1 Your name

2 Your address
3
4 [City, ST ZIP Code]
5
6
7
8 [COURT NAME]
9
10 [PLAINTIFF'S NAME], Case No.: [Number]
11
12 Plaintiff,
13 vs.
14 NOTICE TO COURT
15
[DEFENDANT'S NAME],
OBJECTION NON-STATUTORY
16 COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
17 Defendant
18 WARRANTO PROCEEDING
19 CHALLENGING JURISDICTION
20 OF THE COURT TO ISSUE
21 ORDER OF SUPPORT IN
22
23
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
24
25 NOTICE TO COURT
26
OBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO

WARRANTO PROCEEDING

CHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO ISSUE ORDER OF

SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS

1
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1
2
3
Comes now, the undersigned [type in your name, not in capital letters and remove
4
5
6 brackets] is a private1 living Man with blood running through his body and one of
7
8 the people of the several states and he is unconditionally sovereign within their
9
10
respective states.2
11
12
13 The undersigned [type in your name, not in capital letters and remove
14
15 brackets] is filing on record3 a notice of objection by writ of quo warranto4 for
16
17
18 challenging jurisdiction of the court and challenging the authority of the
19
20
1
What is PRIVATE? Affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinct from the public
21 generally. Not official. https://thelawdictionary.org/private/
22
23
2
"It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and
24 the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are
25 unconditionally sovereign within their respective states." Ohio Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Debolt,
26 57 US 416 - Supreme 1854.
3
Record
Record means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an
electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form. 45 CFR § 301.1
4
QUO WARRANTO: A writ, in the nature of a writ of right for the king, [sovereign] against
him who claimed or usurped any office, franchise, or liberty, to inquire by what authority he
supported his claim, in order to determine the right. It lay also in case of non-user, or long
neglect of a franchise, or misuser or abuse of it; being a writ commanding the defendant to show
by what warrant he exercises such a franchise, having never had any grant of it, or having
forfeited it by neglect or abuse. 3 Bl.Comm. 262. It is intended to prevent exercise of powers that
are not conferred by law, and is not ordinarily available to regulate the manner of exercising
such powers. State ex rel. Johnson v. Conservative Savings & Loan Ass’n, 143 Neb. 805, 11
N.W.2d 89, 92, 93. In England, and quite generally throughout the United States, this writ has
given place to an ‘information in the nature of a quo warranto,’ which, though in form a
criminal proceeding, is in effect a civil remedy similar to the old writ, and is the method now
usually employed for trying the title to a corporate or other franchise, or to a public or corporate
office. Ames v. Kansas, 111 U.S. 449, 4 S.Ct. 437, 28 L.Ed. 482; People v. Londoner, 13 Colo.
303, 22 P. 764, 6 L.R.A. 444.
2
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1 constitutional officer to preside over expedited processes 45 CFR 303.101(c)
2
3
4 (2).
5
6 The undersigned is a private living man with blood flowing through his body
7
8
and one of the people of the several states and he is unconditionally sovereign
9
10
11 within the territorial boundaries of this state [Type in your state and remove
12
13 brackets] and thereby without the consent by the undersigned this court is
14
15
16 prohibited to presume that the undersigned is a person5 who must participate in
17
18 legal process,6quasi-judicial proceedings,7 or expedited processes 45 CFR
19
20
21 303.101(c)(2).8
22
23 It is an adjudicated fact, State ex rel. Vance v. Wellman, 222 So.2d 449, 449
24
25
26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) not only must a challenge to the authority of a judge or

prosecutor be timely, but it also must be brought by a direct quo warranto

proceeding. Ordinarily, this should first be presented to the circuit court..”

5
42 USC § 1301(a)(3)The term “person” means an individual, a trust or estate, a partnership, or a
corporation.
6
42 USC § 659(i)(5)The term “legal process” means any writ, order, summons, or other
similar process in the nature of garnishment— (A)which is issued by— (i)a or an administrative
agency of competent jurisdiction in any State, territory, or possession of the United States;
7
Quasi-judicial Definition 1) A proceeding conducted by an administrative or executive official
that is similar to a proceeding, e.g. a hearing. A may review a decision arising from a quasi-
judicial proceeding. 2) A judicial act performed by an official who is either not a judge or not
acting in his or her capacity as a judge.
8
§ 303.101 Expedited processes (c) Safeguards. Under expedited processes: (2) The due
process rights of the parties involved must be protected;
3
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1 Therefore, the undersigned has merit to bring a challenge of personal
2
3
4 jurisdiction and constitutional authority into this court.
5
6
7
8 THE FOLLOWING FACTS PRESENTED ON RECORD MUST BE
9
10
11 REBUTTED BY THIS ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OR ITS SILENCE
12
13 SHOWS THAT THIS ADMINISTRATIVE COURT LACKS STANDING,
14
15 CONSENT AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE
16
17
18 UNDERSIGNED
19
20
21
22 1. It is now on record before the court the undersigned is a private living man
23
24
with blood flowing through his body and one of the people of the several
25
26
states and he is unconditionally sovereign within the territorial boundaries

of this state [Type in your state and remove brackets] and thereby without

the consent by the undersigned this court is prohibited to presume that the

4
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1 undersigned is a person9 who must participate in legal process,10quasi-
2
3
4 judicial proceedings,11 or expedited processes 45 CFR 303.101(c)(2).12
5
6 2. It is now on record that the undersigned [your name and remove brackets]
7
8 does not consent to expedited processes or legal process.
9
10
11 3. It is now on record before the court, [Type in your name] is invoking
12
13 inalienable rights created by God and secured by the law of the land the Bill
14
15 of Rights.
16
17
18 4. It is now on record before the court, [Type in your name] the alleged
19
20 defendant is domiciled within the boundaries of a state defined by the
21
22 constitution and the Supreme Court in matter Texas v. White, 74 US 700 -
23
24
25 Supreme Court 1869, as “a political community of free citizens, occupying
26
a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government

9
42 USC § 1301(a)(3)The term “person” means an individual, a trust or estate, a partnership, or a
corporation.
10
42 USC § 659(i)(5)The term “legal process” means any writ, order, summons, or other
similar process in the nature of garnishment— (A)which is issued by— (i)a or an administrative
agency of competent jurisdiction in any State, territory, or possession of the United States;
11
Quasi-judicial Definition 1) A proceeding conducted by an administrative or executive
official that is similar to a proceeding, e.g. a hearing. A may review a decision arising from a
quasi-judicial proceeding. 2) A judicial act performed by an official who is either not a judge or
not acting in his or her capacity as a judge.
12
§ 303.101 Expedited processes (c) Safeguards. Under expedited processes: (2) The due
process rights of the parties involved must be protected;
5
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1 sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the
2
3
consent of the governed.”
4
5
6 5. The undersigned is refusing to consent to waiving personal jurisdiction,
7
8 subject matter jurisdiction.
9
10
6. The undersigned is refusing to consent to waive inalienable rights.
11
12
13 7. The undersigned shall not be deprived of life, liberty, property, except by
14
15 the due course of the law of the land.13
16
17
8. Furthermore, due process of law must be safeguarded under Expedited
18
19
20 Processes 45 CFR 303.101(c)(2)14 requiring a judgment by peers after a trial
21
22 by jury. It is the duty of the constitutional officer to safeguard
23
24
9. Take judicial notice of evidence of an adjudicated fact15 Arthur Lee
25
26
JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF the STATE ATTORNEY, etc.,

13
“The words, "due process of law," were undoubtedly intended to convey the same meaning as
the words, "by the law of the land," in Magna Charta. Lord Coke, in his commentary on those
words, (2 Inst. 50,) says they mean due process of law. The constitutions which had been adopted
by the several States before the formation of the federal constitution, following the language of
the great charter more closely, generally contained the words, "but by the judgment of his peers,
or the law of the land."” Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 US 272 -
Supreme Court 1856
14
§ 303.101 Expedited processes (c) Safeguards. Under expedited processes: (2) The due
process rights of the parties involved must be protected;
15
“Not only must a challenge to the authority of a judge or prosecutor be timely, but it also must
be brought by a direct quo warranto proceeding. Ordinarily, this should first be presented to the
circuit court. State ex rel. Vance v. Wellman, 222 So.2d 449, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).” Arthur
Lee JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF the STATE ATTORNEY, etc., Defendants No.
5D08-710. Decided: July 25, 2008 District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
6
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1 Defendants No. 5D08-710. Decided: July 25, 2008 District Court of Appeal
2
3
of Florida, Fifth District and thereby the undersigned has merit to file an
4
5
6 objection requiring a separate writ of quo warranto proceeding to
7
8 immediately challenge jurisdiction. 16
9
10
10. Take judicial notice of an adjudicated fact Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S.Ct.
11
12
13 830 Supreme Court (2018) 17 this state cannot cite a state law to prohibit the
14
15 use of a common law writ of quo warranto proceeding, because the
16
17
Supreme Court, the court of last resort has held that the Due Process Clause,
18
19
20 among other things, protects "those settled usages and modes of proceeding
21
22 existing in the common and statute law of England, before the emigration of
23
24
our ancestors,” and thereby the undersigned has legal merit to claim the
25
26
right to file an objection requiring a separate writ of quo warranto

proceeding to challenge jurisdiction and the lawful authority of the judicial

actor or judge surrogate.

16
“Not only must a challenge to the authority of a judge or prosecutor be timely, but it also must
be brought by a direct quo warranto proceeding. Ordinarily, this should first be presented to the
circuit court. State ex rel. Vance v. Wellman, 222 So.2d 449, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).” Arthur
Lee JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF the STATE ATTORNEY, etc., Defendants No.
5D08-710. Decided: July 25, 2008 District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
17
“The Due Process Clause, among other things, protects "those settled usages and modes of
proceeding existing in the common and statute law of England, before the emigration of our
ancestors," and which were brought by them to this country.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S.Ct.
830 Supreme Court (2018)
7
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1 11. Take judicial notice of an adjudicated fact Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S Ct
2
3
2502 (1980)18 that once jurisdiction has been challenged it must be proven
4
5
6 and thereby the undersigned has the legal merit to claim this court must
7
8 prove jurisdiction or it will default under federal rule 55 or a state law
9
10
equivalent.
11
12
13 12. Take judicial notice of the fact the undersigned is a man and thereby has
14
15 merit to support his claim that the court cannot presume the undersigned is a
16
17
person as defined under 28 USC Section 3002(10)19 that can be subjected to
18
19
20 legal process.
21
22 13. Take judicial notice of evidence of an adjudicated fact Texas v. White, 74
23
24
US 700 - Supreme Court 1869 the undersigned is a man, a citizen of the
25
26
state20 and thereby has merit to support his claim that the court requires his

consent to participate in expedited processes.

14. It is the understanding by the undersigned Defendant that any expedited

proceeding yielding a judgment not by peers is unquestionably a violation

18
“ The law provides that once state and federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be
proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S Ct 2502 (1980)
19
28 U.S. Code § 3002 (10) “Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian),
a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other
public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.
20
“a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and
organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established
by the consent of the governed.” Texas v. White, 74 US 700 - Supreme Court 1869
8
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1 of due process as defined by adjudicated fact Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken
2
3
Land & Improvement Co., 59 US 272 - Supreme Court 1856.21
4
5
6 15. It is the understanding by the undersigned Defendant that any expedited
7
8 proceeding yielding a judgment not by peers is unquestionably a violation
9
10
of Expedited Processes 45 CFR 303.101(c)(2).22
11
12
13 16. Take judicial notice of evidence of an adjudicated fact and Supreme Court
14
15 law Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 US 272 -
16
17
Supreme Court 1856 23 held any judgment not by peers causing the
18
19
20 deprivation of life, liberty, or property is unconstitutional.
21
22
21
“By the sixth and seventh articles of amendment, further special provisions were separately
23 made for that mode of trial in civil and criminal cases. To have followed, as in the state
24 constitutions, and in the ordinance of 1787, the words of Magna Charta, and declared that no
25 person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property but by the judgment of his peers or the
26 law of the land, would have been in part superfluous and inappropriate. To have taken the
clause, "law of the land," without its immediate context, might possibly have given rise to doubts,
which would be effectually dispelled by using those words which the great commentator on
Magna Charta had declared to be the true meaning of the phrase, "law of the land," in that
instrument, and which were undoubtedly then received as their true meaning. Murray's Lessee v.
Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 US 272 - Supreme Court 1856
22
§ 303.101 Expedited processes (c) Safeguards. Under expedited processes: (2) The due
process rights of the parties involved must be protected;
23
“By the sixth and seventh articles of amendment, further special provisions were separately
made for that mode of trial in civil and criminal cases. To have followed, as in the state
constitutions, and in the ordinance of 1787, the words of Magna Charta, and declared that no
person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property but by the judgment of his peers or the
law of the land, would have been in part superfluous and inappropriate. To have taken the
clause, "law of the land," without its immediate context, might possibly have given rise to doubts,
which would be effectually dispelled by using those words which the great commentator on
Magna Charta had declared to be the true meaning of the phrase, "law of the land," in that
instrument, and which were undoubtedly then received as their true meaning. Murray's Lessee v.
Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 US 272 - Supreme Court 1856
9
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1 17. Take judicial notice of an adjudicated fact United States v. Prudden, 424
2
3
F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1970) that his property is protected by the fourth
4
5
6 amendment OR a state constitutional equivalent and thereby the
7
8 undersigned must consent to have his income property seized without a
9
10
warrant by any wage garnishment or income withholding order issued by a
11
12
13 IV-D agency.
14
15 18. Take judicial notice that an withholding of income paper issued by a state
16
17
agency under 42 USC Section 666(b)(8) is unlawful for this state is not
18
19
20 within the territorial boundaries of the term State24 defined under 42 USC
21
22 Section 1301(a)(1) and therefore this state is without federal jurisdiction 42
23
24
USC Section 666(b)(8) to issue withholding of income papers.
25
26
19. It is a lawful fact that property can only be seized by a warrant issued by a

court and sworn by an officer under threat of perjury.

RELIEF

24
State 42 U.S. Code § 1301. Definitions (a) When used in this chapter—
(1) The term “State”, except where otherwise provided, includes the District of Columbia and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and when used in subchapters IV, V, VII, XI, XIX, and XXI
includes the Virgin Islands and Guam.
10
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1 This court is sanctioned and limited by the state constitution and constitution for
2
3
the united States and thereby must provide relief of discharging this matter for the
4
5
6 court lacks the authority to force the undersigned claimed defendant to participate
7
8 in expedited processes that undoubtedly deprive inalienable rights secured by
9
10
written constitutions.
11
12
13
14 FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO IN WRITING
15
16 WITHIN 10 DAYS IS EVIDENCE THIS ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AND
17
18
19 ITS PRESIDING OFFICIAL LACKS JURISDICTION AND CONSENT TO
20
21 PRESIDE OVER LEGAL PROCESS25AND THEREFORE WITHOUT
22
23 JURISDICTION AND CONSENT THE ISSUANCE OF WAGE
24
25
26 GARNISHMENT ORDERS IS ILLEGAL AND A DEFAULT JUDGMENT

WILL BE DOCKETED BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT UNDER

FEDERAL RULE 5526

Dated this [day] of [Month], [year].

25
42 USC § 659(i)(5)The term “legal process” means any writ, order, summons, or other
similar process in the nature of garnishment— (A)which is issued by— (i)a or an administrative
agency of competent jurisdiction in any State, territory, or possession of the United States;
26
Rule 55. Default; Default Judgment(d) Judgment Against the United States. A default
judgment may be entered against the United States, its officers, or its agencies only if the
claimant establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the court.
11
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -
 1
2 Your Name in upper and lower case
3
4 UCC 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

12
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTION NON-STATUTORY COMMON LAW WRIT OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGCHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
ISSUE ORDER OF SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS -