fenstermacher v..Y. 241.11 In re Stratman's Estate..15 Fairbanks v STATE.Y.2d 116 (Case No.. N5. 496.2d.8 Gardina v Board of Registrars of Jefferson County. 700..... Loucks..J.Y. McClure.Eq. v NorthPacket Co.p.p..S.D. 193 S.W. 888. 36 N.p. 478 So. 931.788 (1909). 410. 47 F.Erie Railroad Co..2d 6:36.p.19 Kocourek.p.p. 160 Ala.W..2d 1 (1st Cir..2D PG.p.3 Haines v Kerner. 1267. United States Court of Appeals.Supp.p. 675 F.7. Inc.p.. 142. 157 P.

14 Mellus v. 100 S..4 Page 21 of 24. App.15 Melo v U..2d 255. 329.3 McMath v.p. 186 S. 140 Fla. 26 Minn. 343. 314 Ill.p..Ed..p.. 77 Ga.14 Ridout v.2d 605. 327.3 Smith v State. 114 F. App. 777. 430.p. 496. 2007. 1..3.3 Slaughter-House Cases. 218 Minn. 142 P.. 48 U.3 Orenberg v.Va.p... 224...p.19 Norton v Shelby County. C.4 Luther v Borden. 252 F.... 57 N. App.2d 375. (16 Wall. Howell..8 McDonald v.p. App..4 Powell v. 250.2d 777. 1.... 83 U. Ed. 309 U. 428.E.Y.E. 917 So... Mitchell v. 16 Pet. S.4... 778.E. 257. 703...S.4 Marckel Co..22. 173 Minn..14. 615..14 Owens v CITY OF INDEPENDENCE. 79 U.. Crim. App. 157.. App. 573. v. 910.L.4. Case: 3-08 CR 089 N Petition and challenge to jurisdiction 3. 41 N. 693.3..p.4. 581 So.p.p.3 Nelson v STATE.2d 1019.p..19 Miranda v Arizona.App. 425.3 Poole v State of Alabama.S..p.. 83.Y.Lawrence v.19 Ruhstrat v People. 394 (1873). 797... 794. 182 So. 133 Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Gillund. 499.p. 2 N.p.2d 911 (Fla. 520. 377.W.W.W.W. May 25. 91 Ga. Itasco County. Armspach. 143 F. Sup..4. Civ. 192 So. E. 505. 29 N. Zitzow. Afton.S. Co.3..19 Pannill v.. 255.p. 287.p..C. 15 N..W.8 Peters v..3. 1020.p.p.p... 922..24 Municipal Bond & Mortgage Corporation v. 407.p. Tex.. Bishop's Harbor Drainage Dist. v.C.19 Malone v. 41 L.2d 459. C. 291 Ill.3 People ex ref. Thecker.. 914. 41 N. 505 F... 564..) 36. v. 1284 (Ala.2d 323.15 Logue v STATE.3 Ritter v.. 554.p. 118 U..S.8.4 Stancle v State.. 461.p. 94 Ga..3. Pennsylvania.A...3 Mangum v STATE.15 Petition of Board of Fire Com'rs of Columbia-Litchfield Fire Dist.2d 781. 2 N.p. 436.71 A...S.p. 305. Miller.p. 254.p.. Delfosse Const.. 149.. 700.. 245.p.19 N.. App.p. Colden. re Merriam.p.. 1991). 563. State. 384 U.2d 1026. 161 Tenn.2d 1283..Y.App. Parsons. Ed. 141 N.p.R.19 Moulding-Brownell Corporation v.p. 590 (1940).2d 416.p..19 Madden v Kentucky.. 830.2d 919. 181 Misc.E. 91 Cal. 12 Led 581. 267 P. D. Roanoke. V State.p.3 School Dist.p. 469 F. CR-05-1846...p.. Potter. 217 N.S. 84 L. 36 N.p.Y.S. 1073. Ct... 9 N. 21 L..Ed. . Link.Y.14 Rosemond v Lambert. 479.1060. affirmed 16 S.. 248.14 Prigg v. Ct.... 10 L. 445 U. 41.. 622.S.M.14 Mud Creek Drain Co.2d 550. Albuquerque Gas & Electric Co. No. 227.3 Maine v Thiboutot.S.4. 246. 47 N. 30 S. 43 Ind...

172 S.19 Tanner v.2D 1138.4. v. App.19 Uintah State Bank v.25 U. 479.. Case No.L..p. 113 Ga..15 WILLIAMSON v BERRY. 412.4.19 Wortham v. 292 N. Coal Co... Best's Estate.3 Stuck v Medical Examiners.. 892 So.p. 542 (1875)... 70 N. . 630. 106 Ind.p.S. 455. 89 P. 40 Cal. Walker. 813.p... App.11 Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar.p.11 Thurman v State. Ct. 596.. 1916 D. Louis Bagging & Rope Co. 2D 1161.C. 197 S.p. 448. 104 P.. 1087.Ed. v..4.14 Wheeler v. 255.p.3 State v. Williams.. 217 Ind. Brandon.W. 1096. D.23 State ex rel. App..p.p. 9 Cranch..4.p.W..24 Weisgerber v. 77 Utah.Ed... Pennsylvania Co.15 Tennessee Consol. 56 Ga. Equitable Life Assur. 26. 275 (1947). 128 S. Greenberg. Soc.p..p.p. 434. Claimant v. of United States..25 Williams v.. 715 (1999). 178 Ga. Workmen's Compensation Bureau.4 York v STATE. 3. Hinton.15 The Conqueror. 14.. 795.S. 1189 (1850))..p.8.3 United States v Kimbell Foods.. 83. 1 N. 945 (540 12 L. 47 Ala.S. 166 U.. Havard. 265 Mo.2d 1085 (Fla..p..7 United States v Mine Workers...p. 701 .. 186 S. 1482... East Chicago State Bank. S. 91 A. 138 Ga.p. 41 La.. 8 HOW.2d 751 (211 P2d 389).R. 258. 110.E. 1048. 937. 89 So.. G27. 1145. App. v.2d 1046.6.3..R.. Ruth. 440 U..p. Barker v. 442 U.p. Frater.22.15 United States v Cruikshank.p. 211 Minn.. 333 U. 41 L.p.E. v.. 47. 596. 297 P. 343 Mo. 29 N. 1 F.. 940.p.W.19 State ex rel.11 Welford v.8..p. OF AMERICA. 855.p. S. 438.p. 581.3 Van Deusen v. 198 Wash.W. v. App. 17 N.p. Anthony. 4..S. 667.8. 494 . 113. SCOPHONY CORP.... 68 S. 513.E... Ann. Bentzon. 557 P.S.4. 6 S. Cas. 942. 125 S.19 Page 22 of 24. 474. 94 Ca. 1948 U.2d 478.. v Susan B.. C...2d 491.2d 1.. 558.Ct.W. 488.14 Wheeling Traction Co. 128 A.2d 452.C. 115.2d DCA 2004).State Banking Co.4 Turner v STATE. 359.25 Woolf v STATE. Duncan.S.. Symons v. 175 S.. 11.8.27 Van Wart v Cook. 117 F.L..S.. 68.3 State ex inf.p. 127 Miss..19 Wilson v Omaha Tribe. 653.14 Western Turf Assn.2d 1084. Boyle.p.8. 52 Ga.. Ajax.4. 3 L.p.. 1170.19 Ware v St... 602 (1889). 675. Knabb v.. 42. 510. Fowler. 92 U. 380. . 204 U. 454.p..4. 667 (1979). 812.. 133 Tex..459 (1873). Ohio. Ann..S. 330 U. 17 S.C.E. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 165. App.D.13 U.A..p.p.p.8 Waits v STATE.2d 593..Ed.. 191.2d 557.p.15 State v.2d 442.

. And the said courts respectively shall and may.3 Title 28.p. i. 07/01/1966. 17.4 Title 28.'' taken mostly in part from the research of the Honorable Judge L.3 ''The Unconstitutional 14th Amendment. ¶ 249.p.p.p...5.. No..4 The Law of Prize and Capture. § 2073. Sec. . or other pleading. arrested. shall be abated. pg. which the party demurring shall specially sit down and express together with his demurrer as the cause thereof..4 FRD – Vol.2. Attorney at law.p. September 24. 203.3 U. October 2000 – Vol. process. writ. quashed or reversed.15 15 Statutes at Large... and may at any. for any defect or want of form..4 Page 23 of 24. Akins. or other proceedings in civil cases in any of the courts or the United States. 1862. S. time. 6. 3. judgment. Code.. That no summons.p..p. 224. C. declaration. I / IV / V / VI / IX...p. Const.p.. 9.p.8 Title 28.2. pg. § 1.D.3 U. S. and for the better Administration of the Law of Prize''.5.1.4 The Insurrection & Rebellion Act of August 6. but the said courts respectively shall proceed and give judgment according as the right of the cause and matter in law shall appear unto them.4 Title 18.. Title 11.p. FIRST CONGRESS.... March 25.. H. except those only in cases of demurrer.. from time to time. Cl. LAWS—CODES—STATUTES—TREATISE—CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS: The First Judiciary Act. 1789."An Act to facilitate Judicial Proceedings in Adjudications upon Captured Property. Art...3. Const. 20: "And be it further enacted. S. Sess. Sec.15 GCC-11 § 1-203. 4. returns process. return. § 342. § 103-6..4 Title 10.p.. by virtue of this act. USC § 1332 (c) (d).p.p. 1. 8.. 183. Const. 1861. p.13. 2313). Cl.. Amd. or course of proceeding whatsoever.. amend all and every such imperfections.. § 1604—The Foriegn Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. defects or want of form in such writ. defects and wants of form.p......24 Title 22.. 02/28/1966..3. declaration. ch.2.p.8 D. USC sections 7651-7681... USCA § 2072. § 308-5. 1.e. USCA § 2331. other than those only which the party demurring shall express as aforesaid. judgment. without regarding any imperfections.p.p. 2. permit either of the parties to amend any defect in the process of pleadings upon such conditions as the said courts respectively shall in their discretion. 2 / Cover Story: ''Why Georgia's Child Support Guidelines Are Unconstitutional'' By William C.p. Perez. ¶23. USC §1732. Art.2.1 UCC-1 § 308.. USC § 1603. and by their rules prescribe'' (a)..3 U.24 Treasury Decision 2313 (T.4 Georgia Bar Journal.p..

. March 17.p. § 2.. Article III..5 Congressman Louis T.6 Title 28. § 3-501. misrepresentation. page 77..8 The False Claims Act of title 31 U... September 24. Government Printing Office.5.. Vol. Appendix sections 781-790. Cl.8 The Lanham Act of title 15 section 1125 (a). including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract.S.. irrespective of ownership (A) the premises of the United States diplomatic. fraud. (3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States.15. or regulation made by the president under the authority of this act. U.A.7 28 USC § 2201. Appendix sections 741-752. § 1-106. such as admiralty. opposite the caption of the case. Jr. § 3.. securities.5 UCC-1 § 308-6. i.. coercion. McFadden: Remarks in Congress re the Federal Reserve.... document 99-16..p.p. .. The Constitution of the United States of America.. duress. 1982. RE: The United States is Bankrupt.8 Page 24 of 24. A suitor therefore has the right to be tried at common law. One need only make the demand in his briefs to the court..8 The Bills of Lading Act title 49 U.5.p. USC § 1331.p.p.. the principles of law and equity.15 GCC-11 § 9-402.. principal and agent. consular. fraud. eminent domain. pg. volume 324.. bankruptcy. p.C..S.. .25 Title 28.S. .. Supplementary to general principles of law applicable.. etc. USC Chapter-1 – The flag: § 1. shall supplement its provisions.S.C...C.. Chapter 147 section 14706.6..8. and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto. (Ohio) addressing the House – U.. Diversity of Citizenship.e.p. Bankruptcy.S. James Traficant.15 FRCP. contract. or other validating or invalidating cause. section 3729 (a) (7). 93-549.A.A.8 The suits in Admiralty Act 46 U.p.p..5 SENATE REPORT NO. 33.5 United States Congressional Record. there shall be placed (1) the case number.p. 1789.. § 2A-311.8 Title 50 Appendix section 7 (c) sole relief & remedy under the trading with the enemy act & (e) No person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in pursuance of any order.p.p. 741.Title 4. .A. USC § 1333. and (2) the nature of the action. patent. military.p. rule. unless displaced by particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code.. Section 740. 1. Chapter 20..A.C.8 The Public Vessels Act 46 U.. estoppel.p.p.6. 1993.8 The Admiralty Extension Act 46 U.8 The First Judiciary Act..p.p.S..C. (B) residences in foreign States and the land appurtenant or ancillary thereto irrespective of ownership. page H-1303 – Speaker- Rep.. in the space to the right of the center of the first page.. 325 of the FRD..p.8 The Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States title 18 section 7 (1) – a citizen of the United States is a vessel. mistake. Revised and Annotated – Analysis and Interpretation. Etc.p.. antitrust.S. even though the case comes under a maritime jurisdiction. negligence.

DISPOSITION AND NATURE OF ''THE CASE'' Page 9 AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO CLAIMS AND DECLARATIONS [''ISSUES''] Page 10 AFFIDAVIT OF ''APPELLANT'S'' CLAIMS AND DECLARATIONS [''ARGUMENTS''] Pages 11—28 AFFIDAVIT OF SUMMATION Pages 28—30 AFFIDAVIT OF CONCLUSIVE DECLARATION OF REDRESS AND REMEDY SOUGHT Pages 30—32 VERIFIED AFFIRMATION Page 32 *ADDENDUM—AFFIDAVIT OF SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMS [''ARGUMENTS''] Pages 1—12 . TABLE OF CONTENTS: ''BOILERPLATE'' Pages 1—2 AFFIDAVIT OF BASIS FOR MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONAL BASES Pages 2—8 AFFIDAVIT OF THE CLAIMS [''ISSUES''] DECLARED FOR REVIEW Page 9 AFFIDAVIT OF COURSE.

404 U. federal witness. at-arm's-length. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JON DOE–Assignor.'' seeking a ''Common-Law Remedy'' within the Admiralty via the ''Saving To Suitors Clause'' at Title 28. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES.. USC § 1333. on and for the public record. ch. ANTITRUST.'' a real party in interest appearing nunc-pro-tunc via special visitation and expressly not via ''general appearance. also hereinafter ''Affiant. ) CONTRACT. ) Claimant in personam. ) IN ADMIRALTY. 20. FRAUD. FIRST CONGRESS. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s).'' a Secured-Party Creditor. etc. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. IN COMMON LAW. regulations. 13-00000 – Doe–Assignee.. and Haines v Kerner . in propria persona and expressly not '' pro se. Affiant. Secured. wherein it is Page 1 of 6.'' a Claimant in personam and expressly not a ''plaintiff. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona. Party Creditor. § 342. state Citizen. for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. Vs.'' standing in unlimited commercial liability as a sovereign American / state Citizen and expressly not a ''federal citizen'' – a/k/a – ''citizen of the United States. et al. §103-6. COERCION. rules. DURESS. administrator Sui Juris. USC § 1331 – In Regarding: escheat by way of libel in rem and Constitutional Challenge to STATE codes. federal witness.S. procedures. and the ''Federal Question Statute'' at Title 28. 1. . statutes. with enunciation of principles stated in Judiciary Act of 9-24-1789. AFFIDAVIT OF PETITION FOR EN BANC DETERMINATION: COMES NOW Jon: Doe. 519. Sui Juris. ) ESTOPPEL. §308-5. Sess.

DURESS. complete and not misleading. et al. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Respondent(s). CASE NO. . Claimant in personam. ESTOPPEL. and is not a so-called ''political question'' – as if to say: 'When we Page 2 of 6. and are to the best of Affiant's ability the truth. CONTRACT. his factual claims and declarations are accepted on their face as true. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. §103-6. FRAUD.'' AFFIDAVIT OF PETITION FOR EN BANC DETERMINATION: Since a republican form of government is designed as a system of checks and balances. STATE OF GEORGIA INC.'' those who are unschooled in law will have the court look to the substance of the ''petition'' rather than in the form.. §308-5. federal witness. IN ADMIRALTY. therefore Affiant's ''petition'' is not required to meet the same strict standards as that of a ''licensed'' attorney. competent for stating the first-hand facts and knowledge contained herein. viz ''JON DOE-Assignor. in propria persona. COERCION. state Citizen. but rather interpreted liberally so as to accommodate any and all such plausible implications gathered regarding ''the case''. correct.held that regardless if Affiant's ''petition'' be deemed ''in-artfully plead. ANTITRUST.. IN COMMON LAW. Affiant's ''petition'' should not be construed narrowly. Vs. Subsequently. Sui Juris. Affiant. and said ''petition'' is hereby presented along with any and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. at-arm's-length. Secured-Party Creditor. that Affiant is the age of majority. for use of Jon: Doe-Assignee. 13-00000 – File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee Pursuant To UCC-1 §308.

isn't each office within each branch responsible / liable for fulfilling their solemn affirmation to support the Constitution and its Honorable Bill of Rights? In order to guarantee equality. it seems as though this particular stipulation should be especially safeguarded against abrogation. and. when we have a Democratic congress. .have a Republican congress. as in ''all Men are created equal''. Therefore. we then have a democracy' – is it not self-evident that each one of the three branches of our republic are necessarily required to provide oversight? That is to say. are judges not bound to support the Constitution in its entirety? Page 3 of 6. then we have a republican form of government. when the judicial branch claims that only congressmen and not judges are responsible for supporting the ''guarantee clause'' found at Article IV. mustn’t there be a uniformity of justice? Doesn't such just uniformity require that all the three branches of our republic work in tandem to provide the guarantee of our republic-form of government by upholding our Constitution entirely? Since the ''guarantee clause'' at Article IV is architecturally one of the major load-bearing constructs of the Framers' contract known as ''the Constitution''. Section 4 of the Constitution – wherein it is enunciated that The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government (emphasis added) – is the judiciary's failure to support this republican guarantee of the Constitution not a breech of its official affirmation? Upon their oath of office.

correct. (3) that Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent and Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.800] VERIFIED AFFIRMATION: Affiant presents this affidavit point-by-point via verified affirmation of declaration: (1) that Affiant is the age of majority. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. complete and not misleading. as it is thereby bound to do so. are true. should the district court not be held liable in its breech of affirmation of office when it claims lack of subject-matter jurisdiction while the justiciable controversies in hand are clearly of the Constitutional sense? If there is no accountability. (2) that Affiant is competent for stating the first-hand facts and knowledge contained herein. Subsequently.law. to the best of Affiant's ability. Page 4 of 6. (4) that ''all'' of Affiant's claims and declarations. point-by-point.duke. since the heart and soul of a republican form of government necessitates the People's unfettered publici sui juris access to a court of competent jurisdiction. and are. .0.edu/cgi/viewcontent. Further Affiant Saith Not. the truth. where is the incentive for the judiciary to uphold its solemn oath of office and support the Constitution.cgi? article=1696&context=faculty_scholarship#page=1&zoom=auto. by way of providing all Americans our guaranteed Republican Form Of Government? FURTHER DISCOURSE: See attached treatise entitled ''Cases Under The Guarantee Clause Should Be Justiciable'' [http://scholarship.

who is known to me and is the living man whose name is scribed upon this instrument. Executor Office. JON HENRY DOE. is currently administrating to the aforesaid estate on behalf of the office executing this instrument. VERIFICATION OF NOTARY: – JURAT – Date:_____________________________. by:_____________________________. Sui Juris. UCC 1-§ 308. Estate. Executor Office. Signed:______________________________. Jon: Doe / Executor / Affiant. as shown by this instrument. NOTARY SEAL My Commission Expires:___________________________. Jon: Doe. Notary. and acknowledges to me that he administers and executes the same in his authorized capacity. Executor Office. and that by his acknowledgment. 2014. Date:___________________________. All Rights Reserved. Republic of Georgia state) Notice: Requisition for notarial services provided below are ) authored by Affiant for verification purposes only. Jon: Doe. appears Affiant. Page 5 of 6. and do not County of Gwinnett ) constitute adhesion nor alter Affiant's status in any manner. Witnessed by my hand and official seal. Estate. before me. On the____day of_________________. JON HENRY DOE. . Notary Signatory.______________________.

for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING. on this __ Day of _______________. P. ANTITRUST.. 2014. federal witness. state Citizen. Page 6 of 6. . city of Atlanta. UCC-1 § 308. §308-5. d/b/a/ JOHN LEY—Office Of Clerk Of Court. S. [30303] Phone #: [404] 335-6184. ) IN ADMIRALTY. ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. In Care Of: John Ley.. ) Claimant in personam. Affiant. N. Served this – AFFIDAVIT OF PETITION FOR EN BANC DETERMINATION. ) ESTOPPEL. W. Respectfully presented. ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Sui Juris. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have. Sui Juris. Executor Office. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). Without Prejudice. ) CONTRACT. Certified Mail Number – ======================== ======================== To: CLERK OF THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. S. IN COMMON LAW. DURESS. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JON DOE–Assignor. by way of U. by:_________________________. Jon: Doe© / Executor. republic of Georgia state. COERCION. Party Creditor. at-arm's-length. 56 Forsyth Street. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. 13-00000 – Doe–Assignee. et al. FRAUD. Vs. §103-6. with all rights reserved. Secured. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona.

) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. COERCION. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. Certified Mail Number – ======================== ======================== To: John Nathan Deal. §103-6. on this __ Day of _______________. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JON DOE–Assignor. Respectfully presented. d/b/a/ JOHN NATHAN DEAL—CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. S. Executor Office. Atlanta. FRAUD. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have. ) Claimant in personam. Party Creditor. Page 6 of 6. state Citizen. at-arm's-length. Vs. ANTITRUST. Affiant. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona. . UCC-1 § 308. S. P. ) IN ADMIRALTY. Jon: Doe© / Executor. IN COMMON LAW. 13-00000 – Doe–Assignee. ) CONTRACT. Sui Juris. et al. 2014. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. §308-5.. DURESS. In Care Of: 203 STATE CAPITOL. for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. Georgia. Secured. Sui Juris. federal witness. with all rights reserved. Without Prejudice. [30334] Telephone #: [404] 261-1776. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). Served this – AFFIDAVIT OF PETITION FOR EN BANC DETERMINATION. by:_________________________. ) ESTOPPEL. by way of U.

Affiant. Sui Juris. by:_________________________. Vs. ) ESTOPPEL. IN COMMON LAW. at-arm's-length. FRAUD. S. Jon: Doe© / Executor. Executor Office. federal witness. by way of U. with all rights reserved. [30334] Telephone #: [404] 656-3300. COERCION. Certified Mail Number – ======================== ======================== To: Samuel Scott "Sam" Olens. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). P. Respectfully presented. UCC-1 § 308. for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. §103-6. Party Creditor. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have.. ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. §308-5. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona. S. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. W. Georgia. ANTITRUST. S. et al. Atlanta. Page 6 of 6. Without Prejudice.. . Served this – AFFIDAVIT OF PETITION FOR EN BANC DETERMINATION. d/b/a/ SAMUEL SCOTT OLENS—OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. ) CONTRACT. ) IN ADMIRALTY. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. state Citizen. DURESS. on this __ Day of _______________. 13-00000 – Doe–Assignee. 2014. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JON DOE–Assignor. Sui Juris. Secured. In Care Of: 40 CAPITOL SQUARE. ) Claimant in personam.

etc. procedures. federal witness. on and for the public record. IN COMMON LAW. FIRST CONGRESS. ANTITRUST. §103-6.. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona. statutes. COERCION. §308-5. DURESS. et al. Secured. 404 U. USC § 1333. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JON DOE–Assignor.. for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. also hereinafter ''Affiant.'' seeking a ''Common-Law Remedy'' within the Admiralty via the ''Saving To Suitors Clause'' at Title 28. federal witness. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. 20. § 342. 13-00000 – Doe–Assignee. USC § 1331 – In Regarding: escheat by way of libel in rem and Constitutional Challenge to STATE codes. in propria persona and expressly not '' pro se. FRAUD. at-arm's-length. rules. Sess. ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. Sui Juris. ) IN ADMIRALTY.'' a Claimant in personam and expressly not a ''plaintiff. and the ''Federal Question Statute'' at Title 28. Affiant. regulations. AFFIDAVIT OF APPENDIX TO ''APPELLANT'S BRIEF'' PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: COMES NOW Jon: Doe. ch. with enunciation of principles stated in Judiciary Act of 9-24-1789. state Citizen. wherein it is Page 1 of 15.S.'' a real party in interest appearing nunc-pro-tunc via special visitation and expressly not via ''general appearance. and Haines v Kerner .'' a Secured-Party Creditor. ) Claimant in personam. Party Creditor. administrator Sui Juris. ) ESTOPPEL. ) CONTRACT. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s).'' standing in unlimited commercial liability as a sovereign American / state Citizen and expressly not a ''federal citizen'' – a/k/a – ''citizen of the United States. 1. 519. . Vs.

correct. IN COMMON LAW.held that regardless if Affiant's ''appendix'' be deemed ''in-artfully plead. Secured-Party Creditor. state Citizen. at-arm's-length. Page 2 of 15. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. as authored by Affiant pursuant to UCC-1 § 308. in propria persona. CASE NO.'' AFFIDAVIT OF RELEVENT DOCKET ENTRIES IN THE PROCEEDING: (a) Requisition to waive the filing fee for Claimant's Affidavit of Petition for Declaratory Judgment. 13-00000 – File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. Subsequently.. and that Affiant is the age of majority. §308-5. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. but rather interpreted liberally so as to accommodate any and all such plausible implications gathered regarding ''the case''. FRAUD. Respondent(s).. viz '' JON DOE-Assignor. and said ''appendix'' is hereby presented along with any and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. for use of Jon: Doe-Assignee. Affiant's ''appendix'' should not be construed narrowly. . Vs. CONTRACT. DURESS. §103-6. competent for stating the first-hand facts and knowledge contained herein. therefore Affiant's ''appendix'' is not held to the same strict standard as that of a ''licensed'' attorney. complete and not misleading. federal witness. his factual claims and declarations are accepted on their face as true. ANTITRUST. STATE OF GEORGIA INC. Sui Juris. ESTOPPEL. et al.'' those who are unschooled in law will have the court look to the substance of the ''appendix'' rather than in the form. and are to the best of Affiant's ability the truth. Claimant in personam. COERCION. IN ADMIRALTY. Affiant.

(c) Claimant's Notice of Lawsuit and Request For Waiver of Service of Summons. (g) Claimant’s typed Motion For Service of Process pursuant to the Hague Convention and in harmony with FRCP. Rule 52 (b). (f) Claimant's hand-written Motion For Service of Process pursuant to the Hague Convention and in harmony with FRCP. (e) Order granting Affiant's requisition to waive the filing fee for Claimant's Affidavit of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. (l) Requisition to waive the filing fee for Claimant's Affidavit of ''Appellant's'' Petition For Declaratory Judgment. served upon counsel for Respondent(s) pursuant to O. Rule 4. (j) Order to deny Claimant's Motion For Findings. . Page 3 of 15. (h) Order to dismiss Claimant's amended Affidavit of Petition For Declaratory Judgment. § 9-11-4. (m) Order granting Affiant's requisition to waive the filing fee for Claimant's Affidavit of ''Appellant's'' Petition For Declaratory Judgment.A.G. Rule 4.(b) Claimant's Affidavit of Petition for Declaratory Judgment/Addendum/Attachments. (i) Claimant's Motion For Findings pursuant to FRCP. (d) Claimant's Amended Affidavit of Petition for Declaratory Judgment / Addendum / Attachments.C. (k) Claimant's Affidavit of Notice of Appeal. as authored by Affiant pursuant to UCC-1 § 308.

inherent status and rights are the private property of Claimant and that of the private estate named herein. III That said status and rights are protected and guaranteed by the contract held between the parties known as the sovereign People / estates. AFFIDAVIT OF CLAIMANT'S DECLARATIONS APPENDED: Under operate of verified affirmation of declaration. the several de jure republic states. Affiant declares: I That the Claimant's un-a-lien-able. inherent status and rights are endowed by the Divine Creator. V That the private estate named herein convenes its common-law court in condemnation of Page 4 of 15. known as the Constitution and its Honorable Bill of Rights—the first ten (10) Amendments —circa 1791 to date. II That the Claimant's un-a-lien-able. and. IV That said status and rights are inviolate. . said states' central governing body.

X That since said mandates to waive said tax are recognized pursuant to UCC-1 § 308 with all rights reserved. VIII That Claimant's mandates to waive said tax are authored by Affiant with all rights reserved pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code-1 § 308. VII That said status and rights provide unfettered publici sui juris access to said court without the imposition of a tax on the use of said estate's own court. its private property being seized as prize on a libel in rem pursuant to Respondent(s) commencing its unwarranted escheat out of the Claimant's court. IX That the Uniform Commercial Code is construed in harmony with the common law. VI That said status and rights provide unfettered publici sui juris access to the Claimant's common-law court of competent jurisdiction. . said waivers are provided without prejudice and thus are not submitted to prejudicial scrutiny for a frivolity determination. Page 5 of 15.

XVII That Affiant fortifies his petition pursuant to Title 28.. Page 6 of 15. in propria persona. et al.'' XV That Affiant fortifies his petition via Verified Copyright Registration and Security Agreement perfected via UCC-1 Financing Statement. GCC-11 § 9-402. § 2A-311. XIII That the Claimant's affidavit is a petition for claiming and declaring. XIV That Affiant's petition is ''presented. § 1-203. XI That as is couched within the caption of Affiant's petition Affiant is a Claimant in personam. § 1333. § 1-106. XVI That Affiant fortifies his petition pursuant to UCC-1 § 308. et al. XII That Affiant is the admitted administrator sui juris. § 103-6. USC § 1331. with all rights reserved. .. § 3-501.

not excluding the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract. XIX That Affiant fortifies his petition pursuant to breech of contract regarding the principles of law and equity. XXI That STATE OF GEORGIA INC. principal and agent. et al. XX That the admitted authorized administrator to said private estate is Jon: of the Doe Family. antitrust. fraud. coercion. misrepresentation. Respondent(s) is unauthorized and unwarranted in its arrogation to the private office for executor of said private estate. .. XVIII That Affiant fortifies his petition pursuant to the doctrines of estoppel via acquiescence. mistake. duress. as well as any and every additional validating and invalidating cause. XXII That Respondent(s)'s unauthorized/unwarranted administration to said private estate Page 7 of 15.

is in derogation to the common-law jurisdiction / venue of the Claimant's court. et al. Respondent(s) is hereby and herewith formally barred from any and ''all'' administration to the private estate named herein. XXVI That in harmony with doctrines of estoppel via acquiescence and peremptory mandamus Page 8 of 15. XXIV That in according the claims and declarations hereby and herewith set forth in harmony with doctrines of quo warranto and the limit of time prescribed by law Respondent(s) fails to transmit verified written delegation of authority to proceed via escheat and seizure for the Claimant's private property.. XXIII That in according the claims and declarations hereby and herewith set forth in harmony with doctrines of quo warranto and the limit of time prescribed by law Respondent(s) fails to transmit verified written delegation of authority to cause said private estate any action commenced out of the Claimant's court. XXV That in harmony with doctrines of estoppel via acquiescence and peremptory mandamus STATE OF GEORGIA INC. .

XXX That the district court's assertion that Affiant's petition is a ''complaint'' is erroneous. Page 9 of 15. STATE OF GEORGIA INC. Respondent(s) is hereby and herewith formally barred from placing against said private estate any and every claim / charge / action / proceeding / accusation / indictment / et al. XXVIII That the district court's assertion that Affiant is a ''Plaintiff '' is erroneous. commenced / entered out of the Claimant's court by the Respondent(s) et al. . commenced / entered out of the Claimant's court. XXVII That in accord with claims and declarations hereby and herewith set forth nunc pro tunc under operate of verified affirmation of declaration and peremptory mandamus any and every charge/warrant/accusation/plea/verdict/conviction/order/sentence/et al. is hereby and herewith formally declared and rendered null and void ab initio. XXIX That the district court's assertion that Affiant proceeds ''pro se'' is erroneous. et al. XXXI That the district court's assertion that Respondent(s) is a ''defendant'' is erroneous..

XXXVI That citation of the ''Rooker-Feldman doctrine'' is without merit in the case. XXXIII That the district court's assertion that Affiant's petition is merely ''… a challenge of Plaintiff 's [sic] criminal conviction and sentence'' is erroneous. Page 10 of 15. XXXVII That the secured certified title known as ''JON DOE'' is said estate's private property. clearly substantiates that Respondent(s)'s ''criminal conviction and sentence'' et al. . among various and numerous other claims and declarations presented point-by-point via verified affirmation of declaration. XXXII That the district court's assertion that Affiant's petition is ''… submitted [sic]… for a frivolity determination'' is prejudicial and is erroneous. XXXV That the attachments coupled to Claimant's Affidavit of Petition For Declaratory Judgment are not barred nor diminished in any and every capacity whatever. XXXIV That Affiant's petition. are obtained via malfeasance.

Respondent(s) is the corporate fiction. XLIII That since Affiant. XLI That Affiant is a layman proceeding without unfettered counsel. XXXIX That STATE OF GEORGIA INC. and that since the district court can reasonably read Affiant's petition to state valid claims and declarations upon which the Claimant could prevail. a layman. inherent. XLII That Affiant substantiates a set of facts that are in support of his claims and declarations which would entitle him to relief. secured. .. the district court is so obligated to find for Affiant 's Page 11 of 15. real party in interest regarding the case. XL That the district court erroneously construes ''… the State of Georgia as the sole defendant [sic] in this action.''. does substantiate a set of facts which are in support of claims/declarations which would entitle him to relief. XXXVIII That said Claimant / estate is the sole un-a-lien-able. et al.

poor syntax and sentence construction. without regarding any imperfections. and that the district court's failure to answer Affiant's claims and declarations as are presented point-by-point via verified affirmation of declaration is ultra vires and is in breech of the court's solemn affirmation to support the immortal covenant known as the Constitution and its Honorable Bill of Rights. XLVI That the district court's determination that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction in the case is erroneous. Page 12 of 15. and that said court shall proceed and give judgment according as the right of the cause and matter in law shall appear unto it. XLIV That an affidavit of declaratory judgment is required to be answered point-by-point. . claims and declarations despite Claimant's any-and-every failure to cite proper legal authority. XLV That the district court is not acting in good faith and in accord with the course and usage of the judiciary powers of the Constitution when it arbitrarily and capriciously invokes unwarranted. unsubstantiated blanket-allegations of frivolity. defects or want of form in such claims and declarations or course of proceedings whatsoever. confusion of legal theories. and Claimant's unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.

and are.'' is inescapably erroneous. Further Affiant Saith Not. the truth. to the best of Affiant's ability. complete and not misleading. XLVII That being the district court's findings in the case are patently erroneous. (The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank) Page 13 of 15. are true. (2) that Affiant is competent for stating the first-hand facts and knowledge contained herein. (4) that ''all'' of Affiant's claims and declarations. correct. the district court's ''J U D G M E N T'' to dismiss ''… Plaintiff's [sic] Amended Complaint [sic]. VERIFIED AFFIRMATION: Affiant presents this affidavit point-by-point via verified affirmation of declaration: (1) that Affiant is the age of majority. point-by-point. . the whole truth and nothing but the truth. respectively. (3) that Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent and Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.

2014. Jon: Doe / Executor / Affiant. On the____day of_________________.______________________. JON HENRY DOE. Sui Juris. Jon: Doe. Notary Signatory. is currently administrating to the aforesaid estate on behalf of the office executing this instrument. UCC 1-§ 308. JON HENRY DOE. Signed:______________________________. who is known to me and is the living man whose name is scribed upon this instrument. Page 14 of 15. Estate. Executor Office. Jon: Doe. appears Affiant. VERIFICATION OF NOTARY: – JURAT – Date:_____________________________. Executor Office. as shown by this instrument. All Rights Reserved. before me. Republic of Georgia state) Notice: Requisition for notarial services provided below are ) authored by Affiant for verification purposes only. Witnessed by my hand and official seal. by:_____________________________. Notary. and that by his acknowledgment. Date:___________________________. Estate. NOTARY SEAL My Commission Expires:___________________________. Executor Office. and do not County of Gwinnett ) constitute adhesion nor alter Affiant's status in any manner. . and acknowledges to me that he administers and executes the same in his authorized capacity.

. ANTITRUST. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona. §308-5. federal witness. Sui Juris. S. Secured. DURESS. 13-00000 – Doe–Assignee. [30303] Phone #: [404] 335-6184. Jon: Doe© / Executor. Affiant. §103-6. ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. W. Without Prejudice. Certified Mail Number – ======================== ======================== To: CLERK OF THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). P. Vs. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. Respectfully presented. ) CONTRACT. Party Creditor. IN COMMON LAW. 56 Forsyth Street. . Served this – AFFIDAVIT OF APPENDIX TO ''APPELLANT'S BRIEF'' PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. Sui Juris. COERCION. In Care Of: John Ley. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JON DOE–Assignor. ) IN ADMIRALTY. by way of U. ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING. ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have. city of Atlanta. ) Claimant in personam. N. Executor Office. state Citizen. S. d/b/a/ JOHN LEY—Office Of Clerk Of Court. ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. FRAUD. republic of Georgia state. et al. by:_________________________. for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. UCC-1 § 308. on this __ Day of _______________. Page 15 of 15. ) ESTOPPEL. with all rights reserved. at-arm's-length.. 2014.

) CONTRACT. Page 15 of 15. state Citizen. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have. Affiant. Georgia. 2014. FRAUD. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. federal witness. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JON DOE–Assignor. Atlanta. with all rights reserved. §103-6. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona.. ) IN ADMIRALTY. Sui Juris. ) Claimant in personam. for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. 13-00000 – Doe–Assignee. [30334] Telephone #: [404] 261-1776. ANTITRUST. P. S. d/b/a/ JOHN NATHAN DEAL—CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. In Care Of: 203 STATE CAPITOL. . ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. DURESS. Certified Mail Number – ======================== ======================== To: John Nathan Deal. Secured. Jon: Doe© / Executor. et al. ) ESTOPPEL. at-arm's-length. UCC-1 § 308. by way of U. Served this – AFFIDAVIT OF APPENDIX TO ''APPELLANT'S BRIEF'' PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. Respectfully presented. ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. Without Prejudice. §308-5. on this __ Day of _______________. COERCION. Executor Office. Sui Juris. S. by:_________________________. IN COMMON LAW. Party Creditor. Vs.

Georgia. Served this – AFFIDAVIT OF APPENDIX TO ''APPELLANT'S BRIEF'' PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. Atlanta. UCC-1 § 308. §103-6. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This is to Certify that I have. S. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JON DOE–Assignor. federal witness. [30334] Telephone #: [404] 656-3300.. IN COMMON LAW. Without Prejudice. ) File On Demand – Claimant Waives Fee – in propria persona. ANTITRUST. state Citizen. S. ) Pursuant To UCC-1 §308. DURESS. ) IN ADMIRALTY. S. In Care Of: 40 CAPITOL SQUARE. FRAUD. at-arm's-length. 2014. by way of U. Vs. ) CONTRACT. Executor Office. Jon: Doe© / Executor. Page 15 of 15. d/b/a/ SAMUEL SCOTT OLENS—OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. by:_________________________. with all rights reserved. COERCION. W. 13-00000 – Doe–Assignee. ) STATE STATUTES AND PROCEDURES. Certified Mail Number – ======================== ======================== To: Samuel Scott "Sam" Olens. ) ESTOPPEL. ) Claimant in personam. et al. P. Party Creditor. for use of Jon: ) CASE NO. on this __ Day of _______________. Affiant. Sui Juris. ) CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO Respondent(s). . ) STATE OF GEORGIA INC. Respectfully presented. Secured. Sui Juris. §308-5..

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful