You are on page 1of 5

AUG 0 1 2007

IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI
COUNTY OF CLAY - DIVISION 2
Clay County Circuit Court
William Duff, ) CASE NO. 07CY-CV06125
Plaintiff, )
) ACTION
v. ) FOR TRESPASS, AND
) TRESPASS ON THE CASE
OFFICER WILLIAM FRAZIER, (SERIAL 3092) )
AND )
OFFICER ALAN ROTH (SERIAL # 4090) ) VERIFIED
Defendants. )

IN THIS COURT OF RECORD, THE COURT taking cognizance of the facts and law of this
case respecting plaintiffs motion for judicial notice, and cognizes the facts and law as follows;

LAW:
1. COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns
with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page
318.]
2. COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics,
and may have a fifth. They are:
A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the
person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188
Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per
Shaw, CJ. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688,
689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188
Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per
Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688,
689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual
memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas
Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S.,
D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E.
229,231]

D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm.
383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225;
Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St.
205, 117 N.E. 229, 23 l.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

E. Generally possesses a seal." Ex Parte Kearny. 96 Ohio St. at 202-203.C.S. Ex parte Kearny. Davis. However. Comm. U. Valid State License plates case# 2243355(1) and proof of financial responsibility case# 2243356(9). [Magna Carta. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts.. 412 U.][Black's Law Dictionary. 3 Steph.Ga. 383. Article 34]. Jur. 255 (1973)] 7. 24. 205. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases. Barrett. it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being. FACTS: 1. Comm. 2 L. 425. [3 Bl. 195" 7 Cal. by deciding it. Superior Court. 55 Cal. Heydenfeldt v. 3 Pet. 348. 49 Pac. traffic citations claiming Duff's failure to have valid State Driver License case# 224354(4). 37 F. 212. C. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact. however. "Inferior courts" are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law..R. 488. E.A. "The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final. Note. and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. 579 6. 229. BUSTAMONTE. 23 l. Andrews. that in California 'superior court' is the name of a particular court. Heininger v. The Thomas Fletcher. 229. no matter what its ordinary status may be. 652 5. Cohen v. 52 Cal 225. none in favor of those of the latter." Ex parte Watkins.. no statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record.S. 426] 3. 117 N. D. 5 Cal. 117 Cal. 481. 4. Smith v. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v.. . Ex parte Thistleton. (See Exhibit C) is a traffic court with statutory jurisdiction and fails to meet all the requirements of a court of record. 55 Cal. 218. 212. Erwin v. 210.. 24 F. 4th Ed. is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. "The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former. Exhibit F of plaintiff's action.C. 6 Cal.Ga. Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court.

2. whether it be property or money is the property of William Duff. being fully informed in this matter. A property right is involved. Property belonging to Plaintiff is at the center of this controversy in both actions and defendants seek to take said property pursuant to its claim that is disputed by plaintiff. this court possesses superior jurisdiction over the inferior traffic court respecting adjudication of that property right. William Frazier and Alan Roth 07CY-CV06125. 5. A conflict exists between the two courts respecting the duties of the judge in one and the magistrate in the other as well as jurisdictional issues and the law applicable to this controversy. THIS COURT OF RECORD FINDS AS FOLLOWS. The Claim by defendants seeks to take property belonging to William Duff before he is heard. orders as follows. Valid State License plates case# 2243355(1) and proof of financial responsibility case# 2243356(9). Further. styled as William Duff vs. William Duff vs. 4. the property heretofore taken from plaintiff on or about June 5. has fully adjudicated the property rights of plaintiff respecting the claim brought by William Frazier and his agents. 3. being adjudicated in the Municipal Court of Kansas City. Missouri or whatever county in . ORDER This court of record. 2007 by defendant is to be returned to plaintiff without delay. to wit. traffic citations State Driver License case# 224354(4). PRECEAPE: The Clerk of this court is directed to issue a writ of replevin with waiver of bond and deliver it to the Sheriff of Jackson County. The traffic court action herein described as. As such. Mo in room B be suspended until such time as this court of record. William Frazier and Alan Roth 07CY-CV06125 is a court of record proceeding according to the common law and meets all the requirements of same. The property at controversy.

mindful of the rights of the parties and the importance of fair play. Mo 64155 without delay. and that the property above described be returned to plaintiff at 108 NW 101 Place Kansas City. The court. and defendants are invited to each file and serve on all other interested parties a brief no later than 10 (ten) days after receipt of this order to show cause to this court why this order should not take effect or should be modified and notice of intent to file said brief must be filed within 3 days of receiving this order either by email or by fax or by filing same into the record of this case. plaintiff. Kansas City. will liberally construe the arguments presented. Missouri C/O KCMO Police Department . IT IS SO ORDERED. the magistrate. William Frazier and Alan Roth to: 1001 NW Barry Rd. Mo room B Further. This order shall be copied and delivered to the Municipal court of Kansas City.North Division . Private Attorney Seal of the court Cc: William Duff to: wdd@wiUiamduff.com. without cost or delay to plaintiff and that all costs related thereto are to be taxed against defendants.Missouri wherein the property referenced above is located.

north division .CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify the forgoing document has been sent to all defendants at 1001 NW Barry rd KCMO c/o Kansas City Police Department .