You are on page 1of 25

Deanna Gay: Mintz

Suae potestate esse


of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ
Affiant and Aggrieved Respondent
In care of general delivery, 10050 Bridge Street
Truckee, California, u.s.A.
Non-Domestic

Affidavit of: Status, Material Facts; Memorandum of Law;


Denial of Corporate Existence; Judicial and Administrative Notice
This Affidavit is issued by and under the Ministerial Power and Authority vested solely in and
appertaining to the Ministerial Office of Christ, established in Truth and Substance solely by the
Grace of God through Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, being co-heirs and
appointed co-Executors of His Testament governing His Estate brought into being by His original
Act sworn to by Him in His Testament, and in execution of the Judgments declared therein by
Him, against all agents, AGENCIES, INSTRUMENTALITIES, DEPARTMENTS, OFFICERS,
COURTS, CORPORATIONS, STATES, ADMINISTRATIONS, COUNTIES, MAGISTRATES,
JUDGES PRO TEM, JUDGES, COMMISSIONERS, and other creations of secular law and men,
acting alien enemies of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, for Whom I am one of
several ministers. The agents, AGENCIES, INSTRUMENTALITIES, DEPARTMENTS,
OFFICERS, COURTS, CORPORATIONS, ADMINISTRATIONS, COUNTIES, STATES,
MAGISTRATES, JUDGES, JUDGES PRO TEM, COMMISSIONERS, and other creations of
secular law and men, are attempting to plunder Christ’s Inheritance, in the Nature of a
Praemunire, imperium in imperio, using purported process unknown to, and not recognized by,
the Law of Our Sovereign, which is outlawed by the general custom in His Kingdom because it
disturbs His Peace, which Peace He bestowed upon His church and state, and because rerum ordo
confunditur, si unicucuique iruisdicto non servatur, and thus, is in violation of The Law of
Nations, The Law of War, and the lex non scripta, which is the jus publicum in His church and
state:

This is not an appearance.

Any reference to local, State, county, Municipal, or federal codes, statutes, rules, procedures,
policies, or case law in this and any other matter or correspondence with any government
“person”, agent, agency, instrumentality, department, or office is not intended or meant to bind
Affiant or give personal or subject matter jurisdiction to any of the various government agencies
over Affiant or Affiant’s labor, but is intended and meant to remind said government courts,
agencies, and instrumentalities and the courts of the rules, laws, codes, statutes, and limitations
that they are bound by, especially and including but not limited to those found in the Holy Bible
as the Lord God Almighty’s Writ, Will, and Testament and the constitutions that those agents of
the various government agencies and instrumentalities swore to uphold.

Affiant, Deanna Gay: Mintz, being of sound mind and competent to make this affidavit with
personal knowledge of the facts contained herein has in the past and continues to attest to said
facts in My authorized capacity as an aspirating, natural, born of my Mother’s womb, moral
Woman created by and of the God Almighty in Heaven.

Page one of twenty five


On Matters of Citizenship and Status
1. Affiant’s birth name and the only appellation that refers to Affiant is Deanna Gay:
Mintz.
2. Affiant is currently homeless, without work, financially destitute, and a single Mother
raising a disabled child alone.
3. Affiant no longer even owns a private motorized conveyance and has had to beg rides
from strangers in order to relocate to warmer climates to avoid freezing to death with
the onset of winter in north central Washington.
4. Affiant is no longer in Washington and has no means to return to Washington for any
reason. Lex non cogit ad impossibilia – The law does not require the impossible.
5. Affiant is and, by all appearances will be for the foreseeable future, stranded in the
location commonly known as Truckee, California, to live out of a tent with her disabled
child until work and/or motorized conveyance from another can be found to move
Affiatn and her child further south.
6. Affiant is not in possession of any document that verifies that the appellation given to
Affiant by Affiant’s living, breathing, flesh and blood Mother, a Woman of God, on
Affiant’s day of birth is not a proper name, as proper names are defined under the
Christian faith, rules of grammar for the English language, United States Style Manual,
Government Printing Office, other professional books regarding proper grammar,
American Jurisprudence, and the Corpus Juris Secundum.
7. Affiant is not in possession of any document that verifies that any name other than the
appellation given to Affiant on Affiant’s day of birth by Affiant’s Mother exactly as
Affiant’s Mother wrote it, in full, with upper and lower case letters in the exact order
that Affiant’s Mother set the various parts of the name and in precise accord with the
rules of grammar for the English language, represents and refers to Affiant, a living,
aspirating, flesh and blood, moral Woman of God.
8. Affiant is not in possession of any document that contraindictates that the appellation
given to Affiant by Affiant’s Mother as set forth above only refers to Affiant when it is
written exactly as Affiant’s Mother appelled it, and only when it is in the exact order
Affiant’s Mother set the various parts of the name, and only when the appellation is
written precisely in accord with the rules of grammar for the English language re
writing proper names.
9. Affiant hereby declares that the appellation that was given to Affiant by Affiant’s
Mother on Affiant’s day of birth is the only name that represents Affiant, the natural,
flesh and blood, aspirating, living, moral Woman of God, and that appellation had
better meet the strict guidelines of the English language for writing proper names,
because, if it does not, Affiant does not know who or what that appellation represents,
but it is not Me, Affiant.
10. Affiant, Deanna Gay: Mintz, does Not “have” any “Number”, known as a “Taxpayer
License Number”, “Social Security Number”, or any other moniker, Swears to the best
of My knowledge, information, and belief that there is no evidence “on the record” to
support the identification of Affiant by such numbers, the judgment allegedly against
Affiant but identifying some entity that allegedly owns such a moniker, or to support
the charges/bills/liens/citations/ infractions/judgments placed against Affiant by any
corporation, legal “person”, “individual”, or city, county, State, or federal government
against fictitious party “Deanna G. Mintz”, “Deanna G Mintz”, “Deanna Mintz”,
“Mintz, Deanna G.”, “Mintz, Deanna Gay”, “Mintz, Deanna G”, “Mintz, Deanna”,
“DEANNA G. MINTZ”, “DEANNA G MINTZ”, “MINTZ, DEANNA GAY”,
“MINTZ, DEANNA G.”, “MINTZ, DEANNA G”, “MINTZ, DEANNA”, “DEANNA
MINTZ”, or any other persona designata, nom de guerre, anacronym of like creation,
11. who also do not have any such “number” or moniker, or “DEANNA GAY MINTZ”,
who is a “fictitious party” which does have a “social slave I.D. number”. None of these
entities as fictions/ens legis/personas designata and legally created fictions can move
about in the real world in any actual personal conveyance.
12. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
any other entity as mentioned in item five (5) has any such “number” or “moniker” as
that listed above other than “DEANNA GAY MINTZ”, who is a “fictitious party”
which does have a “Social (Slave) I.D. Number”.
13. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
Affiant as a natural, flesh and blood, aspirating, moral Man of God carrying the name
granted to Affiant by Affiant’s Mother, with such name following the proper rules of
grammar for the English language for names which utilizes upper and lower case letters
appropriately, has ever knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, and under full disclosure had
or applied for any such socialist benefit or communist identifying moniker as a Social
Security number although Affiant may have been forced through the use of threat,
duress, coercion, and concealment by various people and agencies to use such a
number in order to obtain work and earn a living. Fraud and duress do not constitute
consent.
14. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
any of the entities mentioned in item number five (5) above, being fictions, ens legis,
noms de guerre, and personas designata which are fictions created by law, can move
about in the real world in any actual personal conveyance, interact with the real,
physical world without someone to act as a mouthpiece and surety for them, own real
property, or engage in physical and base intercourse with an aspirating, flesh-and-blood
Man in order to procreate and make an aspirating, flesh and blood, child of God.
15. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
the fictitious parties mentioned in item five (5) and item six (6) were not created by
other enitities, agencies, corporations, and people for unrevealed purposes, all harmful
to the real, flesh and blood, moral Man of God, in order to mislead Affiant to Affiant’s
prejudice as mentioned in American Jurisprudence.
16. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
Affiant was born “in” any incorporated entity, corporation, government created
fictional enclave, territory, possession, or zone, or other fictitious area.
17. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
Affiant was not born on the soil of this earth, soil that was created by and belongs to
the God Almighty in Heaven and His Son, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ,
commonly known to mankind of this era as being Ohio, an independent republic state
that is, to the best of Affiant’s knowledge, alleged to be one of the union of states of the
united states of America.
18. Affiant is in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
Affiant is a corporation created under the laws of the United States or any State, the
District of Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United
States or a foreign state or country private or public and denies the existence of any
such alleged corporation since Affiant did not consent to any such corporation’s
creation or attachment to Affiant.
19. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
Affiant is or ever has been a “citizen” of the United States. [See definitions of “United
States”, “State”, and “citizen” at 26 C.F.R.§31.3121 (e)-1; see also definitions of
“United States” and “State” at 26 U.S.C. subsections 7701(a)(9) & (10).] {“Citizen”
spelled with a capital “C” in the Constitution for the united states of America and first
ten Amendments refers to a natural born state Citizen with unalienable “Rights.”
Whereas, citizen spelled with a lower case “c” in the eleventh amendment and later
refers to a citizen of the United states government with government granted immunities
and privileges, a citizen void of any unalienable “Rights” and Constitutional “Rights”
as found in the Constitution for the united states of America.]
20. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a “citizen” of the United States of America, an alleged to exist
corporate (see fictional) entity purportedly owned by the United States in 28 U.S.C.
3002-15.
21. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a “citizen” of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Marinara Islands, or any other “federal
territory”, “federal area”, “federal district”, or “federal zone”.
22. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is or ever was a “citizen” of the “STATE OF WASHINGTON ”,
“WASHINGTON STATE”, “STATE OF ARIZONA”, “ARIZONA STATE”, “State of
Washington”, “Washington State”, “State of Arizona”, “Arizona State”, or any other
corporate franchised “STATE” or “State”.
23. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that the “State of Washington”/”STATE OF WASHINGTON”/
”WASHINGTON STATE”/”Washington State”, “STATE OF ARIZONA”/
”ARIZONA STATE”/”State of ARIZONA”/”ARIZONA State”, and all other States
are not de facto incorporated shadow federal “States”, essentially fictional entities that
are illegitimate and non-existent, and “political subdivisions of the U.S.” allegedly
created by the 1940 Buck Act. Affiant is not in receipt of any documents and cannot
find evidence on the record that the Tenth Amendment to the federal Constitution and
the Separation of Powers Doctrine prohibits the state “Republics” from acquiescing to
federal authority, thereby functioning as federal States, without Constitutional
Amendment which specifically delegates authority to the United States which is not
already articulated in the “Constitution for the united states of America” per New York
v. United States, et al., 1992.
24. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies Affiant is or ever was a “citizen” of the political coalition, compact, or alliance
of territories and insular possessions of the United States known as the “UNITED
STATES”, “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”, “America”, “US”, “USA”, “U.S.”,
“U.S.A.”, the “STATE OF WASHINGTON”, “The State of Washington”,
“WASHINGTON STATE”, “Washington State”, “The State of ARIZONA”, “THE
STATE OF ARIZONA”, “ARIZONA STATE”, “ARIZONA State”, or any other
“State”/”STATE”- Not to be confused with the union of states the parties to the
Constitution originally known as the united states of America, established in the
Articles of Confederation.{See notes following 18 U.S.C.§1001; 40 Stat.1015, c. 194.
25. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is subject to or knowingly, willingly, intentionally, and voluntarily
consented/assented to being subject to the “UNITED STATES”, “UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA”, “STATE OF WASHINGTON”, “The State of Washington”,
“WASHINGTON STATE”, “Washington State”, “The State of ARIZONA”, “THE
STATE OF ARIZONA”, “ARIZONA STATE”, “ARIZONA State”, or any other
“State”/”STATE” or government agency or instrumentality.
26. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a willing member of the corporate body politic of any state or
federal government.
Page four of twenty five
27. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a “resident” of the “UNITED STATES”. [See definitions of
“United States” and “State” at 26 U.S.C., section 3121(e) and 26 C.F.R. section
31.3121(e)-1; see also definitions of “United States” and “State” at 26 U.S.C. section
7701(a)(9) and (10); see also U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 336]
28. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a “resident” of the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.
29. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a “resident” of the District of Columbia, now known as New
Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, nor the Northern
Marinara Islands, nor any other “federal territory”, “federal area”, “federal zone”, or
“federal district”.
30. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is, ever has been, or has ever knowingly and willingly consented to
being a “resident” of “The State of Washington”, “THE STATE OF WASHINGTON”,
“THE STATE OF ARIZONA”, or any other incorporated State.
31. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is or ever was a “resident” of the political coalition, compact, or
alliance of territories and insular possessions of the United States known as the
“UNITED STATES”, “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”, “THE STATE OF
ARIZONA”, “ARIZONA STATE”, “THE STATE OF WASHINGTON”, or any other
“STATE”.
32. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant’s place where he takes up housekeeping is in the “UNITED
STATES”, “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”, “THE STATE OF WASHINGTON”,
“The State of Washington”, “WASHINGTON STATE”, “Washington State”, “WA”,
or has ever been in the “STATE OF ARIZONA”/”ARIZONA STATE”/”State of
ARIZONA”, “ARIZONA State”, “AZ”, or any other State.
33. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
Affiant has an “address” as Affiant is not involved in commerce and does not have a
corporate fiction business.
34. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant has an “address” as defined in the Buck Act and various other
codes, acts, and statutes since Affiant is not “in” a “revenue district”, “federal
jurisdiction”, or “market venue”.
35. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant nor Affiant’s place where he takes up housekeeping has a zip code
or “numerical code” because Affiant and Affiant’s place where she takes up
housekeeping does not exist in “an area within the United States and its territories…”
(See the Buck Act)
36. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
Affiant is a “resident alien” lawfully admitted to a state of the Union.
37. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a “resident alien” lawfully admitted to the “UNITED STATES”.
38. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a “resident alien” lawfully admitted to the “UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA”.
39. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a “resident alien” lawfully admitted to the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Marinara
Islands, nor any other “federal territory”, “federal area”, “federal district”, or “federal
zone”.
40. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a resident alien lawfully admitted to “The State of Washington”,
“THE STATE OF WASHINGTON”, “The State of ARIZONA”, “THE STATE OF
ARIZONA”, “Washington State”, “WASHINGTON STATE”, “ARIZONA State”,
“ARIZONA STATE”, or any other incorporated “State”/”STATE” or political
subdivision of the corporate U.S.
41. Affiant is not electing to be treated as a resident of the “UNITED STATES”, “UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA”, District of Columbia, New Columbia, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Marinara Islands, nor any other
“federal territory”, “federal enclave”, “federal district”, or “federal zone”. [26 U.S.C.
7701(b)(4) and 26 C.F.R. 1.1871].
42. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is electing, or has ever intentionally, knowingly, and willingly
elected, to be treated as a resident of “THE STATE OF WASHINGTON”, “The State
of Washington”, “Washington State”, “WASHINGTON STATE”, “THE STATE OF
ARIZONA”, “The State of ARIZONA”, “ARIZONA STATE”, “ARIZONA State”, or
any other incorporated State.
43. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a partnership, corporation, estate, fiduciary, or trust as defined
by 26 U.S.C. or any Code or Statute.
44. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a registered voter or has ever knowingly, willingly, voluntarily,
and under full disclosure ever been a registered voter.
45. Affiant is not employed per definitions found in Title 26 of the U.S.C.
46. Affiant is not self-employed as defined by Title 26 of the U.S.C. Affiant is not in
receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that verifies that
Affiant is self-employed.
47. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is even employable.
48. Affiant does work when and as Affiant can and claims the unalienable right to work.
49. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is in “Privity” with (1) The State of Washington, (2) THE STATE
OF WASHINGTON, (3) Washington State, (4) WASHINGTON STATE, (5) The State
of ARIZONA, (6) THE STATE OF ARIZONA, (7) ARIZONA State, (8) ARIZONA
STATE, (9) DOUGLAS County, (10) DOUGLAS COUNTY, (11) County of
DOUGLAS, (12) COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, (13) PINAL County, (14) PINAL
COUNTY, (15) County of PINAL, (16) COUNTY OF PINAL, (17) Douglas County,
(19) The City of East Wenatchee, (20) the UNITED STATES, (21) the United States,
(22) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, (23) DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, (24) WA, (25) AZ, (26) OH, or (27) any of the afore-going’s agencies or
instrumentalities.
50. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a 14th Amendment citizen.
51. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that the 14th Amendment was not created to change ownership of the newly
“freed” slaves and their children, and later every human being born on American soil
thus making them all slaves and chattel property, to the federal United States, which is
treason and involuntary servitude as evidenced in Alberty vs. United States and federal
papers showing such legislative intent.
52. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is “subject to” or dependent on the “quasi-contractual” or
“adhesion contract” social insurance trust/charitable trust/constructive trust or alleged
benefit created by the 14th Amendment.
53. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a constructive beneficiary of the 14th Amendment public/private
trust.
54. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is “subject to” the “public debt” the 14th Amendment established.
Affiant “Rights” do not come from the 14th Amendment.
55. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant has ever elected to convey property to the 14th Amendment
public/private trust. Affiant does not elect and never has knowingly or willingly
elected to convey property to the 14th Amendment public/private trust.
56. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find evidence on the record
that verifies that Affiant is a “privileged entity” such as a resident alien, corporation,
partnership, trust, or estate.
57. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find evidence on the record
that verifies that Affiant is domiciled in or living within a “corporation”, “federal
territory”, “federal enclave”, “federal area”, “federal district”, “federal zone”, “within
this State”, “In this State”, “in the State”, or within a federal “State” over which the
[Federal] “United States” has been:
1. ceded jurisdiction by the “Constitution for the united states of America” article 1,
section 8, clause 17, or
2. federal reservation of jurisdiction when the republic of Washington or the
republic of ARIZONA became a state of the Union, or the Republic of
Washington or the Republic of ARIZONA ceded the land and jurisdiction to the
Federal government under Article IV, section 3, clause 2. [“federal area” 4
U.S.C, section 110(e), definition of “States” 4 U.S.C. 103 & 110(d)][The Federal
Reserve districts and the Internal Revenue Districts are “new states,” which have
been established within the jurisdiction of legal states of the Union. See
Constitution for the united states of America, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1 “New
states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be
formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be
formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the
Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress”.]
[See Fort Leavenworth R.R. v. Lowe, 114 U.S.525; “…Legislature of a State has
no power to cede away her jurisdiction and legislative power over any portion of
her territory, except as such cession follows under the Constitution from her
consent to a purchase by the United States…”]
58. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a “person” as used within any civil law or within 26 U.S.C. per
the legal maxim – Homo vocabulus est naturae; persona juris civilis ‘man’ is a term of
nature; ‘person’ is a term of civil law. [Black’s Law Dictionary , Revised Fourth
Edition, “PERSON” Term may include artificial beings, as corporations…A person is
such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him.”]
[American Law and Procedure, Vol. 13, page 137, 1910: “This word ‘person’ and its
scope and bearing in the law, involving as it does, legal fictions and also apparently
natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at
whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its
proper use…A person here is not a physical or individual person, but the status or
condition which he is invested…not an individual or physical person, but the status,
condition, or character borne by physical persons…The law of persons is the law of
status or condition.”][“In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the
sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it.“
Deyett vs. Turner, U.S. v Cooper, 312 U.S. 600, 604, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941); Wilson v.
Omaha Indian Tribe, 422 U.S. 653, 667 (1979); U.S. v. Mine Workers of America, 330
U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 677 (1947); see 1 U.S.C. section para. 1; Church of Scientology v.
U.S. Department of Justice, 612 F2d 417 @ 425 (1979)].
59. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is an “individual” as used within any civil law or code. [Black’s
Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, “INDIVIDUAL” As a noun, this term denotes
a single person as distinguished from a group of class, and also, very commonly, a
private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or
association: but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in
the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. State v. Bell
Telephone Co., 26 ARIZONA St. 310, 38 Am. Rep. 583. As an adjective, “individual”
means pertaining to or belonging to, or characteristic of, one single person, either in
opposition to a firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto.]
60. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant holds the legislatively created office of “person” or “individual”
within the government.
61. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is an officer, agent, shareholder, franchisee, or fiduciary agent,
resident, inhabitant, or domiciled in any corporation.
62. Affiant is not an enemy of the United States of America or any state, the District of
Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States, or a
foreign state or country public or private.
63. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record
that verifies that Affiant is subject to the de facto, private corporate statutes,
administrative policies, and codes of (1) “The State of Washington”, (2) “THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON”, (3) “WASHINGTON STATE”, (4) “Washington
State”, (5) “The State of ARIZONA”, (6) “THE STATE OF ARIZONA”, (7)
“ARIZONA STATE”, (8) “ARIZONA State”, (9) “ARIZONA”, (10)
“WASHINGTON”, (11) Department of Motor Vehicles, (12) DEPARTMENT OF
MOTOR VEHICLES, (12) “UNITED STATES”, (12) “UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA”, (13) of a “State”, (14) of any political subdivision thereof, (15) the
District of Columbia, (16) or any agency or instrumentality of the foregoing.
64. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that the “United States”, “Great Britain”, “United Nations”, any government
created entity, any government created trust, or any government/corporate entity
created Affiant.
65. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a “juristic entity”, “resident agent”, “corporate entity”,
“individual entity”, “property”, “franchisee”, “officer”, “servant”, “grantor”, “debtor”,
“beneficiary”, “franchisee of the federal government”, “bankrupt person”, “human
resource”, “institutional unit”, “private enterprise”, “private law merchant”,
“employee”, “employer”, “non custodial parent”, “withholding agent”, “government
employee”, “constructive trustee”, “implied trust”, “private charitable trust”,
“disenfranchised entity”, “enfranchised entity”, “cestui que trust”, “incompetent”,
“civilly dead”, “surety for any fiction”, “guarantor for any fiction”, a “British subject”,
a “Holy Roman Empire subject”, or any other commercial label.
66. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is not a brother of, heir with, and bondservant of the Sovereign
Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, a Sovereign Citizen of Heaven, temporarily
sojourning on this earth as per Affiant’s faith as dictated in the Holy Bible.
67. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies the existence of any actual, physical place called “WA”, “AZ”, or any other
such all caps, abbreviated fictional federal or state area, zone, territory, corporation, or
enclave, and maintains the denial of the corporate existence of said entities.
68. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant owns, is marked or characterized by, has any social security
number, stands in a certain relation to, or holds or maintains as a possession, privilege
or entitlement any such number or moniker. A number is usually a fact, a piece of
information, or some fiction created by others. It is not a physical thing. A moral Man
or Woman of God can only “have” a physical thing; facts, information, and fictions
cannot be possessed-they can only be understood.
69. Affiant is not a corporation created under the laws of any State, STATE, state, United
States, the District of Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth, or possession of the
United States or a foreign state or country private or public.
70. Affiant has not ever knowingly, willingly, or intentionally given up any of Affiant’s
natural, God-given Rights in exchange for any privilege or benefit.
71. Affiant is not in receipt of any document that verifies Divine Law, maxims of law, and
Constitutional protections are not superior to, valid in, and applicable to all courts,
private and public actions, contracts, judgments, judges, public servants, private
Citizens, and government agents, agencies, fiduciaries, and instrumentalities.
72. Affiant hereby denies that Affiant has ever knowingly, willingly, and without duress or
coercion forfeited the sovereign Rights granted to Affiant by the Creator Almighty God
as outlined in the Holy Bible, the Treaty of Paris (1783), the Declaration of
Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution for the united states of America.
73. Affiant, not understanding and not having been given full disclosure during the
creation, execution, trial, or judgment of any license, agreement, contract, or trust with
any entity, is not party to any contract, trust, agreement, judgment, or status inflicted
upon Affiant by any secular entity.
74. Affiant did not understand and was not given full disclosure when and if Affiant did
sign any contract, trust, agreement, or judgment with any court, State, government
agency, government fiduciary, instrumentality, or juristic person, thereby Affiant
invokes Affiant’s Right to revoke any such “agreements” made in colorable law and
hereby Revokes, Rescinds, and Declares Null and Void the same.
75. Affiant is not in receipt of any document that verifies Affiant volunteered or knowingly
and intentionally consented to be bound by any statute, code, or law that is not Biblical
Law and, absent any conflict with the Law of God Almighty, Biblical Common law per
the maxim of law that binds all public servants and secular courts which states Summa
Ratio est quae pro Religione facit; if ever the Laws of God and man are at variance, the
former are to be obeyed in derogation to the latter.
76. Affiant is not in receipt of any document that verifies Affiant has ever knowingly,
willingly, voluntarily, and intentionally given over Affiant’s Power of Attorney to any
man, woman, elected official, public servant, bureaucrat, corporation, government, or
State to act on Affiant’s behalf and hereby denies the existence of any such document.
77. Affiant is not a resident "U.S. citizen," but a Citizen of the several States temporarily
stranded and sojourning in the sovereign state of California republic, an American
Juristic Power Occupant and Sovereign of the united states of America. Affiant is
currently sojourning and temporarily domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction to both the
corporate state and federal governments.
78. Affiant is the sovereign spoken of in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370.

Note: "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and
source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the
agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom
and for whom all government exists and acts.; "Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US
356, 370.
79. Affiant is not in receipt of any document that verifies that Affiant is not a sojourning
bondservant of Christ, technically suae potestate esse, politically holding the status of
Judicial Power Occupant and sovereign, a sovereign Citizen of Heaven, who is
exclusively under the Law and Ordinances of the Almighty God in Heaven as
witnessed in His Holy Writ, Will, and Testament, owing allegiance to no politically or
legislatively created entity, and free to go about Affiant’s way through the land of my
birth so long as Affiant does no harm to another living, breathing soul or another’s
property without interference.

MATERIAL FACTS

80. Affiant was exercising Affiant’s Right of Locomotion and Right to Use and Enjoy
Affiant’s personal, non-commercial, recreational, privately owned, motorized
conveyance on the public ways and means of Washington on the afternoon of the
nineteenth day of the tenth month of the Year of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour
Jesus, the Christ, at five-fifty-three in the evening, approximately five miles outside of
the town commonly called Orondo, on the public highway known as state route 97, and
was not passing through any known construction zone where workers were present.
Affiant was moving at the same speed as other motorists on the public highway.
81. Affiant was pulled over by an unmarked automobile with red and blue flashing lights,
said vehicle having been noted by Affiant as having moved very fast, passing all other
vehicles behind Affiant in what appeared to be a no passing zone to pull behind
Affiant.
82. Affiant promptly pulled to the side of the road to give the speeding, flashing light
automobile room to pass safely by and said automobile pulled in behind Affiant as both
Affiant and unidentified auto came to a stop.
83. Affiant noted that the man coming out of the automobile that the Affiant pulled over to
the side of the road for appeared to be an armed Washington State Patrol Officer.
84. Alleged Washington State Patrol Officer, identifiable only as #736 since the
automobile was unmarked, the Officer’s nametag was not clearly visible, and the
signature on the alleged NOTICE OF INFRACTION/WASHINGTON UNIFORM
COURT DOCKET is unintelligible, upon being asked if there was anything Affiant
could do to help him, stated that Affiant could “start by going the speed limit.”
85. Affiant is not in receipt of any document, cannot find any physical evidence, and was
refused permission to see any radar or laser reading from the alleged Officer to prove
that Affiant was going in excess of the posted speed limit or using Affiant’s private
motorized conveyance in any reckless, dangerous fashion.
86. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any physical evidence that
Affiant was moving at more than fifty-four miles per hour in what is believed to be a
sixty-mile-per-hour zone.
87. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any physical evidence or
record that proves that the area Affiant was using and enjoying Affiant’s personal
motorized, recreational conveyance in had a speed limit that was set by a roadway
engineer as a “safe speed”.
88. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any physical evidence or
record that proves that the speed limit in the area Affiant was allegedly detained in, if
Plaintiff/Witness claims that it is a fifty-mile-per-hour zone and if Affiant was even
going the alleged fifty-nine miles per hour, was not arbitrarily set by legislative,
executive, or appointed public servant with no physics or engineering training to be
able to lawfully and properly decide upon for the purpose of entrapment, racketeering,
and extorition at gunpoint in order to fill the State coffers which are empty due to the
financial irresponsibility, greed, corruption, and incompetence of our elected officials.
89. Alleged Washington State Patrol Officer #736 stated to Affiant that Affiant was
“clocked” going fifty-nine in a fifty mile per hour zone, upon which Affiant informed
the alleged Officer that Affiant did not believe that Affiant was speeding.
90. Alleged Washington State Patrol Officer #736 stated to Affiant that another motorist
was noted going fifty-eight miles per hour and that said same Officer “pulled that
motorist over too.”
91. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any physical evidence that
proves that the alleged Washington State Patrol Officer #736 did in fact pull over any
other automobile and did not single out Affiant’s automobile because of the out-of-state
plates on Affiant’s private motorized conveyance.
92. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any physical evidence that
Affiant’s motorized conveyance was the one marked as “speeding” instead of the red
pickup truck that passed Affiant shortly before Affiant noted the alleged Washington
State Patrol automobile.
93. Affiant was, after being passed and the red pickup truck going out of site, at the front of
the line of automobiles moving on state route 97 that the alleged Washington State
Patrol Officer #736 passed in order to detain and interrogate Affiant.
94. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any physical evidence that it
is possible for the singular alleged Washington State Patrol Officer #736 to have pulled
over two separate motorists, one after the other, and taken the time to interrogate both,
demand proof of registration and insurance, etc., without those motorists having been
within view of each other. This improbable claim by Officer #736 evidences mistake
on his part or habitual statement of intentional untruths.
95. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any physical evidence that
alleged OFFICER #736 had authority or right to demand “Proof of Insurance” from
Affiant in light of the fact that Affiant was not involved in any kind of accident and
caused no harm.
96. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any evidence that OFFICER
#736/Plaintiff has the right or authority to refuse Affiant’s offered proof of insurance,
which is Psalms 91 out of the Creator Almighty God in Heaven’s Holy Writ, Will, and
Testament, as offered and which is the only law Affiant has ever consented to live by.
97. Alleged Washington State Patrol Officer #736 wrote a ticket commonly called an
INFRACTION/WASHINGTON UNIFORM COURT DOCKET # I 6039395, which
alleged violation of RCW 46.30.020 “No Proof of Insurance”, demanding payment of a
penalty of US$550 and placed it with Affiant.
98. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any evidence that alleged
OFFICER #736/Plaintiff acted with legal or lawful authority in demanding proof of
insurance from Affiant and issuing said citation in light of the Financial Responsibility
Act.
99. OFFICER #736’s actual lack of jurisdiction and authority can be found in the
Plaintiff’s W.R.C. 46.29.060. Also per your courts to wit:

[1] It is undisputed that, at the time of this accident, Mr. Boldt was not subject to the
requirements of our financial responsibility statute and that his insurance coverage
was a matter of voluntary contract…The statute speaks in terms of “proof of financial
responsibility for the future,” and defines that phrase in terms of “accidents occurring
subsequent to the effective date of said proof…” ROYSE v. BOLDT, 80 Wn.2d 44,
46, 491 P.2d 644 [No. 42072. En Banc. December 9, 1971.]
“In 1963, after Barkwill, the Washington legislature enacted a financial responsibility
law, RCW 46.29. Under provisions of this statute, the driver after an injury accident
must deposit security, unless he or she has an “automobile liability policy.” RCW
46.29.060-080. In addition, the driver involved in such an accident must furnish
proof of financial responsibility for the future. RCW 46.29.260, .420.” MUTUAL
OF ENUMCLAW v. WISCOMB, 95 Wn.2d 373, 378, 622 P.2d 1234 [No. 47034-1.
En Banc. December 31, 1980.]

“…the act does not require mandatory insurance coverage,…The financial


responsibility act does not require an individual to prove that he is financially able to
compensate those he may injure through the use of his vehicles until he is involved in
an automobile accident resulting in bodily injury or death of any person or property
damage of $300 or more. RCW 46.29.060. “MUTUAL OF ENUMCLAW v.
WISCOMB, 95 Wn.2d 203, 206, 643 P.2d 441 [No. 47145-2. 47202-5. En Banc.
April 8, 1982.]; MILLER v. AETNA LIFE & CASUALTY CO., 70 Wn. App. 192,
197, 851 P.2d 1253 (June 1, 1993.)

“Under our financial responsibility act, an individual need not prove financial
responsibility until a vehicle owned or driven by him is involved in an accident
resulting in bodily injury or death of any person, or property damage of $300 or
more. RCW 46.29.060. Even after such an accident has occurred, proof of financial
responsibility for the accident and in the future may be made in a number of ways,
including, but not limited to proof of liability insurance. RCW 46.29.070, .080, .450.
Since the Legislature has not seen fit to require mandatory insurance coverage, we
will not replace its assessment of public policy with our own…we cannot require
mandatory insurance where the Legislature has declined to do so…WILLIAMS, C.J.
(Dissenting)…As we noted in Wiscomb, the provisions of the financial responsibility
act, RCW 46.29, do not become mandatory until the driver is involved in an accident
causing injury or damage of $300 or more. RCW 46.29.060; Wiscomb at 206.”
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INS. v. JESTER, 102 Wn. 2d 78, 81, 82, 83, 683 P.2d
180 [No. 50007-0. En Banc. June 21, 1984.]; JOHNSON v. DEPT. OF LICENSING,
46 Wn. App. 701, 731 P.2d 1097 (December 22, 1986.)

100. Since insurance policies and contracts are private and voluntary in nature, Affiant is not
in receipt of any document and cannot find any lawful evidenced that it is anyone’s
business or right to even inquire as to whether or not Affiant, the Aggrieved Party, and
others similarly situated have insurance on the following authority to wit:

“[1] The existence of an insurance policy is a matter of contract law, since insurance
involves a contractual relationship between the insurer and the insured.” LaPOINT
v. RICHARDS, 66 Wn.(2d) 585, 588 (July 8, 1965). And;

“[2] Traditionally, insurance contracts have been considered to be private contracts


between the parties.” MUTUAL OF ENUMCLAW v. WISCOMB, 25 Wn. App.
841, 846, 611 P.2d 1304 (April 14, 1980).

101. There is no evidence that the singling out of the Aggrieved Respondent and the
Aggrieved Respondent's non-commercial, personal, recreational motorized
conveyance, or those of other men and women, and the issuance of the victimless
NOTICE OF INFRACTION is not purely for the purpose of harassment, racketeering,
trafficking, criminal profiteering, and extortion/collection by BAR member legislators,
BAR member judges, and enforcement officers to enrich the issuing officer's, police
departments', presiding judges’, and the legislators' and judges' BAR member lawyer-
friends' various retirement/pension funds and other bureaucrats pockets respectively at
the Aggrieved Respondent's, and others similarly situated, expense.
102. Affiant returned this fraudulent NOTICE OF INFRACTION/WASHINGTON
UNIFORM COURT DOCKET and demand to the alleged issuing officer’s
headquarters and superior officer for cause, based upon no understanding, no
jurisdiction, no right of action, denial of rights under color of law, and lack of probable
cause, without dishonor, and without remedy and recourse to Affiant, within the stated
fifteen-day deadline to respond. Failure of OFFICER #736 or his superiors to respond
admits default and every statement made by Affiant in the return as truth in fact.

RIGHT TO USE AND ENJOY PROPERTY, AFFIANT’S PRIVATE


MOTORIZED CONVEYANCE, ON THE PUBLIC WAYS AND
MEANS (ROADS AND HIGHWAYS); RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF
LOCOMOTION; RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE; AND RIGHT TO
PRIVACY
103. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find lawful or physical evidence
that OFFICER #736 had any probable cause or jurisdiction to stop and detain Affiant
since Affiant’s use and enjoyment of Affiant’s motorized conveyance on the public
roads and highways in the states for the purpose of movement from one location to
another for non-commercial purposes are Rights, not privileges as supported in
Washington law, federal and state supreme court decisions, and Constitutional
guarantees.
104. Since “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” and Washington elected, appointed,
legislative, executive, and judicial officers are held to a higher standard to be expected
to know the laws they are bound by, Affiant hereby asserts and affirms the
determinations found in the WRC, demanding that the Judge and Plaintiff/OFFICER
#736, along with the Douglas County Prosecutor take Notice that, per their own
W.R.C., the Supreme Courts, and Washington legislative intent, the law clearly
states that the highways and roads are "open as a matter of right to public
vehicular travel". To wit:
American Jurisprudence 1st, has this to say:
The RIGHT of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport
his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT
a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a
COMMON RIGHT which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore,
under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or
in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent
manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another's RIGHTS, he will be
protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added).
See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, § 329, page 1123.
Washington Sessions Laws of 1915, Chapter 142 §§ 2(1) “Motor vehicle” and 2(6)
“Public highway” or public highways”; Sessions Laws of 1917, Chapter 155 §§ 1(1)
“Motor vehicle” and 1(6) “Public highway” or public highways”; Sessions Laws of
1919, Chapter 59 §§ 1(1) “Motor vehicle” and 2(6) “Public highway” or public
highways”; Sessions Laws of 1921, Chapter 96 §§ 2(1) “Motor vehicle” and 2(7)
“Public highway” or public highways”). That language is as follows: municipal
officers for the use of the public as a highway, or for the transportation of persons
or freight, or as a place of travel or communication between different localities or
communities;

“Motor vehicle” shall include all vehicles or machines propelled by any


power other than muscular, used upon the public highways for the
transportation of freight, produce or any commodity, except traction engines
temporarily upon the highway, road rollers or road making machines, and
motor vehicles that run upon rails or tracks.
“Public highway” or “public highways” shall include any highway, state
road, county road, public street, avenue, alley, driveway, boulevard or other
place built, supported, maintained, controlled or used by the public or by the
state, county, district or municipal officers for the use of the public as a
highway, or for the transportation of persons or freight, or as a place of
travel or communication between different localities or communities;
105. Per article number ninety-six (96) of this Affidavit, Affiant emphasizes, per the law
that OFFICER #736/Plaintiff, Douglas County District Court, and Douglas County
Prosecuting Attorney are bound by, that the law clearly delineated and stated in
speaking of public highways:
(1) “place built, supported, maintained, controlled or used by the public or by the
state, county,” or
(2) “for the transportation of persons or freight,” or
(3) “as a place of travel or communication between different localities or
communities.”

The term “motor vehicle” is said to embrace only those contrivances using the
highways under purpose #2 above, and it is not said to embrace those using the
highways for purpose #3, for “travel and communication,” as was the conduct of the
Aggrieved Respondent.

“Transportation. The movement of goods or persons from one place to another, by a


carrier. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 S.Ct. 1125,
38 L.Ed. 1047.”

106. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find any lawful evidence that
the court decision in House v. Cramer as offered is not still standing and valid
whereupon it states:

"The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of
the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in
the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in
some vehicle." House v. Cramer, 1 12 N. W. 3; 134 Iowa 374 (1907).

107. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find evidence that the 1961
major rewrite of RCW 46 is not valid. The 1961 rewrite of RCW 46’s focus was in
defining its scope was shifted from the definition of motor vehicle and transportation,
to a distinction between privilege and common right, that right of public vehicular
travel being repeatedly deemed a “matter of right.” In this 1961 definition of “motor
vehicle” we find no mention of “transportation.” To wit:

RCW 46.04.320 Motor vehicle. “Motor vehicle” shall mean every vehicle which is
self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained
from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails. An electric personal
assistive mobility device is not considered a motor vehicle. [2002 c 247 § 2; 1961 c
12 § 46.04.320. Prior: 1959 c 49 § 33; 1955 c 384 § 10; prior: (i) 1943 c 153 § 1,
part; 1937 c 188 § 1, part; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6312-1, part; 1923 c 181 § 1, part;
1921 c 96 § 2, part; 1919 c 59 § 1, part; 1917 c 155 § 1, part; 1915 c 142 § 2, part;
RRS § 6313, part. (ii) 1937 c 189 § 1, part; RRS § 6360-1, part; 1929 c 180 § 1,
part; 1927 c 309 § 2, part; RRS § 6362-2, part.]

108. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find any proof that the
intention of legislature is or was ever to place private travel within the scope of the
term “motor vehicle”.
109. Affiant hereby offers proof to the contrary of any claim that private travel is or has ever
been placed within the scope of the term “motor vehicle.” Affiant’s proof that private
travel is not and never was placed within the scope of the term “motor vehicle” is found
in other sections of acts and codes to wit:

Washington (Sessions) Laws of 1961, Chapter 1 § 1(x) of the Highway License act
defines a “Public highway” as:

“Every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the
State of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular
travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and
towns.”

One needn’t trek into distant enactments of 1961 to find this expression in WA
Sessions Laws.

110. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find evidence that the
following is invalid. Affiant thus presents as further, more recent evidence that Affiant
has the Right to use and enjoy her private motorized conveyance upon the public
highways and roads without hinderance, without needing to carry state sanctioned
proof of insurance or permission, to wit:

“AN ACT Relating to the definition of “county engineer”; and amending RCW
36.75.010. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. RCW 36.75.010 and 1984 c 7 s 26 are each amended to read as follows:
(4) “City street,” every highway or part thereof, located within the limits of
incorporated cities and towns, except alleys;
(6) “County road,” every highway or part thereof, outside the limits of
incorporated cities and towns and which has not been designated as a state
highway;
(11) “Highway,” every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place
in the state of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel
both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns;”

See Chapter 161, Laws of Washington state 2005, House Bill 1599, passed by the House
March 11, 2005, Yeas 93 and Nays 0, passed by the Senate April 12, 2005, Yeas 44 and
Nays 0. Approved April 22, 2005, C. Gregoire, Governor of the State of Washington;
FILED April 22, 2005 - 4:12 p.m., Secretary of State, State of Washington. Effective
date July 24, 2005. WA Laws of 2003, Chapter 244 (S.Bill 5977):
Sec. 2. RCW 47.04.010 and 1975 c 62 s 50 are each amended to read as follows:
The following words and phrases, wherever used in this title, shall have the
meaning as in this section ascribed to them, unless where used the context thereof
shall clearly indicate to the contrary or unless otherwise defined in the chapter of
which they are a part:
(11) {+ “Highway.” Every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or
place in the state of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular
travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns;”

As late as July of 2005 the collective mind of the WA Legislature unanimously viewed
and deemed Aggrieved Respondent’s conduct of public vehicular travel to be a right and
not a privilege, and WA’s former AG now Governor approved of it; it’s the law, still.
RCW 46.10.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter the words and phrases in this section
shall have the designated meanings unless a different meaning is expressly provided or
the context otherwise clearly indicated.
(6) “Public roadway” shall mean the entire width of the right of way of any road or
street designed and ordinarily used for travel or parking of motor vehicles, which is
controlled by a public authority other than the Washington state department of
transportation, and which is open as a matter of right to the general public for
ordinary vehicular traffic.

(“WAC”) Washington Administrative Code 296-32-210 Definitions.


(46) “Public highway.” Every way, land, road, street, boulevard, and every way or
place in the state open as matter of right to public vehicular travel, both inside and
outside the limit of cities and towns.

WAC 296-45-035 Definitions. These definitions apply to chapter 296-45 WAC.


“Public highway” - Every way, land, road, street, boulevard, and every other way
or place in the state open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel, both
inside and outside the limits of cities and towns, regardless of ownership.
111. Affiant hereby asserts that a Right preserved by statute has been denied public
vehicular travelers under malice, threat, duress and coercion through the knowing
intentional misenforcement of Revised Code of Washington 46 Motor Vehicles for
the purposes of extortion in a racketeering scheme, as evidenced in the excessive
amounts demanded through many of these fines and the sheer volume of
“infractions” or citations/tickets issued to people for victimless “crimes” or “civil
infractions” by the various state and local police departments as agents of corrupt,
greedy, financially incompetent, immoral, extortionate, elitist, thieving, oath
violating, racketeering, deceitful politicians and lawyers if both lawful and
common understanding is correct about the many laws in WA and elsewhere
which say the right exists.
112. Affiant hereby asserts through the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that the
government is without doubt engaging in entrapment, racketeering, and extortion since,
if traffic tickets were really about “safety”, the government would not allow fast cars to
be built. Since the government does allow for automobiles to be built that can travel
well in excess of any “legal” speed limit anywhere in the states, they are clearly
encouraging motorists to 'break the law' in order to ensure a continuous flow of
revenue.
Denial of Corporate Existence

113. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a fictional entity or corporation or surety for a fictional corporate
entity under the title of “DEANNA GAY MINTZ, “DEANNA GAY: MINTZ”,
“DEANNA G. MINTZ”, “DEANNA G MINTZ”, “DEANNA MINTZ”, “MINTZ,
DEANNA GAY”, “MINTZ, DEANNA G.”, “MINTZ, DEANNA G”, “MINTZ,
DEANNA GAY:”, “Deanna G. Mintz”, “Deanna G Mintz”, “Deanna Mintz”, “Mintz,
Deanna Gay”, “Mintz, Deanna Gay:”, “Mintz, Deanna”, “Mintz, Deanna G.”, “Mintz,
Deanna G”, or any other such ens legis, nom de guerre, or persona designata illegally
and unlawfully created and presumed by any corporation, person, level of government,
or judgment, including but not limited to any corporate State statute, State department,
attorney, lawyer, federal agency, corporate federal statute, or governmental agencies,
fiduciaries, or instrumentality. Such noms de guerre, personas designata, ens legis, or
idem sonans were created and established by a bankrupt person which is dead in Law
and therefore are persona non standi in judicio for the purpose of misleading Affiant to
Affiant’s prejudice and are not commonly known in any fashion, especially Biblical
Law and common law. Affiant hereby denies that any such corporation exists
114. Affiant hereby denies that the following alleged entities, alleged persons, or alleged
corporations, allegedly municipal or allegedly otherwise, or other alleged entities of
similar spelling, word content, and capitalization, exist: STATE OF WASHINGTON;
State of Washington; WASHINGTON STATE; Washington State; COUNTY OF
DOUGLAS; County of Douglas; DOUGLAS COUNTY; Douglas County; CITY OF
EAST WENATCHEE; City of East Wenatchee; CITY OF WENATCHEE;
WASHINGTON STATE PATROL; Washington State Patrol; DOUGLAS COUNTY
BAR ASSOCIATION; Douglas County Bar Association; Washington State Bar
Association; American Bar Association; all other alleged Bar Associations; MINTZ,
DEANNA G.; MINTZ, DEANNA GAY; DEANNA GAY MINTZ; DEANNA G.
MINTZ; The State of Washington, the peace and dignity of the State of Washington,
and any and all other alleged corporations, or other alleged legal entities, that may be
alleged to be associated, or joined in some fashion, with the above fictional characters,
or other alleged entities, and there to be associated with any complaints against myself.
Judicial Notice: No Known Nature of Action and Cause, No Jurisdiction
over Affiant, No Fair Trail Possible for Affiant, No Understanding by
Affiant of Documents
115. Affiant has no knowing, willing, intentional, or voluntary contract, nexus, or
connection with the “State of Washington”, “Washington State”, “STATE OF
WASHINGTON”, “WASHINGTON STATE”, “DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR
VEHICLES”, “DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION”, “STATE OF ARIZONA”,
“ARIZONA STATE”, “Arizona State”, “State of Arizona”, “DOUGLAS COUNTY”,
“COUNTY OF DOUGLAS”, “Douglas County”, and/or “County of Douglas.”
116. Affiant cannot and did not knowingly or willingly sign any implied or express
agreement, promise, or contract and cannot agree to "Respond as Directed" on this
alleged citation because this alleged citation/document, and its directed responses omit
and ignore many of the Aggrieved Respondents natural, substantial, spiritual,
unalienable, God-given, and constitutionally protected Rights, including but not limited
to the Right to enjoy and use one's own personal, non-commercial recreational vehicle
in the course of conducting the Aggrieved Respondent's own private affairs without
government interference so long as no other man or woman is harmed bodily or
property-wise, the Right to be Left Alone, and the Right to Privacy.
117. Affiant cannot and did not knowingly or willingly sign any implied or express
agreement, promise, or contract and cannot agree to "Respond as Directed" on this
alleged citation because Affiant does not understand this alleged NOTICE OF
INFRACTION/WASHINGTON UNIFORM COURT DOCKET, and its directed
responses.
118. Affiant cannot and did not knowingly or willingly accept or receive this legal document
titled “NOTICE OF INFRACTION” and “WASHINGTON UNIFORM COURT
DOCKET” I 6039395, because its terms are not understandable by Affiant and are in
obvious conflict. In one hand, the document claims to be a NOTICE of a non-criminal
offense for which Affiant cannot go to jail and in the other hand claims that if I do not
respond or appear for court hearings that my “NOTICE OF INFRACTION” is a crime
and “will be treated accordingly”. Which is this thing – a civil or criminal issue?
119. Affiant cannot and did not knowingly or willingly accept or receive this legal paper,
nor can Affiant respond as directed on this document as Affiant does not know and has
not been told clearly and concisely what the nature and cause of the action against
Affiant is.
120. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find evidence that, if the
nature and cause of this action is “At Law”, there is any actual injured party. In
accordance with the supreme Law of God as written in His Writ, Will, and Testament,
natural law, constitutional law, and Christian Common Law, if there is no real injured
party, then there is no crime or right of action.
121. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find any lawful evidence
that, if the nature and cause of this action is “In Hustings”, Affiant is an artificial
person. Affiant thereby asserts that, unless the Plaintiff can show for the record
physical proof that Affiant has chartered as such with the Secretary of State’s office,
there is no crime or right of action.
122. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find any lawful evidence
that, if the nature and cause of action against Affiant is Admiralty, the Affiant
committed the alleged offense on federal territory over which the State has retained
concurrent jurisdiction.
123. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find any lawful evidence
that, if the nature and cause of action against Affiant is “in Equity”, there is any valid
international contract or agreement signed knowingly, intentionally, voluntarily, and
with full disclosure of the consequences by Affiant. In Equity or Admiralty, where
there is no valid contract, there is no cause of action.
124. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find any lawful evidence
that, if the nature and cause of action against Affiant is Military or Martial Law, Affiant
is a member of the military or that the nation is under a state of martial law. No
member of the military, no right or cause of action.
125. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any evidence that the alleged
Officer #736 has any physical evidence of Affiant committing an act of wrongdoing.
126. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any evidence that the alleged
police officer has any independent witnesses to corroborate his alleged testimony.
127. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any evidence that the alleged
plaintiff and OFFICER #736 has acted against respondent with probable cause.
128. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any evidence that OFFICER
#736 and alleged plaintiff acted against Affiant with any real authority, jurisdiction,
and with any physical evidence of wrongdoing.
129. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any evidence that OFFICER
#736/Plaintiff did not knowingly and intentionally misenforce RCW 46 against Affiant.
130. Affiant has researched extensively the organic laws of the united states of America,
including two hundred years of American case law (i.e., Common law), and affirms
that Affiant has secured the UNALIENABLE and FUNDAMENTAL,
UNRESTRICTED and UNREGULATED RIGHT TO TRAVEL upon both the public
walkways and the highways, and transport my personal and allodial property, duly
conveyed, unhindered by any private, corporate or statutory law, or Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) regulation or so-called requirement. This unalienable right to
travel is guaranteed by the 9th & 10th Amendments of the organic Constitution for the
united states of America and Bill of Rights, and upheld by many court decisions in
support of that right. Affiant now explicitly RESERVES, ASSERTS and DEFENDS
that right.
131. Affiant does not under any circumstances utilize the public highways for commercial
purposes. Affiant is not a 14th Amendment legal "person" engaged in interstate
commerce, nor does Affiant derive income from the travel and transport of goods.
132. Affiant is not a "driver," nor is Affiant an "operator" of a "motor vehicle.” The driver's
license is for motor vehicles involved in commerce only.
133. Affiant’s former private, self-propelled contrivance/carriage is not and was not at the
time of being detained by Washington State Patrol OFFICER #736 involved in
commerce, therefore, it was not a "motor vehicle." The corporate State of Washington
Department of Motor Vehicle code does not disclose the true intent and purpose of the
statutes, though a "motor vehicle" is adequately and clearly defined in the United States
Code (USC).

"Motor Vehicle means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or


drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes."—18 USC 31.

"The privilege of using the streets and highways by the operation thereon of motor
carriers for hire can be acquired only by permission or license from the state or its
political subdivision."—Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed, page 830.

134. Affiant is not effectively connected with a trade or business in the corporate monopoly
of the United States government, whether federal, State, county or Municipal. Affiant
has not knowingly or willingly waived any of Affiant’s unalienable, God-given Rights.
135. Affiant has thereby determined and hereby affirms by Affidavit and under oath, by
virtue of Affiant’s sovereign Citizenship and American case law, that Affiant is not
required to have government permission to travel, not required to have a driver's
license, not required to have vehicle registration of my personal property, nor to
surrender the lawful title of my duly conveyed property to the State as security against
government indebtedness and the undeclared federal bankruptcy. Any administrative
rule, regulation or statutory act of any State legislature or judicial tribunal to the
contrary is unlawful and clearly unconstitutional, thus NULL and VOID. American
case law has clearly adjudicated that:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making
or legislation which would abrogate them."—Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a


crime."—Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489 "There can be no sanction or penalty
imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." —Sherar v.
Cullen, 481 F. 945.
136. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on any legitimate
record that any action involving a NOTICE OF INFRACTION/ WASHINGTON
UNIFORM COURT DOCKET issued, confiscation, impoundment or search and
seizure of my private property by a police OFFICER or any other public servant or
employee that carries a fine or jail time is not a penalty or sanction, thus converting a
right into a crime; making any such citation or NOTICE OF INFRACTION NULL and
VOID. Under every circumstance without exception, government officials must hold
the Constitution for the united states of America (1791) supreme over ANY other laws,
regulations or orders.
137. Affiant is not in receipt of any evidence or document that clearly proves that every
police (executive) OFFICER or judicial OFFICER does not need to have a sworn oath
and an oath of office notarized, sealed, and on record along with the swearing of an
oath to protect the lives, property and rights of the citizens of the united states of
America under the supreme law of the land on file with either the court clerk or the
state.
138. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence that any of the
Douglas County District Court Judges, the Douglas County Prosecutor/District
Attorney, or OFFICER #736 have the constitutionally required oaths of office on file
anywhere. If so, please provide them to Affiant without delay to the mailing location
provided at the top of this Affidavit.
139. Affiant is not in receipt of any document that verifies that any act to deprive state
Citizens of their constitutionally protected rights is not a direct violation of their oath of
office, a felony and a federal crime.

" The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several state Legislatures, and all executive and judicial OFFICERs, both of the
United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to
support this Constitution;" —Constitution for the united states of America, Article 6.

140. Affiant, in accordance with Affiant’s reading of government law and code, clearly sees
by the plain wording of the Constitution that any action by a police (i.e., executive)
OFFICER, OFFICER of the court, public servant or government official to assert
unlawful authority under the "color of law" will be construed as a direct and willful
violation of Affiant’s constitutionally protected rights, and is prosecutable to the full
extent of American law.

"Public officials are not immune from suit when they transcend their lawful
authority by invading constitutional rights."—AFLCIO v. Woodward, 406 F2d
137.

"Whoever under the color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom,
willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state, Territory, or District to the
deprivation of ANY rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution of laws of the United States...shall be fined not more than $1,000 or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both..."—18 USC 242.

141. This AFFIDAVIT also certifies that the Affiant has previously completed and passed a
test measuring Affiant’s competency to safely control a motorized personal conveyance
upon the public highways within the united states of America. Affiant has also met or
exceeded all common sense requirements concerning the "rules of the road" and the
ability to maneuver a motorized personal conveyance in a safe and responsible manner.
142. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any lawful evidence why
Plaintiff and alleged OFFICER #736’s claim/case/action should not be Abated,
Estopped, and Dismissed Without Prejudice for Lack of Jurisdiction, Denial of Due
Process, Violation of Oath of Office by OFFICER #736 and Legislature, and for
Violation/Denial of Rights under Color of Law
143. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find proof on any record that
verifies that all “Code” charges or accusations are not “Bills of Pains and Penalties”
which are Unconstitutional. [Article 1, section 9, clause 3, section 10]
144. Affiant has not ever knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, or intentionally given up any of
Affiant’s natural, God-given, absolute, fundamental, and/or unalienable Rights in
exchange for any privilege or benefit.
145. Affiant has not ever knowingly, willingly, or intentionally attempted to enjoy the
benefit of “Limited Liability for the payment of Debts”.
146. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
any corporation, “person”, “individual”, or government agency, branch, or
instrumentality have not failed to provide everyone, especially Affiant, with “Good
Faith” Explanation, and “Written Notice”, as Required by their “Code”, thus Affiant
could not have had knowledgeable “Intent”, nor “Informed Consent” to consent to be
regulated. [See Declaration of Independence, paragraph two, “Consent of governed.”
147. Alleged creditors, governments, and all of their agents, instrumentalities, and superiors
and their agents and instrumentalities are and would be committing “Barratry”,
“Concealment of qualifying and material facts”, and “Fraudulent concealment” because
they “knew, should have known, and had ability to know” and they failed to disclose to
Affiant the nature and cause of the alleged action against Affiant or the nature and
terms of any offered, or forced upon, license, etc. It is “Collusion” and “Conspiracy” by
Lawyers and all government agents and instrumentalities under “Color of Law” to
deprive Affiant of Natural, God-given Rights secured against infringement from
corporate government by the God Almighty and the Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus,
the Christ, in the Holy Bible, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Magna
Charta, and state and federal constitutions.
148. Alleged creditors, plaintiffs, complainants, governments, and all of their agents,
instrumentalities lack “Standing to approach the Court” and are estopped from filing
any claim, due to their Privity and Knowledge, due to Congress having unilaterally
declared bankruptcy in 1932, thereby repudiating its Contracts. The bankrupt
Creditor(s) has “no Standing” to use the courts to adjudicate its claims to collect any
alleged debts or force upon another any acts it creates, unless by Contract before
bankruptcy occurred, and thus Creditor has not provided Affiant with sufficient
knowledge or information to form a responsive answer.
149. Affiant is not in receipt of any document verifying that Creditors or said government
agencies and their instrumentalities and OFFICERs have without “Waiver” or
“Consent/Assent” produced the original “Contract” bearing Affiant’s duly authorized
and notarized signature to obtain “standing”. For anyone to proceed against Affiant
without duly signed contract is non est factum and would be an involuntary servitude.
[See Clyat vs. U.S., 197 U.S. 107; Bailey vs. State of Alabama, 219 U.S. 219; U.S. vs.
Ike Kozminsky et al, 487 U.S. 931, 934]
150. Affiant is not in receipt of any document that verifies that Creditor or any level of
government has brought forth an original, valid contract convening Creditor’s or
governments’ “Administrative Process”Courts, with Creditor’s or government
witnesses, which would is deprivation of Due Process.
151. Affiant cannot find any evidence that due process and fair trial requirements are able to
be met in any Court where the State is party to the alleged action against Affiant, the
State is represented on both sides of the bench, the witness is paid by the State to extort
money from the People and Affiant for the State through the issuance of
“INFRACTIONS”, and the lawyers are all oath bound to support the best interests of
the Court and State.
152. As Creditors/Complainants were created by the State and the Plaintiff is also “THE
STATE” or other instrumentality, and as “In all Cases to which the STATE (fiction) is
a Party, its Claims appear to be a Fiction of Law, “a legal assumption that a thing is
true, which is either not true or which is as probably false as true, an assumption or
supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of
facts exists which has never really taken place; the assumption as true of something
known to be false; the assumption, for the alleged purposes of justice (Revenue), of a
fact which does not or may not exist”, -that is a “sham pleading”, “One which is
inherently false and must have been known by the Interposing Party, the Plaintiff, to be
untrue.”
153. Affiant is not in receipt of any documents that verify that Affiant has committed a
“mala in se” crime and that a valid, original Contract with Creditor or any level of
government, signed under full disclosure knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily by
Affiant, ever has been or ever was brought forth, thus the maxim of the 1789 “First
Judiciary Act” applies where therein it is stated “All Jurisdiction is based upon
consent.” No consent was given thereby no jurisdiction can be obtained by the court.
154. Affiant is not in receipt of any documents nor can Affiant find any evidence that
verifies that Affiant has harmed any fiction or every Man, Woman, and Child in the
State. If Plaintiff is suing Affiant in the name of the STATE OF WASHINGTON or on
behalf of all of the Citizenry, Affiant demands that the Plaintiff’s attorney present the
signed Power of Attorney documents from every Citizen in Washington or at least
Douglas county and that all of the alleged Plaintiff’s appear and give testimony as to
how Affiant injured or impeded their Rights, bodies, or property.
155. Affiant has not now nor has Affiant ever been able to find effective counsel. Affiant
has diligently searched for counsel that is unfettered and unbeholden to the alleged
Plaintiff(s). The only people allowed to be counselors are those who have taken a
solemn oath to support the Plaintiff(s). Attorneys are also officers of the state and the
court who have a duty to see that defendants are punished for violating Plaintiff’s laws.
Thus the first duty of an attorney to the courts, not to their clients, and, when duties
conflict, their duties to the court must take precedence – 7 Corpus Juris Secundum,
section 4, page 801-802, Footnotes 53 through 56. It seems impossible for Affiant to
obtain counsel that can present Affiant’s side of the conflict because of the attorney’s
first loyalty to the Plaintiff.
156. Affiant is not qualified to represent herself or even appear in propia persona and is
unwilling to waive the Right to effective, unbiased counsel. There is no attorney that
can be found in any of the states of the union who can practice law in Washington that
is free to effectively counsel Affiant and is not beholden to the Plaintiff/State.
157. Affiant cannot get a fair trial or have due process in this matter because the judge, like
all judges, has taken a loyalty oath to support the Plaintiff/State and is a party to the
alleged action against Affiant. The judges are employees of the Plaintiff/State and are
paid large sums of money from the Plaintiff to enforce the will of the Plaintiff. How
can the judge hearing any alleged case against the Affiant be neutral and unbiased?
158. Affiant cannot get a fair trial and have Affiant’s due process protections enforced even
in a jury trial since every juror is a member of the state and is, therefore, one with the
Plaintiff. Jurors are required to swear oaths to support the Plaintiff/State. They too
receive small amounts of money from the Plaintiff. Some receive large amounts of
money form the Plaintiff in the form of government jobs or handouts. Jurors have an
intimate and longstanding relationship with the Plaintiff, but have never met the
Affiant.
159. Affiant cannot necessarily get honest testimony or fair trial in traffic court from the law
enforcement “Witness”, who is also often acting as prosecution, since the law
enforcement officers have a very close relationship to the Plaintiff, or in some cases
claim to be the plaintiff, and are not impartial. OFFICER #736 and all law
enforcement officers are paid to go out and enforce the Plaintiff’s laws and then to
testify in court to alleged facts that will help win the Plaintiff/State’s action. The whole
livelihood of law enforcement officers depends on doing the State/Plaintiff’s will. The
law enforcement officers whole job security and chance of promotions and raises
depends on the number of tickets they write and how much money they can help the
Plaintiff extort in fines from the Citizenry.
160. Affiant has yet to find a law enforcement officer willing to honor their Oaths of Office
or that even understands the full meaning and imprecations of honoring said required
Oath. Many law enforcement officers, when asked about their Oaths of Office by a
confused or distressed People, even blatantly state “the Oath does not matter and means
nothing. You have to do what I tell you because the ‘law’ says…”, even if that law is
clearly unconstitutional, unethical, and without basis or foundation, despite the fact that
one of this nation’s founding principals and rules of law per the supreme court is that
any law that is contrary to or in violation of the Constitution, state or federal, is “Null
and Void as though it were never written” and no one is obligated to enforce or obey
such laws. Such behavior and comments from policemen only proves that most law
enforcement officers are acting under color of law, without lawful authority, and
debasing themselves to nothing more than the ruling elite’s armed extortion and
racketeer men.
161. Affiant cannot receive a fair trial or due process protections in the Douglas County
District Court or any other STATE OF WASHINGTON court because the court was
created by the Plaintiff/State. Specifically, it is an administrative unit of the legislature
and is only a court in name and not in function. It carries out the will of its creator, the
Plaintiff/State. Therefore, the court has been fettered to the Plaintiff/State and is not an
impartial tribunal. It is clear in the fourth article, section one of the Washington
Constitution that power of the lower courts is under the arm of the legislature, instead
of being a separate branch of government. This constitutes breach of the Separation of
Powers Doctrine and is a violation of due process. The same with the appeals court.
What chance is there of a fair trial when the Plaintiff/State makes the laws, employs the
police to enforce the laws, adjudicates the laws in the Plaintiff’s own courts, and the
judges, prosecutor, witness, public defenders, and jury are not just paid by the Plaintiff
– they are the Plaintiff
162. Affiant is not in receipt of any document nor can Affiant find any evidence that
Plaintiff is not a fiction, which cannot be harmed, and that Plaintiff is not unlawfully
and illegally suing in the name of and on behalf of another.
163. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence that Affiant has
ever, in the past or present, voluntarily, willingly, knowingly, intentionally, with full
disclosure given by the State or other party involved, consented to being party to any
government contract, trust, judgment, private corporate State statute, or other legal
disability without the State, or an agent of the State, a court official, a Bar Association
member, or another agent or instrumentality of the State or federal government
applying threat, duress, coercion, fraud in the inducement, and/or extortion.
164. Affiant is not in receipt of any document that verifies a valid contract or claim by any
person or entity, including but not limited to any State to lien, levy, or confiscate
Affiant’s real and/or personal property which properly names Affiant as an “obligor”,
“person”, “individual”, “debtor”, or any other commercial label.
165. Affiant is not required to perform the impossible. Since no State shall make any Thing
but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts, no State can claim that Affiant
owes any State or any other entity any Debt that is constitutionally payable per the
maxim ‘Lex non cogit ad impossibilia; Law does not seek to compel a man to do that
which is impossible; ‘the law requires nothing impossible.’
166. Affiant does not understand court proceedings or anything in the WRC fully as Affiant
does not speak legalese.
167. Affiant, (the living soul), demands that OFFICER #736, Prosecution, Judge claiming
authority to hear the alleged case, and Plaintiff immediately provide Affiant a copy of
each of your corporation’s charters, as Plaintiff’s attempts to contract Me are outside of
Plaintiff’s power and therefore all such acts are Ultra Vires. Also provide me with each
of your bond numbers and bonding company’s names and addresses. Plaintiff, Witness,
and Douglas County District Court officials only have Affiant’s permission to mail
Affiant these items requested in this Affidavit.
168. Affiant hereby asserts Affiant’s Rights and states that the OFFICER # 736, the STATE
OF WASHINGTON, its Principals, or other OFFICERs or agents of the COUNTY OF
DOUGLAS, the CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE, and or the STATE OF
WASHINGTON are attempting to extort Affiant’s valuable time and or an excise tax
against Affiant’s right to locomotion. That is unlawful. [Jack Cole Co. vs. Alfred T.
McFarland, Sup. Court Tenn. 337 S.W. 2d. 453: “Legislature can name any privilege a
taxable privilege and tax it by means other than an income tax, but legislature cannot
name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege…” and Refield vs.
Fisher, Sup. Court Oregon 292 at 813: “The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot
be taxed for the mere privilege of existing” and for the right to locomotion by any
means. “The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter
powers to the state; but the individual’s right to live and own property are natural
Rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed…”]
169. Affiant’s Summary Judgment to anyone associated with the STATE OF
WASHINGTON, the CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE, the DOUGLAS COUNTY, or
any heirs, agents and assigns thereof; is to cease and desist immediately in this matter
as “OFFICER #736” has engaged in contracting based on fraud and illegality and
therefore “OFFICER #736” et al have NO LAWFUL CLAIM TO ME OR MY
PROPERTY!
170. The State of Washington has a "Higher Duty" to know the Constitution and law, and to
convey the truth of the law to its citizens. To do otherwise suggests fraud... "Silence
can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where
an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone
this shocking behavior... This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is
routine it should be corrected immediately." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also
U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932. "The parties are
entitled to know the findings and conclusions on all of the issues of fact, law, or
discretion presented on the record." citing Butz v. Economou 438 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct.
2894, 57 L. Ed. 2d 895, (1978). FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION v. SOUTH
CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY et al. certiorari to the united states court
of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 01-46. 2.535 U.S. 743, 122 S. Ct. 1864, 152 L. Ed.
2d 962, (2002). Argued February 25, 2002--Decided May 28, 2002. See also FRCPA
Rule 52(a) and United States v. Lovasco 431 U.S. 783 (06/09/77), 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L.
Ed. 2d 752, and Holt v. United States 218 U.S. 245 (10/31/10), 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S.
Ct.

Further that Affiant does solemnly attest that the aforegoing facts contained herein are true,
correct, and complete to the best of My knowledge and belief, in Witness, Knowing the
Punishment for bearing false witness before the Almighty God and men, I solemnly avow that I
have read the foregoing Affidavit and know the contents thereof; that the same is true of My Own
Knowledge, except to the matters which are therein stated on My information and belief, and as
to those matters, I believe them to be true. All mention of maxims, Sate law, federal law, and
case law is not to be construed as granting jurisdiction or placing Affiant under those laws, but is
meant to remind the courts, fictitious parties, corporate entities, officers of the courts, State
agents, etc. of the rules and laws they are bound by.

Sealed under the Authority, and by Direction, of Christ Jesus, by His Direct act of My own hand
on this _______________day of the eleventh month of the Year of Our Sovereign Lord and
Saviour Jesus, the Christ, two-thousand-nine, without the United States or any State, with explicit
reservation of all My unalienable rights without prejudice and with exception to none.

Solely by the Grace of God do I have the Honor of being a sister and bondservant of Christ.

Affiant Name

Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of ___________________________________ in


the California republic, in the county known as ________________________________.
On this the _______ day of ______________________________, common era two-thousand-
nine, before me, a Notary Public, the undersigned officer, personally appeared a woman who
identified herself as Deanna Gay: Mintz is subscribed to the within instrument, and
acknowledged that the she executed the same for the purposes therein contained.

_______________________________________
Notary Public
Page twenty-five of twenty-five