UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff

vs.

ERIC SCHMIDT

Defendant

Case No.: 5: 22 - mj - 00411 - DUTY

NOTICE:

JURISDICTION CHALLENGED
Comes now, :Eric: Schmidt, the living man in the flesh, challenging the Jurisdiction of this court;

1. This court has no delegated authority over the rights and freedoms of this living man, to
govern him without his consent, having caused no harm to any victim nor property; and;
2. Who adamantly objects to the color of law violations upon his right to pursue Liberty and
happiness as he sees fit, and;
3. Who vehemently stands upon the common law of this land, waiving no right at any time;
and;
4. Who is Not subject to the enumerated laws of the 'United States Code,' the Codes of
Federal Regulations nor the statutes of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, nor any other
regulations of any agency, ENTITY/entity, or defacto government therewith associated
by their very definitions of whom those rules were meant for to follow:
5. Who has not knowingly agreed to be bound by a contract to be governed thereby; and;
6. Who is Not the named Defendant, 'ERIC SCHMIDT'; and;
7. Who is Not a named party to this case; and;
8. Who is Not consenting to his involvement with any further proceedings to this case; and;
9. Who is Not agreeing to be any manner of legally joined entity' to the named Defendant,
'ERIC SCHMIDT'; and;
10. Whose religious beliefs forbid him to have parity of any legal joinder to any fictions of
law and dead entities; and;
11. Who objects to these recent stealthy encroachments upon a living man's God-given
rights; and;
12. Who is Not a U.S.Citizen, owing no allegiance to the Plaintiff, 'UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA'; and;
13. Who claims there is fraud in the factum and fraud in the inducement presently enacting
upon a living man; and; trespass upon the court by the Plaintiff;

Points and Authorities:

1)

E3ssential Principles

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are

instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . . ."

Declaration of Independence, United States of America, 1776

The most fundamental concept of democracy is the idea that government exists to secure the
rights of the people and must be based on the consent of the governed. Today, the quote from the
U.S. Declaration of Independence is considered a maxim of the ideal form of government.

2)

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under the color of any law to
willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the
United States.

For Section 242, acts under "color of law" include actions not only done by federal, state, or
local officials within their lawful authority but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's
lawful authority if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the
performance of their official duties. Persons acting under the color of law within the meaning of
this statute include police officers, correctional officers, and other law enforcement officials, as
well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public
officials.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any
person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United
States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
3) America's Founders understood clearly that private property is the foundation not only of
prosperity but of freedom itself. Thus, through the common law, state law, and the Constitution,
they protected property rights — the rights of people to acquire, use, and dispose of property
freely. However, with the growth of modern government, those rights have been seriously
compromised. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has yet to develop a principled, much less
comprehensive, theory for remedying those violations

In a nutshell, the fundamental rights they recognized, beyond acquisition and disposal, were the
right of sole dominion — variously described as a right to exclude others, a right against
trespass, or a right of quiet enjoyment, which all can exercise equally at the same time and in the
same respect — and the right of active use, at least to the point where such use violates the rights
of others to quiet enjoyment.

4) Definitions that explain whom the U.C.C. laws are written for:

The term "person" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(6) to mean:

"Any individual person as well as natural and legal entities. It specifically includes United States
and state agents."

The expression 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' is a Latin phrase, meaning: the explicit
mention of one (thing) is the exclusion of another.

And the Definition of

expressio unius est exclusio alterius:

Noun: a principle in statutory construction:

When one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned, others of the same class are
excluded.

The very principle here applies to the construction of statutes!

So to 'specifically include United States and state agents' is to exclude all others. Therefore a
living man or woman is precluded from this regulation. The U.S.C. statutes were not intended for
those who have no contract with state agencies to be otherwise governed. "State of California"
and "C.F.R." enumerated rules do not autonomously bind a living man to obey those rules under
any circumstances. These rules exist to govern government agencies and agents at large. And is
an intentional language selection by reason it was created to affect the governance of those
handed such responsibility, to maintain honor in their duties by a continuous adhesion to
constitutional ideals for the very protection AGAINST such stealthy encroachments, not to
dictate the rules of life to man.

The statutes at large do not pertain to DEFENDANT, ERIC SCHMIDT, the fiction, nor relevant
to :Eric: Schmidt, the man nonfiction. He is not the 'United States and state agents' as denoted.

5)

6)

And :Eric: Schmidt is likewise not the entity known as 'DEFENDANT, ERIC SCHMIDT,'
which is the PROPERTY OF THE PLAINTIFF, WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED
STATES.

Said PROPERTY is numbered and accounted for having been created by the STATE as a
TRANSMITTING UTILITY for purposes of investment and profit for its creators. The account
number is 123456789 per the franchise of the UNITED STATES called the Social security
Administration. The E.I.N. for the corporation known as 'UNITED STATES' is 53-0196517,

7)

8)

9)

:Eric: Schmidt is emphatically not consenting to become surety for said entity and is
indemnified of all liability regarding the charges made against the DEFENDANT, ERIC
SCHMIDT, nor bound in contract to such entities, nor privately agreeing to be held as surety for
any contractually bound entity.

10)

11)
12)

13)

How is it that this country was founded on the ideals of our Constitution and has become eroded
to the point of abandoning its most fundamental, original principles and purpose? Why are
professionals in law and legal scholars skilled agents among this faction of society so unaware of
the purpose and scope of their employment?

In this case, the court needs to move more quickly to prevent and stop such stealthy
encroachments upon a man's freedoms!

_______________________

Additional Case Law decisions that pertain:

Allgeyer v. Louisiana,

It was then used repeatedly during the early part of this century to strike down

state and federal labor regulations. "The liberty mentioned in that [Fourteenth] amendment
means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as
by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the
enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where
he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and
for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential to his
carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned."
Thus, "liberty" became synonymous with governmental non-interference in private economic
relations.

For instance, in

Budd v. New York,

In the dictum, Justice Brewer declared, "The paternal theory of government is to me odious. The
utmost possible Liberty to the individual, and the fullest possible protection to him and his
property, is both the limitation and duty of government."