Constitution Help Center freedom@1americafirst.org compton@mypatriotmail.org | Remote Online Affidavit Send Affidavit Now Send Lawful Notice Now

Remote Online Affidavit Send Affidavit Now Send Lawful Notice Now

New Case Action

William Jackson

Last Update 13 hari yang lalu

When you have a right, you do not need to ask for permission.

“Objective of government. That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions, it is usurpation and oppression.” Alabama Constitution, Article I, § 35

Yes, the Lee Resolution, formally known as the "Resolution for Independence," was a crucial step towards the Declaration of Independence. It was a resolution introduced by Richard Henry Lee in the Second Continental Congress on June 7, 1776, proposing that the Thirteen Colonies declare themselves independent from Great Britain.

The 1776 Declaration of Independence says: "under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government" which means, you have a right, you have a duty, to throw off such Government.

Google AI Overview

“That to secure these rights” is a phrase from the Declaration of Independence that refers to the purpose of government. It also appears in the report To Secure These Rights, which was released in 1947 by President Harry S. Truman.

The Declaration of Independence

The phrase “that to secure these rights” appears in the Declaration of Independence, which states that governments are created to protect people's natural rights.

The Declaration of Independence also states that people have the right to change or abolish a government that is destructive to their rights.

The report To Secure These Rights

The report was released in 1947 and contained recommendations for civil rights reform.
The report's recommendations included ending segregation, improving education and employment opportunities, and strengthening federal law enforcement.
The recommendations from the report became law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

The Alabama Constitution

What does the Constitution of Alabama say "Objective of Government"?

Google AI Overview

The Alabama Constitution states that the "sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property," adding that any other functions are usurpation and oppression, as found in SECTION 35 of the Constitution of Alabama. It emphasizes individual rights and limits government power to these fundamental protections, reflecting core principles of liberty and limited government.

Key Points from Alabama's Constitution:
Purpose of Government: To safeguard citizens' rights to life, liberty, and property. This safeguard is directed at protecting the natural person.

Government Overreach: When the government goes beyond these functions, it's considered "usurpation and oppression".

Inherent Rights: The constitution recognizes that political power comes from the people and is instituted for their benefit, allowing them to change their government.

This focus aligns with broader ideas in American constitutionalism about individual freedoms and the government's role in securing those freedoms, as seen in the U.S. Constitution's preamble and declaration of rights.

Florida Convoy
What do the state of Florida Constitution statements regarding "natural person" legal meaning?

Google AI Overview

In the Florida Constitution, the term "natural person" is used to specifically delineate rights that belong exclusively to living human beings, as distinct from "artificial persons" or "juridical persons" (such as corporations, LLCs, or partnerships).

This distinction is critical in areas regarding fundamental rights, such as the right of privacy and equality.
barneswalker.com

Key constitutional statements regarding natural persons include:

Equal Protection (Art. I, §2): Establishes that all natural persons possess inalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty, and property ownership.

Privacy (Art. I, §23): Grants every natural person the right to be free from government intrusion into private life.

Homestead (Art. VII, §6): Limits tax exemptions specifically to natural persons, excluding corporations.

Context: While "person" is used for due process, "natural person" (defined as a living human being) is used to emphasize that specific, fundamental rights—particularly regarding privacy—apply only to human beings, not corporate or artificial entities.
barneswalker.com

What American imperial order exists today?

Harvard University
journals.law.harvard.edu
BASIC RIGHTS AND INITIATIVE PETITION 23-07: ARE THE ...
15 мар. 2024 г. — ... Florida constitution was ratified define the terms “person” and “natural person” as any living human being. It next turns to context and ...

Without My Consent
withoutmyconsent.org
Florida: Statutory Civil Law
Const. Art. I, § 23 – Right of privacy. Every natural person has the right to be left alone and free fro...

Florida Convoy
John F. Kennedy Library and the Dan Smoot Report Enlightened men will not always be at the helm of government to serve as proper guardians

Google AI Overview

You are referencing a foundational concept from Federalist No. 10 by James Madison.

Madison argued that democracies struggle with factions because:

"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm".

Leaders cannot always align competing interests with the public good.

Because we cannot rely solely on the wisdom of politicians, the U.S. Constitution was designed with built-in checks and balances.

This structural setup ensures that no single group or leader holds absolute power, forcing diverse interests to negotiate rather than oppress minority rights.

You can read the full text and context of this historical argument at the National Constitution Center or contact the Constitution Help Center.

The Federalist Papers No. 10 - The Avalon Project
Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote ...Yale Avalon Project

Full: Enlightened men will not always be at the helm of government to serve as proper guardians of the public wheel. Unlimited political power cannot be safely entrusted to the nations elected representatives.

This skepticism of absolute power shapes the core mechanisms of constitutional republics:

The Problem of Human Nature

Imperfect Leaders: Madison famously noted that if men were angels, no government would be necessary, but because they are not, both external and internal controls on power are required.

The "Helm" Quote: In his essays, Madison argued that enlightened leaders cannot always align competing factional interests with the public good, nor can they always foresee remote consequences over immediate, selfish demands.

Factionalism: He identified the tendency of human nature to divide into rival groups (factions) and oppress one another, making unlimited power unsafe in the hands of any simple majority or single representative.

The Institutional Remedies

To safeguard liberty without relying on the perpetual wisdom of politicians, governments employ built-in structural constraints:

Separation of Powers: Splitting authority among legislative, executive, and judicial branches so that power is continuously balanced and held in check by competing ambitions.

Checks and Balances: Providing each branch with the specific constitutional means to resist the overreach of the others, ensuring no single entity holds ultimate control.

Extended Republics: Expanding the size and diversity of a nation so that a wider multiplicity of interests compete, making it mathematically more difficult for any single oppressive faction or tyrant to dominate.

You can read the full text of these foundational political arguments via the National Constitution Center and Library of Congress.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution uscis.gov

M-654 (rev. 07/25). The Declaration of. Independence. & the. Constitution of the United States. “The sacred rights of mankind ...

Send This Lawful Notice Now

Mike Johnson
Speaker of the House
H-232, The Capital
Washington, DC 20515

__________________________________

Presumptive Letter and Affidavit/Declaration of Truth

Attention Speaker Mike Johnson,

I, Private Attorney General Scott Andrew,

Affiant on behalf of, DOGA of Florida,

URL, mypatriotparty.org

U.S. Mail, DOGA Legal Office mypatriotdocket.org 36942 Pure Water Way, Suite 1776 Zephyrhills, FL 33541,

the undersigned, make this Affidavit/Declaration of Truth of my own free will, and I hereby affirm, declare and swear, under my oath, that I am of legal age and of sound mind and hereby attest that the information contained in this Affidavit/Declaration is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

COMES NOW, in support of Frank Rocco Giustino, United States v. GIUSTINO, 1:23-cr-00016. Case No. 1:23-cr-00016-JEB Document 65 Filed December 1, 2023, Page 13 of 24 and Document 70 Filed January 30, 2025, plus all exhibits as recorded at uscourts.gov; The U.S. Courts were created under Article III of the Constitution to administer justice fairly.

COMES NOW, in support of Frank Rocco of the GIUSTINO family and Redeemed, Case 8:25-mc-00043-KKM-SPF all Documents Filed after September 15, 2025, plus all exhibits as recorded at uscourts.gov; The U.S. Courts were created under Article III of the Constitution to administer justice fairly.

Demand is made for redemption of central banking currency in Lawful Money in all transactions pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. §411 as amended from §16 of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. They shall be redeemed, to make demand and be removed from the national debt special drawing rights, parentheses, SDR in the same sense as the original verbiage at Section §16 of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. Service to the agent is service to the principal and vice versa. Service to the principal is service to the agent.

12 USC 411: Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

Text contains those laws in effect on September 22, 2025 uscode.house.gov From Title 12-BANKS AND BANKING CHAPTER 3-FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM SUBCHAPTER XII-FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES §411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

This letter is lawful notification to you, pursuant to The Bill of Rights to the National Constitution, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Amendments, and Constitution of the State of Florida Article 1: Declaration of Rights, Section 1 - 27 and Constitution of the State of Florida Article 2 General Provisions, Section 5(b): Public Officers and Constitution of the State of Florida Article 6 Suffrage and Elections, Section 3: Oath, and pursuant to your oath, and requires your written response to me specific to the subject matter.

To: All United States Corporations, Chief Executive Officers, in both their personal and professional capacities

To: All Judges, Justices, and Officers of the Court, in both their personal and professional capacities

Lawful Notification to the Judiciary Regarding Constitutional and Lawful Authority

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal and Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

I, Private Attorney General Scott Andrew, one of the People, (as seen in the 50 State Constitutions), Republican in Form, Sui Juris, do present you with this notice that you and your agents may provide due care;

THE FOUNDATION OF AUTHORITY – SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE

Please take notice that We, the People of the United States, are the sole and sovereign authority from which government derives its power. This foundational principle is declared in the Preamble to the Constitution, which states:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This affirms beyond all dispute that the People created the government and are the ultimate source of all governmental power.
The People are the masters; government is the servant.
The People do not ask permission to govern the government; the government derives its entire existence and legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

This principle is reinforced in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which declares:

"The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government is to secure the existence of the body-politic; to protect it; and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights and the blessings of life. And whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity, and happiness."

THE STRICT LIMITS OF JUDICIAL POWER – ARTICLE III, SECTION 1

Please take notice that the several magistrates and officers of the government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to the people. Your authority is not inherent. You are not rulers.

You are agents and substitutes of the People, entrusted with limited judicial power under the Constitution and Common Law, and at all times accountable to the People.

Your oath binds you to uphold the supreme law of the land, not to subvert it. Any action beyond these defined limits is an act of usurpation, fraud, and treason against the sovereignty of the People.

Constitutional Mandate – Article III, Section 1

"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."

Judges serve only during good behavior—not for life, not by divine right, and not as unchecked arbiters of power. Any act contrary to this mandate constitutes judicial misconduct and an abdication of your duties.

THE ABSOLUTE LIMITS OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

You have no constitutional authority, or any other form of valid, lawful authority, to oppose and violate the very documents to which you swore or affirmed your oath and under which you were delegated by the people the limited authority to conduct the duties of your office. You are hereby required to present the lawful authority, granted by the People, that empowers you or your court to exercise power outside the following limits:

Judges Cannot Create or Enforce Unlawful Edicts

Any ruling, order, or decree that contravenes the Law of God, natural law, or fundamental constitutional principles is void from inception. Courts are bound to declare what the law is, not to rewrite it.

Maxim of Law 64ff: A court can only declare what the law is, and whether consistent with the law of God and fundamental constitutional law. State v. Post, 20 N.J.L. 368, 370 (1845) confirms this principle.

Any decision repugnant to the Constitution is null and void. This includes:

Rulings that expand government powers beyond constitutional limits.
Court decisions that enforce unconstitutional statutes or administrative decrees.
Orders that strip individuals of rights without due process and a court of record.

Government Exists Only to Protect Rights – Not to Oppress

The only legitimate purpose of government—and thus the judiciary—is to protect the People’s life, liberty, and property. Any assumption of power beyond this function is a usurpation of authority and an act of tyranny.

Maxim of Law 51p: The main object of government is the protection and preservation of personal rights, private property, and public liberties.

Any judicial ruling that:

Grants corporations or government agencies power over individual rights.
Upholds unconstitutional statutes that infringe upon life, liberty, or property.
Ignores the inherent sovereignty of the People.

…is an act of oppression and void ab initio.

Judges Cannot Ignore Due Process or Act as Final Arbiters

Due process is a substantive, inviolable safeguard, ensuring that no government official—including judges—can exercise power outside of what settled maxims of law permit. Courts must operate within these boundaries, not against them.

Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 441: “Due process of law in each particular case means such an exercise of the powers of the government as the settled maxims of law permit and sanction.”

Unlawful judicial actions include:

Rulings without jurisdiction over the subject or the person.
Violating trial by jury as guaranteed in Maxim of Law 77f: No freeman shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
Enforcing statutes, codes, and administrative policies as if they are laws binding upon the People—when in fact they only apply to government actors, not sovereign individuals.
No Court Without a Record May Impose Fines or Imprisonment

A court of record is the only lawful authority that may issue fines or imprisonment. Courts operating outside this requirement are illegitimate and their rulings are unenforceable frauds.

Maxim of Law 65h: “No court which has not a record can impose a fine, or commit any person to prison; because those powers belong only to courts of record.” (8 Coke, 60)

The Judiciary Act of 1789 established that inferior courts must function as courts of record to ensure lawful judicial proceedings. Courts failing to maintain these records operate without lawful jurisdiction.

Judges Who Violate Their Oath Forfeit Their Office

Federalist No. 78 confirms that judicial independence exists only as long as judges uphold their oath and good behavior. Any judicial officer who acts outside of constitutional limitations forfeits their office and their rulings are invalid.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78: "Judges hold their offices during good behavior… essential for maintaining an independent judiciary, which serves as a safeguard against legislative encroachments and protects the rights of individuals."

Acts of judicial misconduct include:

Denying the right to trial by jury.
Imposing fines or imprisonment without due process and court of record.
Issuing rulings based on political interests or corporate influence rather than constitutional law.
Refusing to hear evidence that challenges jurisdiction

Judges Cannot Ignore Fundamental Law, Maxims of Law, or Superior Constitutional Principles

Judges are bound not by personal preference, political ideology, or shifting legal interpretations, but by the fundamental, fixed principles of law that define the Rule of Law itself.

Webster’s 1806 Definition of Rule of Law: "That which is fixed and unchanging, binding upon all persons and institutions alike, and superior to the will of men."

This means that the Rule of Law is NOT based on statutes, regulations, case law, or procedural rules—but on fundamental legal principles and constitutional maxims that stand above the whims of legislatures, courts, and government officials.

Maxims of Law are the foundation of all legitimate legal authority. "A maxim is so called because its dignity is chiefest, and its authority the most certain, and because it is universally approved by all.” Chrisman v. Lindennan, 100 S.W. 1090, 1092; 202 Mo. 606. “A maxime is a proposition to be of all men end to which he can be confessed and granted without proofe, argument, or discourse.” Id. 67a. They are immutable truths that predate any statute, ruling, or judicial interpretation.

The U.S. Constitution is supreme law. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” -Article VI Judges do not have the authority to substitute statutes, administrative codes, or judicial rulings in place of constitutional principles.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) are inferior to Constitutional Law and Maxims of Law. Courts may not enforce procedural rules in a way that contradicts due process, fundamental rights, or the supremacy of common law.
Judges Must Interpret the Law According to The Founders’ Original Meaning – Not Joseph Story’s 1833 Commentaries

Judges are bound to uphold the Constitution as it was originally understood by the Founding Fathers, based on the meaning of words at the time of ratification. Any judicial interpretation that replaces the Founders' intent with later doctrines—such as Joseph Story’s 1833 "Commentaries on the Constitution"—is an illegitimate distortion of the supreme law of the land and void.

James Madison, Father of the Constitution: "I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable government."
Maxim of Law: "The words of a legal document must be interpreted according to their original and intended meaning, not as altered by later opinion or convenience."
Any ruling that relies on Joseph Story’s Treatise of 1833—or any other post-ratification reinterpretation—to override the Founders’ original meaning is judicial fraud and an unlawful act of revisionism.

Judges Cannot Amend the Constitution by Redefining Its Words

The Founding Fathers’ intentions were clear, and any attempt to distort their meaning constitutes an unauthorized amendment of the Constitution. There is only one lawful process for amending the Constitution, and it is explicitly outlined in Article V.

If a judge attempts to reinterpret the meaning of words to fit a different version than what was originally intended, that judge is effectively amending the Constitution without authority. This is a direct violation of Article V and an act of judicial usurpation. An act of treason.

The Constitution Is Not A "Living Document." It cannot be reshaped by judicial activism, evolving opinions, or modern reinterpretations. It remains binding according to the principles established at its inception. Any attempt to enforce laws under an altered meaning is an act of judicial overreach and is null, void, and without lawful authority.

NOTICE OF UNLAWFUL COURTS AND THE LEGISLATIVE USURPATION OF JUDICIAL POWER

Please take notice the subversive forces operating within our society have maneuvered legislatures into creating an entirely new judicial system, one that is established and controlled by statutory authority rather than by the inherent will of the people. These newly formed or reorganized courts derive their power not from constitutional legitimacy but from legislative enactments, much like corporations that exist solely by statutory grant. To mislead the people into believing these courts hold the same constitutional authority as those originally established by the people, they often retain familiar names, disguising their true nature as instruments of legislative control rather than independent arbiters of justice.

Similarly, these same elements have ensured that the enforcement arms of government—police forces, highway patrol, federal marshals, and numerous regulatory agents—derive their authority not from constitutional principles or common law but from statutes and agency regulations. These actors, with inadequate training practices by the doctrine of qualified immunity are wielding power absent true lawful authority, serve to enforce oppressive and corrupt legislative enactments, further distancing government from its proper function as protector of the people's inherent rights.

LEGAL AND HISTORICAL PRECEDENT SUPPORTING THIS NOTICE

Please take notice that, as one of the People, I recognize that any actions taken without lawful authority, absent courts of record with independent judges and trial by jury, are null and void. This principle is supported by Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion in LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL., where he affirms that fairness in legal proceedings requires a just and impartial tribunal (In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955)). The People are fully aware that the unlawful taking of children, property, rights, or substance without due process of law—while government officials act in trustee capacities—is a breach of trust and without lawful authority.

“If judges were secret legislators, declaring not what the law is but what they would like it to be, the very idea of a government by the people and for the people would be at risk,” Justice Gorsuch warned. “And those who came to court would live in fear, never sure exactly what the law requires of them except the judge’s will.”

It is therefore recognized that any court acting under mere statutory authority, rather than deriving its power from the people through constitutional and common law principles, operates ultra vires and lacks lawful jurisdiction over the people.

NOTICE OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER NATURAL LAW AND COMMON LAW

Please take notice that I issue this notice not as a request, but as an exercise of my unalienable rights and duty as a natural person, a member of the sovereign People. All government officials are duty-bound to uphold the Constitution and prevent maladministration. Any judge, justice, or officer of the court who fails to provide lawful proof of authority for their actions will be deemed to have exceeded their jurisdiction, acting in bad faith and violating the rights of the People. Such failure constitutes tacit acquiescence to wrongdoing, making you personally liable for any harm, injury, or deprivation of rights resulting from unlawful acts or omissions. Any unconstitutional rulings, including the removal of property without due process, denial of courts of record, or judicial overreach, must cease immediately. Continued violations will result in legal action, including arbitration, criminal complaints, and pursuit of removal from office.

As John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government states: “When a government acts without authority, it is in a state of war with the people."

As the Maxims of Law confirm:

“The derivative power cannot be greater than the original from which it is derived. Noy, Max.; Wing. Max. 66; Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3.”
“The created cannot be greater than the Creator.”
“It has been said, with much truth, "Where the law ends, tyranny begins." Merritt v. Welsh, 14 Otto (104 U.S.) 694, 702.
“Ignorance of law excuses no one (for all are bound to know the law). 4 Bouv. Inst. no. 3828; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. s. 111; 2 Coke, 36; Rankin v. Mortimere, 7 Watts (Penn.) 374; 2 Kent, Comm. 491.
“A government that becomes oppressive is illegitimate.”
Tucker Blackstone Vol. 1 Appendix Note B [Section 3] 1803: “If in a limited government, the public functionaries exceed the limits which the constitution prescribes to their powers, every act is an act of usurpation in the government and, as such, treason against the sovereignty of the people.”

This means that any judge who violates any provision above, is personally accountable for engaging in insurrection against the People, the national Constitution and or the state Constitution.

We now hold each and every one of you to account.

CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE

Failure to immediately comply with this Lawful Notice will result in the full enforcement of constitutional and natural law remedies, including but not limited to:

Automatic disqualification of offending members of the Judiciary under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Formal public indictments and lawful actions taken by the People in their sovereign capacity.
As the People are the final arbiters of their government, further lawful action will be taken to restore constitutional order.

FINAL ORDER AND DECLARATION – NOTICE TO ALL JUDGES, JUSTICES, AND THOSE PRETENDING TO BE JUDGES IN TRIBUNALS

This is the final and binding notice to all judges, justices, and all those presiding in statutory tribunals who falsely claim judicial authority.

By the supreme authority of the Sovereign People of the United States, as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Law of Nations, and the immutable laws of nature and common law, we formally declare the following:

Cease all unconstitutional actions immediately
Judges who continue to violate their oath are engaged in treason
Those operating under color of law in statutory tribunals are guilty of fraud
The people retain the right to remove any judge or court that operates in violation of the constitution

The People, as the final arbiters of government, retain the right to remove any judge, justice, or magistrate who engages in acts of judicial treason, through lawful and constitutional means, up to and including public indictments and direct removal.

You are given thirty (30) days from receipt of this notice to comply with this lawful order

Any failure to respond with a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, proving your lawful authority to exceed the limits set forth herein shall be taken as an admission of fraudulent authority and unlawful actions.
Failure to do so will result in the People exercising their inherent right to take all lawful actions necessary to remove unlawful government actors from office.

This Notice is sent to you in peace and with the love of our Creator, so that you may provide immediate due care to those in whom all political power is inherent, the People.

All Rights Reserved,

__________________________________
Full Printed Name, Affiant
Electronic Online Signature:

signature Date:

__________________________________
Witness No. 1
Full Printed Name:
Electronic Online Signature:

signature Date:

__________________________________
Witness No. 2
Full Printed Name:
Electronic Online Signature:

signature Date:

__________________________________
Witness No. 3
Full Printed Name:
Electronic Online Signature:

signature Date:

  Notary Statement

In the State of ________________

County of _________________
I swear that on this ____ day of __________________, the above named Affiant/Declarant,

_____________________, appeared before me, and, of his own free will, signed this Affidavit of Complaint.

__________________________________
Name of Notary Public
Notary Public Seal:

My Commission Expires:______________ Date:

References

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution uscis.gov

M-654 (rev. 07/25). The Declaration of. Independence. & the. Constitution of the United States. “The sacred rights of mankind ...

Oath of Office
files.floridados.gov/media/702653/dsde56-oath-acceptance-sept-2023.pdf

Florida Constitution
files.floridados.gov/media/693801/florida-constitution.pdf

Affidavit of Service
Affidavit of Service

This is a statement affirming that the Presumptive Letter and Affidavit/Declaration of Truth was mailed via first-class mail to ____________________ at the address ____________________
stating the Basis of Law and Facts in this Presumptive Affidavit of Complaint.

The document was placed in the mailbox on Date:

__________________________________
Full Printed Name, Affiant
Signature
Contact information:
Date:

cc:

The Judicial Branch

The Legislative Branch
The Executive Branch

END OF COPY

Legal Authority

Google AI Overview

The legal maxim "an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth" or "he who does not deny, admits" means that if someone doesn't respond to a filed affidavit and doesn't deny or rebut the information within it, the court may consider the information in the affidavit as true. This principle is often used in commercial or legal contexts where a party has failed to respond to a claim or allegation presented in a formal document like an affidavit.

Elaboration:

Affidavit:

An affidavit is a written statement of facts, confirmed by oath, which is used in court proceedings as evidence.

Unrebutted:

When an affidavit is unrebutted, it means that it has not been contradicted or challenged with opposing evidence or arguments.

Maxim of Law:

“An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in law.”

"He who does not deny, admits":

This maxim emphasizes that if someone has an opportunity to deny or refute information and doesn't, their silence is taken as an acknowledgment of its truth, according to a brief submitted to the Florida Supreme Court.

Judgment by Default:

In many legal systems, if a party fails to respond to a claim within a specified time, a default judgment can be entered against them, according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Importance:

This maxim highlights the importance of timely responses and active participation in legal proceedings. If a party is aware of an affidavit or legal claim and chooses not to respond, it can have significant consequences, potentially leading to a default judgment or the court accepting the information presented in the affidavit as true.

Please attend the Common Law Academy every Wednesday at 7:00 PM New York time at URL meetn.com/cla

Notes:

Authority: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977) Maxim of Law: “An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in law.”

Google: unrebutted site:wethepeople2.us

Your Google search - unrebutted site:americanmadeaction.org - did not match any documents.

Maxim of Law

Statutes are subordinate to the Constitution. Rules are subordinate to rights. And government is subordinate to the People.

If you cannot show where your power came from, then you never had it to begin with. That is not opinion —that is the foundation of lawful government.

You Are Now Notified:

Please take notice that failure to respond within twenty-one (21) days from receipt of this notice — by sworn affidavit rebutting each claim herein — will constitute your agreement that you have acted outside your lawful authority and are personally liable for all resulting harm.

Authority: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977) Maxim of Law: “An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in law.”

The People are watching. The record is being built. You will be held to account.

Florida Convoy
Microscopic Tag What are Joe Biden interpretations of Constitution "originalist logic"?

Google AI Overview

What are Joe Biden interpretations of Constitution "originalist logic"

President Joe Biden firmly rejects the "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution, viewing it as an inflexible, regressive judicial philosophy.

He interprets the Constitution as a "living document" that adapts to protect modern rights and argues that originalism is often used as a pretext to roll back established protections and impose conservative political agendas.

Joe Biden’s Critique of Originalist Logic

Freeze in Time: Biden believes that originalism—the logic that limits constitutional meaning strictly to the text's original public understanding at the time of ratification in 1787—ignores the realities of a changing society.

Biden does not understand the seat of government as it was in 1786 before the Constitution.

Historical Limitations: He has emphasized that the Founding Fathers’ original intent excluded women, Black people, and other minority groups from foundational rights, making strict adherence to this era's interpretation deeply flawed.

Judicial Activism in Disguise: Biden and his administration argue that conservative judges who claim to strictly follow originalism are often politically motivated, using it as a convenient tool to invalidate legislative progress and overturn precedents (e.g., abortion rights).

His Approach to Constitutional Law

Living Constitution: Biden aligns with the concept of a "living Constitution", which posits that constitutional language (like the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses) was drafted broadly to evolve and protect civil, personal, and LGBTQ+ rights in a modern world.

Pragmatism: When appointing judges, Biden has historically prioritized their real-world impact and dedication to institutional legitimacy over strict, abstract originalist methodology.

Because Biden views originalism as a flawed framework, he advocates for judicial nominees who consider the practical, equitable outcomes of their decisions. And he tries to get away with doing whatever he wants to do without accountability. All American presidents are guilty of this.

Would you like me to dive deeper into how Biden's appointments or statements compare to specific originalist rulings by the Supreme Court?

Central Banking and the Crime of 1933

Google AI Overview

The Constitution Help Center, through its various resources, sheds light on the debates surrounding the Bank Bill of 1791. It highlights the key arguments and the eventual passage of the bill, showcasing the early constitutional interpretations and the influence of figures like Hamilton and Jefferson.

Key Points from the Constitution Help Center and related resources:

Hamilton's Argument and the Necessary and Proper Clause:
Hamilton argued that the Constitution's "necessary and proper" clause (Article I, Section 8) allowed Congress to create a bank to carry out its enumerated powers, like taxing and borrowing.

Jefferson's Strict Interpretation:

Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson opposed the bank, advocating for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, arguing that it didn't explicitly grant the power to create a national bank.

Washington's Decision and the Bank's Passage:

President Washington, swayed by Hamilton's arguments, signed the Bank Bill into law.

Early Constitutional Debates:

The Bank Bill was a pivotal point in early American constitutional interpretation, showcasing the tension between strict and loose interpretations.

The "Elastic Clause":

The Supreme Court later addressed the constitutionality of a national bank in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), affirming the use of the "elastic clause" (or "necessary and proper" clause) to support the bank's establishment.5:17 PM

Catherine Austin Fitts frequently asks where is the missing $21 trillion is, and Brooksley Born declares that the national debt, when you add the derivatives in is way more than the $37 trillion debt that President Donald Trump talks about in front of the media camera.

The derivatives market is the financial market for derivatives - financial instruments like futures contracts or options - which are derived from other forms of assets. The real numbers are mind boggling.

Form

Use this Remote Online Affidavit process to "throw off such government". This lawful methodology is perfect for anyone who was harmed by federal government actions on J6, January 6, 2021. Join a Weekly Video Call for assistance. Call 305-333-1925. Constitutionhelp.com

__________________________________

Presumptive Letter and Affidavit/Declaration of Truth

Attention __________________________________,

I, __________________________________,

Affiant on behalf of, __________________________________,

URL, __________________________________,

U.S. Mail, __________________________________,

the undersigned, make this Affidavit/Declaration of Truth of my own free will, and I hereby affirm, declare and swear, under my oath, that I am of legal age and of sound mind and hereby attest that the information contained in this Affidavit/Declaration is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

COMES NOW, in support of Frank Rocco Giustino, United States v. GIUSTINO, 1:23-cr-00016. Case No. 1:23-cr-00016-JEB Document 65 Filed December 1, 2023, Page 13 of 24 and Document 70 Filed January 30, 2025, plus all exhibits as recorded at uscourts.gov; The U.S. Courts were created under Article III of the Constitution to administer justice fairly.

COMES NOW, in support of Frank Rocco of the GIUSTINO family and Redeemed, Case 8:25-mc-00043-KKM-SPF all Documents Filed after September 15, 2025, plus all exhibits as recorded at uscourts.gov; The U.S. Courts were created under Article III of the Constitution to administer justice fairly.

Demand is made for redemption of central banking currency in Lawful Money in all transactions pursuant to Title 12 U.S.C. §411 as amended from §16 of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. They shall be redeemed, to make demand and be removed from the national debt special drawing rights, parentheses, SDR in the same sense as the original verbiage at Section §16 of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. Service to the agent is service to the principal and vice versa. Service to the principal is service to the agent.

12 USC 411: Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

Text contains those laws in effect on September 22, 2025 uscode.house.gov From Title 12-BANKS AND BANKING CHAPTER 3-FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM SUBCHAPTER XII-FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES §411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

This letter is lawful notification to you, pursuant to The Bill of Rights to the National Constitution, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Amendments, and Constitution of the State of Florida Article 1: Declaration of Rights, Section 1 - 27 and Constitution of the State of Florida Article 2 General Provisions, Section 5(b): Public Officers and Constitution of the State of Florida Article 6 Suffrage and Elections, Section 3: Oath, and pursuant to your oath, and requires your written response to me specific to the subject matter. Your failure to respond, within 30 days, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, everything in this letter with which you disagree is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful and binding upon you, in any court, anywhere in America, without your protest or objection or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law.” Also, see: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”

We are watching you. Are you an enemy of the 1787 Constitution? Please reply. We would like to know if you are an elected official or an officer who follows the 1787 Constitution.

Basis of Law and Facts in this Presumptive Affidavit of Complaint:

1. The phrase “that to secure these rights” appears in the Declaration of Independence, which states that governments are created to protect people's natural rights; a phrase from the Declaration of Independence that refers to the purpose of government. It also appears in the report To Secure These Rights, which was released in 1947 by President Harry S. Truman. The report was released in 1947 and contained recommendations for civil rights reform.The recommendations from the report became law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The Sheriff of ____________________ County, Sheriff ____________________, neglected to protect individuals in his county convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021

2. The Constitution for the United States of America is the Supreme Law of the land and supersedes all other lesser law, statutes, codes, regulations, ordinances and the State Constitution.

3. What is written in the referenced national Constitution is valid, authorized and enforceable. What is not written in the national Constitution is prohibited by that Constitution.

4. Article I, Section 1 of the national Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress. The Constitution does not authorize legislative power in any form to the Executive and Judicial Branches.

5. Article I, Section 10 of the national Constitution declares No State shall emit Bills of Credit.

6. Article I, Section 10 of the national Constitution declares No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

7. Article III, Section 2 of the national Constitution and Article IV, Section 4 guarantees to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and also, Article VI, Clause 2-3 of the national Constitution declares All Americans are guaranteed a Constitutional Republic.

8. When the State Legislature creates law for the people, that law must be constitutionally compliant (as found in Article I, Section 1 of the national Constitution), specific to the Bill of Rights or it is not valid law binding upon the people.

9. A law must be valid to exist and must exist to be lawfully enforced.

10. All elected and appointed public officials who serve the people, including you, __________________________________, are required to take an Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution before assuming office.

11. Any act passed by any legislature and any action committed by any public officer either supports and upholds the Constitutions, national and state, or opposes and violates them. No public officer has the constitutional authority—or any other form of valid, lawful authority—to oppose and violate the very documents to which s/he swore or affirmed his or her oath.

12. Any unconstitutional actions committed by any public officers, including you, __________________________________, invoke the self-executing Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the 14th Amendment, by which the errant public officers immediately vacate their offices, upon commission of their crimes, can no longer hold public office and forfeit all benefits thereof, including salary and pension.

13. Executive orders are not authorized in the national Constitution, therefore are prohibited by the national Constitution.

14. The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized includes all desktop, laptop and mobile electronic devices. This means that no Government or NGO can collect and store any data that belongs to an American.

15. The national Constitution and the Supreme Court recognize and protect the right to interstate travel. The travel right entails privacy and free domestic movement without governmental abridgement.

16. 5 U.S.C. Part III, From Title 5-Government Organization and employees, Part III-Employees, Subpart B-Employment and Retention, Chapter 33-Examination, Selection and Placement, Subchapter II-Oath of Office: An individual, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit, shall take the following oath, 5 U.S.C. §3331. Oath of office. Please provide your Dun & Bradstreet D-U-N-S® Number for the court.

If you disagree with anything in this letter, then rebut, in kind, that

with which you disagree, in writing, with particularity, to me, within 30

days of this letter’s date, and support your disagreement with evidence,

fact and law. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, is your agreement

with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true,

correct, legal, lawful, and is your irrevocable agreement attesting to this,

fully binding upon you, in any court in America, without your protest or

objection and that of those who represent you.

__________________________________

Full Printed Name, Affiant

Electronic Online Signature:

signature Date:

__________________________________

Witness No. 1

Full Printed Name:

Electronic Online Signature:

signature Date:

__________________________________

Witness No. 2

Full Printed Name:

Electronic Online Signature:

signature Date:

__________________________________

Witness No. 3

Full Printed Name:

Electronic Online Signature:

signature Date:

Notary Statement

In the State of ________________

County of _________________

I swear that on this ____ day of __________________, the above named Affiant/Declarant,

_____________________, appeared before me, and, of his own free will, signed this Affidavit of Complaint.

__________________________________

Name of Notary Public

Notary Public Seal:

My Commission Expires:______________ Date:

References

Oath of Office

files.floridados.gov/media/702653/dsde56-oath-acceptance-sept-2023.pdf

Florida Constitution

files.floridados.gov/media/693801/florida-constitution.pdf

Affidavit of Service

Affidavit of Service

This is a statement affirming that the Presumptive Letter and Affidavit/Declaration of Truth was mailed via first-class mail to ____________________ at the address ____________________

stating the Basis of Law and Facts in this Presumptive Affidavit of Complaint.

The document was placed in the mailbox on Date:

__________________________________

Full Printed Name, Affiant

Signature

Contact information:

Date:

Important Details to Include:

- Date of mailing

- Recipient's name and address

- Description of the document sent

- Method of mailing, first-class mail

- Affiant signature and contact information

- Include a statement affirming that the document was mailed via regular mail and that the sender placed the document in the mailbox

- Post a PDF of the Presumptive Affidavit of Complaint online where it will be indexed by Google

END OF COPY

Roberts, John G., Jr.

Maryland

Bush, G. W. September 29, 2005

Thomas, Clarence

Georgia

Bush, G. H. W. October 23, 1991

Alito, Samuel A., Jr.

New Jersey

Bush, G. W. January 31, 2006

Sotomayor, Sonia

New York

Obama August 8, 2009

Kagan, Elena

Massachusetts

Obama August 7, 2010

Gorsuch, Neil M.

Colorado

Trump April 10, 2017

Kavanaugh, Brett M.

Maryland

Trump October 6, 2018

Barrett, Amy Coney

Indiana

Trump October 27, 2020

Jackson, Ketanji Brown

Washington, D.C.

Biden June 30, 2022

Common Law Academy

Do you need help?

Video Call

Every Wednesday

7:00 PM

New York Time

URL

meetn.com/cla

Video Call

Every Wednesday

12:00 Noon

New York Time

URL

meet.jit.si/thecall

Agent

We the People Florida

We the People Pasco

Attn: Law Office

38542 Speedwell Ave

Zephyrhills, FL 33542

Remote Online Notary

You can send this Affidavit now. Here are some options:

Google Search Results:

Remote Online Notary Public Governor Ron DeSantis

flgov.com

Remote Online Notary Public · 1. You must be an existing notary public, a civil-law notary appointed under chapter 118, or a commissioner of deeds appointed...

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR NOTARY SECTION

P.O. Box 6327

Tallahassee, FL 32314

COURIER ADDRESS

2415 North Monroe Street, Suite 810

Tallahassee, FL 32303

PHONE

850.717.9245

[email protected]

Source: flgov.com/eog/info/notary

Florida

Approved Online Notaries

Source: online-notary.sunbiz.org

Remote Online Affidavit

A Partnership of 1Americafirst.org Common Law Office and Florida Notary Association, Notary public in Orlando, Florida Located in: Colonialtown Realty, 529 N Fern Creek Ave Suite B, Orlando, FL 32803

Phone: 407-894-6614

Notary Solution Provider

800-809-7019

Form

Join a Weekly Video Call for assistance. Call 305-333-1925.

__________________________________

Presumptive Letter and Affidavit/Declaration of Truth

Attention __________________________________,

I, __________________________________,

Affiant on behalf of, __________________________________,

URL, __________________________________,

U.S. Mail, __________________________________,

This is your termination letter. You do not represent the American people, you are committing Treason on a daily basis, you are not fit for office and it is time for you to be removed.

According to your own admission, you are guilty of Treason.

Richard Henry Lee Introduced The Lee Resolution in 1776

Google AI Overview

Richard Henry Lee (1732–1794) - Encyclopedia Virginia

The Lee Resolution, introduced in 1776, was authored by Richard Henry Lee, not Henry Lee. Richard Henry Lee was a delegate from Virginia to the Second Continental Congress. He introduced the resolution, which proposed that the American colonies should be independent from Great Britain according to the National Archives. The resolution is also known as the "resolution of independence".
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Richard Henry Lee: was a prominent Virginian planter, merchant, and politician.
He served in the House of Burgesses, the House of Delegates, and the United States Senate.
He represented Virginia at the Continental Congresses.
The Lee Resolution, which he proposed, was a key step towards American independence.
It declared that the colonies were free and independent states and should be absolved from allegiance to the British Crown, according to the National Archives.
The resolution also called for the formation of foreign alliances and a plan for confederation.
It ultimately led to the drafting and signing of the Declaration of Independence.1:01 PM Lee Resolution (1776)

National Archives (.gov)
https://www.archives.gov › milestone-documents › lee-r...
Feb 8, 2022 — On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution that these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states.

1:02 PM

, and requires your written response to me specific to the subject matter. Your failure to respond, within 30 days, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, everything in this letter with which you disagree is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful and binding upon you, in any court, anywhere in America, without your protest or objection or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law.” Also, see: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”

Are you an enemy of the 1787 Constitution? Please reply. We would like to know if you are an elected official or an officer who follows the 1787 Constitution.