Step 5. Legal Action

Notice of Court Action

William Jackson

Last Update há um mês

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



Affidavit Process Steps 1 through 5 – Summary


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.


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.


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.


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,


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Text of Notice of Suit

Was this article helpful?

0 out of 0 liked this article

Still need help? Message Us