Step 5. Legal Action
Notice of Court Action
William Jackson
Last Update 9 bulan yang lalu
Step 5
When none of these so-called public officers respond, in kind, and rebut by
means of their own sworn Affidavits, then, the only choice left to the Citizens
is to take the matter to civil court because, by the failures of all those
notified in this matter, it is clear that there is no legitimate lawful
Constitutional governance in this state by which the Citizens can obtain
lawful remedy for the injuries they have sustained.
Intent to Sue Notice of Suit
Emergency Judicial Notice
Requests for Admissions, Tacit Agreement
Estoppel Notice Judicial Notice
Motion for Summary Judgement
Motion for Trial by Jury
Motion for Constitutional Rights
Motion to Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights
Demand for a Lawful Decision, based on the law and not a political decision
2. I appear before this Honorable Court, by special appearance, as a
living, breathing natural-born man [woman], an American Citizen, on the
land, with and claiming, all Rights guaranteed to me in the federal and state
Constitutions, and with my name properly spelled only in upper and lower
case letters. After this is stated, we wait a few seconds to look at the prosecutors and the judge, then, we say: Is there any objection to what I just stated?
Summary Notice of Suit
1
EXHIBIT TWENTY SIX
Affidavit Process Steps 1 through 5 – Summary
STEP 1
Affidavits are sent to the public officer whose unconstitutional actions have
perjured his oath, violated the Constitution(s) and violated the rights of the
people who were damaged by his actions. When the Affidavit recipient(s)
fail to rebut, in kind, then, go to step 2.
STEP 2
Requires Affidavits be sent to all supervisors and oversight personnel of the
original Affidavit recipient, with a copy of the original Affidavit
attached. When none of these oversight people respond, in kind, and rebut,
by means of their own sworn, notarized Affidavits, then, we go to step 3.
STEP 3
Affidavits of Complaint written against all those to whom you have written
Affidavits, which are unrebutted, are then filed with the: (1) County Sheriff;
(2) County DA; (3) County Prosecutor, if any; (4) State Attorney General
and (5) U.S. Attorney for your state.
STEP 4
When none of these so-called law enforcement entities take any action
against those you have cited in your Complaint(s), then, all of them must be
sent individual Affidavits which clearly state that, pursuant to their oaths,
they have not taken any lawful actions against the criminal unconstitutional
actions committed by public officers that were named in your Affidavit(s) of
Complaint. Then, you cite their failure to act, pursuant to their oaths,
against those who have harmed the people, as well as other appropriate
language that can be added as needed to state that they had a sworn duty,
pursuant to oaths taken, to act upon lawful notification provided to them by
Citizens, yet they took no action whatsoever. Therefore, they have
condoned, aided and abetted these unconstitutional, criminal actions,
2
perjured their oaths and invoked the self-executing Sections 3 & 4 of the
14th Amendment, vacated their offices and forfeited all benefits thereof,
including salaries and pensions.
STEP 5
When none of these so-called public officers respond, in kind, and rebut by
means of their own sworn Affidavits, then, the only choice left to the Citizens
is to take the matter to civil court because, by the failures of all those
notified in this matter, it is clear that there is no legitimate lawful
Constitutional governance in this state by which the Citizens can obtain
lawful remedy for the injuries they have sustained.
we send a Notice of Suit to our opponents. This Notice is
the last step in the administrative and Constitutional process to resolve
the issue before having to go to court. As Defendants, we obviously do
not send a Notice of Suit, and wait until the resolution of the matter,
before it goes to court, or ready ourselves for court action as
Defendants.
By and through this process, we have achieved the following: (1)
our positions are supported by our Affidavits, recorded on the public
record, self-authenticating and admissible in court; (2) our opponents
have tacitly admitted to our positions by failing to rebut them, pursuant
to the cautions in our lawful notifications to them; (3) since the
opponents admit to our charges and agree they will present no defense to
them in court, if they then attempt a defense against our charges, we
charge them with putting fraud upon the court; (4) we invoke positions
of estoppel by acquiescence, by which our opponents cannot defend
against their prior admissions; (5) since the court only convenes to hear
matters in controversy, and there is no controversy for the court to hear,
due to our opponents’ prior admissions, victory lawfully should be
ours. On a scorecard of 1 to 100, our score is 100 and our opponents’
score is zero.
In the rare case, opponents may state that they have no duty or
requirement to respond to the letters or the affidavits. We disagree, and
so do the Constitutions. Public officers are required to take oaths of
office. The oath is required by the national Constitution, state
Constitution, federal law, state law, and sometimes, county and local
law. Therefore, it is well established, lawfully and legally, that the oath
is Constitutionally and statutorily required – no exceptions! Thus,
pursuant to their oaths, public officers must abide by the Constitutions in
4
the performance of their official duties. The oath is given in exchange
for the Public Trust, and the oath taker is lawfully bound to uphold the
Public Trust. The First Amendment guarantees the Right of free speech
and the Right to petition government for redress of grievances, which,
the oath taker, pursuant to his oath, is mandated to uphold. If he fails
this requirement, then, he has violated two provisions of the First
Amendment, the Public Trust and perjured his oath. Further, by not
responding and/or not rebutting, the oath taker denies the Citizen
remedy, thus, denies the Citizen Constitutional due process of law, as
stated within the Bill of Rights. An American Citizen can expect, and
has the Right and duty to demand, that his government officers uphold
their oaths to the Constitution(s) and abide by all Constitutionally
imposed mandates of their oaths. This is an un-enumerated Right
guaranteed in the Ninth Amendment. No oath taker has the authority to
defy and deny the very document to which he swore his oath and to
which he owes his limited, delegated authority. The oath taker must act
within the lawful scope of his duties and authority. Pursuant to the
delegation of powers clause, within the Tenth Amendment, no power is
delegated to any oath taker to deny, defy, or oppose the very document
to which he swore his oath.
In light of the foregoing, there is no legitimate argument to support
the claim that oath takers are not required to respond to letters, which, in
this case, act as petitions for redress of grievances, stating complaints,
charges and claims made against them by their constituents or by
Citizens injured by their actions. The Declaration of Independence
requires all Citizens to oppose all enemies of this Republic, foreign and
domestic. When public officers harm the Citizens by their errant
actions, and then refuse to respond to or rebut petitions from Citizens,
then, those public officers are domestic enemies, acting in sedition and
insurrection to the declared Law of the land and must be opposed,
exposed and lawfully removed from office.
As previously stated, the purpose of the presumptive letters and
affidavits is to resolve problems before it becomes necessary to go to
5
court. However, once the matter comes before the court, we use
Constitutional Court Challenges from the very inception of the court
action. We support everything we do with the Supreme Law of the
Land, and when we get to court, this is very difficult for anyone to
lawfully oppose. When the judge convenes court, he usually asks the
attorney for the opponent if he is ready to proceed, and then asks us if
we are ready to proceed. We then state: "No, we are not, since there are
several matters we need to clarify before we go further." The person
acting as judge usually says: "Go right ahead." We then immediately
say: "You and the prosecuting attorney have sworn oaths of office to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and
the Constitution of the state of…. Is that correct?" In our court
appearances, the judge says, "Yes." This response binds not only him,
but also the opposing attorney to their respective oaths. We then
state: "With all due respect, you and the opposing attorney are required
to abide by those oaths in the performance of your official duties,
especially those before this Honorable Court. Is this correct?" When we
receive two affirmative answers to these two confirming questions for
our prior statements, then, we have brought the court under the authority
of the Constitution, by holding the judge and opposing counsel to their
oaths.
If the Citizen before the court understands what he has
accomplished and how he can protect himself Constitutionally, and if he
can articulately advocate his Constitutional argument(s), then, he has a
much greater chance of a successful outcome. To do this, one must be
well vested in the Constitution(s) and know how to competently and
convincingly present his Constitutionally-based positions. While using
the Constitution is not a guarantee of success, not using it is almost a
guarantee of failure. Our Constitutional Court Challenges are on our
website and provide additional information, including how we would
proceed should the judge respond in a negative fashion. Basically, if the
judge tries to avoid confirming his and the opposing counsel’s oaths and
duties thereunder, we politely inform him that the confirmation of the
oath and adherence thereto are required to assure the Citizen’s Rights are
6
upheld, including, but not limited to, all aspects of due process of
law. We would then say that, by his evasion and reluctance to confirm
his oath, it appears he either has no oath or does not intend to abide by
it. Therefore, it is unlikely he will uphold our Rights and due process of
law, so we would then state: "You are disqualified, sir; step
down." Every Citizen has the Right to disqualify a judge, especially one
who refuses to confirm his oath and his sworn duties thereunder.
Prior to appearing in court, we file several Constitutionally based
motions, including a Motion to Claim and Exercise Constitutional
Rights, which would be very difficult for any judge, pursuant to this
oath, to deny. Because of our opponents’ prior admissions, which are on
the public record; thus, very difficult for any judge or opposing attorney
to ignore, we could also file a motion for a declaratory judgment on
those admissions, and, if necessary, a subsequent motion to enforce
estoppel by acquiescence. Both of these make it very obvious and put it
on the court record that our opponents have admitted to all of our claims
and charges, and to deny this would be impossible. This does not mean
our opponents cannot advocate their positions or defend themselves, but
they cannot do so on the points to which they have previously
admitted. Since our presumptive letters and our affidavits cover all
salient points at issue and in controversy, there is virtually nothing
remaining for our opponents to argue or defend.
The Constitutional Court Challenges also specifies our status to the
court and how we lawfully appear before that court. The confirmation
of the oaths and our status are very important. If we appear as
Defendants, and if we know that the charges alleged against us are
invalid and without any substance, then, right after the status statement,
we make a verbal motion to dismiss the charges alleged against us
because they are fraudulent, bogus, and without substance. If the
opposing counsel objects, then, we respectfully demand, by and through
the judge, that the opposing counsel certify the charges, as valid, lawful
and Constitutionally compliant, specific to the Bill of Rights, by means
of his own sworn, notarized Affidavit, so attesting, under the pains and
7
penalties of perjury of the laws of the United States of America. In the
rare instance in which this needs to be done, there is usually an
immediate conference among the judge, the opposing counsel and us,
and the charges alleged against us miraculously disappear for, of course,
some convenient, but obscure, "reason". No prosecuting attorney would
ever execute such an affidavit and no court can lawfully hear and
adjudicate bogus, fraudulent charges.
Jack and Margy Flynn
Content
Text of Notice of Suit