1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2! 22 23 24 25 26 27 William David Duff ffl 108 NW 101 Place Kansas City, Mo. [64155] williamduff@kcm. com Plaintiff 07CY-CV06125 2 T TH IN THE 7 1U JUDICIAL dRCUTT COURT OF MISSOURI COUNTY OF CLAY William Duff, Plaintiff, v. (DOE) OFFICER FRAZIER, AND (DOE) OFFICER (SERIAL # 3092) Defendants. ) CASE NO. ) ) ACTION ) FOR TRESPASS, AND ) TRESPASS ON THE CASE ) ) VERIFIED THIS IS A COURT OF RECORD Page i of 11
Transcript
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
26
27
William David Duff ffl
108 NW 101 Place
Kansas City, Mo. [64155]
williamduff@kcm. com
Plaintiff
07CY-CV061252
TTHIN THE 71U JUDICIAL dRCUTT COURT OF MISSOURI
COUNTY OF CLAY
William Duff,
Plaintiff,
v.
(DOE) OFFICER FRAZIER, AND
(DOE) OFFICER (SERIAL # 3092)
Defendants.
) CASE NO.
)
) ACTION
) FOR TRESPASS, AND
) TRESPASS ON THE CASE
)) VERIFIED
THIS IS A COURT OF RECORD
Page i of 11
CAUSE OF ACTION1
21. PARTIES: William Duff, (hereinafter "Duff, plaintiff, he, his, my, mine") is one of
the people of Missouri existing within his solely owned domain and sharing
dominion thereof with no other, and in this court of record complains of each of the
5 following: Desk Sergeant (sic?) Frazier of the KCMO Police Department in the
6 North Patrol station at Barry Rd and hiwy 169, and KCMO Officer (serial # 3092)
(each hereinafter "defendant(s)", and all collectively "defendants"); who are each
summoned to answer the said plaintiff in a plea of trespass and trespass on the case,8
to wit:9
Duff went to the police station seeking help with a theft by deception issue. Clerk
(doe) asked for proof of ownership of the property at question. Duff provided said
11 proof in a signed and witnessed original bill of sale for the property. Clerk (doe) then
12 asked for DufFs State Driver License for identification purposes. Duff informed
Clerk doe that he did not use a State driver license and offered other forms of
identification. Clerk doe asked Duff 'how did you get here?'. Duff replied ' I14
traveled using my private property upon the public right of way'. Clerk doe then
went to talk with the duty officer (Frazier). Thereafter Frazier came to the counter
and asked the same questions of Duff. DufFs answers were virtually identical as
17 when first answered. Frazier said that Duff must have a State Driver license. Duff
18 disagreed. Frazier threatened to have his agent, another officer, stop Duff as he left
jo the Station and arrest him for not having the State Driver License. Duff informed
Frazier that doing so would be an unlawful restraint on his Liberty and Right of•Z>V/
action. Frazier terminated the conversation and Duff went to his automobile and was21
arranging paperwork when Frazier and another officer yelled at Duff to stop. Frazier22 approached DufFs auto with his hand on his gun, ordering duff out of his auto. Duff
was searched, seized, bound and imprisoned. DufFs property was search and seized
24 by Frazier and his agent who declared DufFs auto and property therein would be
25 towed to the police impound lot somewhere in the vicinity of the Royal Baseball
Stadium. Frazier did remove DufFs private plate from DufFs auto claiming to keep
it as evidence. Frazier's agent serial # 3092 wrote three civil traffic citations27
Page 2 of 11
claiming Duffs failure to have valid State Driver License case# 224354(4), Valid
State License plates case# 2243355(1) and proof of financial responsibility case#2
2243356(9), (See Exhibit C) all of which are additional cause for this action and
counter claim. Duff was held in that jail until he posted bond of $300.
4 3. Duff claims Defendants and all their agents in support of their action have
5 individually and severally injured Duff with unreasonable search and seizure of
Duffs person and property, false imprisonment, Trespass with violence, and trespass
on the case, without violence, upon Duffs Dominion over his own private domain
and Right of action.8
Q
4. This action stands also as counter claim to charges made by defendants hereon
attached at exhibit C.
I I
12 COUNT 1 OF CAUSE OF ACTION - TRESPASS
INTRODUCTION
5. Paragraphs 1 through 4 of CAUSE OF ACTION and count 1 are included by14
reference as though fully stated herein.
6. Defendant Frazier having been duly served notice and demand by Plaintiff Duff to
correct the actions related herein has failed or refused to make any effort whatsoever
17 to comply therewith and therefore this action must proceed.
lg 7. Each Defendant exceeded his jurisdiction by either directly, through an agent, or in
I Q concert with another did cause plaintiff Duff to be unlawfully and forcibly carried
away and imprisoned1 against his will and in disregard for notice to them of the
wrong they engaged (See Exhibit A), without jurisdiction or good cause. At the onset21
of the unlawful imprisonment and property theft plaintiff Duff was duly2 engaged in22 good faith and in his own private capacity, and at all times within the "Bright Line
23
24 l Imprison: To confine a person or restrain his liberty in any way. Black'sLaw Dictionary, 5th Edition Imprisonment: ...it may be in a locality used
-_ only for the specific occasion; or it may take place without the actualapplication of any physical agencies of restraint (such as locks or bars), asby verbal compulsion and the display of available force. Black's Law
2" Dictionary, 5th Edition2 Duly: ...according to law in both form and substance. Black's Law
27 Dictionary, Fifth Edition
Page 3 of 11
Boundary" of his own private domain, and exercising his substantive Right to go with
his property upon the Public Right of Way. Said Defendants, without good cause,
interrupted Duffs Private Right of Action, and stating claims of compulsory duties
arising out of jurisdictions foreign to Duffs domain and Right of Action therein, did,
4 without consideration for his consent or lack thereof, then imprison plaintiff Duff.
5 During imprisonment the Defendants took further casual ill-considered actions to
further injure plaintiff Duff by trespassing upon Duffs Domain and his Dominion
over that domain, did search and seize Duffs property, over Duffs express objection
thereto, in the form of his papers and effects and one 1996 Buick Rivera vin#8
Ig4gd2215t4710668 (copy of bill of sale attached as exhibit B) and original bill of sales for two9
other automobiles, under color of laws foreign to Plaintiffs domain and individual
private capacity and without good cause shown, trial or due process of law.
11
12 8. From the moment he was taken away till the present, Duff, under color of law, was
kept in actual or constructive imprisonment. Although he objected to the assumed
jurisdiction, those who kept him imprisoned under color of law did not respond to
any of his demands and requests for proof of jurisdiction or for reinstatement of his
liberty. Defendants and their agents continued to assume the jurisdiction without
proof of jurisdiction or any attempt at proof of jurisdiction. Plaintiff Duff continues
17 to be subject, under color of law, to the assumed jurisdiction, will and control of the
lg Defendants and their agents.
19 SPECIFICS
9. Each defendant acted in such a way, or failed to act in such a way, that plaintiff Duff
is deprived of his liberty. Each defendant acted to deprive plaintiff Duff of his21
liberty; or each defendant failed to act to prevent the loss by plaintiff Duff of his22 liberty. Further, each defendant is a willing participant in concert with each of the
remaining agents thereof not yet named. Some said agents have slowly driven by
24 Duffs home with an obvious interest thereon since Duff bonded from Jail.
2510. At all times mentioned in this action each defendant is the agent of the other, and in
4&Q
doing the acts alleged in this action, each is acting within the course and scope of said27
Page 4 of 11
agency. The following paragraphs describe what the Defendants, under color of law,
either acted or failed to act as obligated.2
11. Each defendant exceeded his jurisdiction under color of law. Each defendant acted in
concert with the remaining defendants to effect the unlawful loss of property and of
5 liberty of plaintiff Duff.
612. "SERIAL # 3092" is identified as the "ARRESTING OFFICER" in Exhibit "C",
KCMO Police Department. Under color of law "SERIAL # 3092" assumed the8
jurisdiction and unlawfully and forcibly carried plaintiff Duff away, and imprisonedQ
against his will without thorough investigation, without good cause, and for reasons
that are inconsistent with Duff's Right of Action. One of the officers involved in the
11 unlawful imprisonment commented that he understood Duffs claim and actually did
12 what he could to protect Duff from the apparent anger of the other officers.
1313. Under color of law, "SERIAL # 3092" assumed the jurisdiction to impose various
14charges to subject plaintiff Duff to a foreign jurisdictions compulsory policies under
color of law and without due process of law.16
17 14. On Exhibit "C" "SERIAL # 3092" is named as the Kansas City PD "I/O", and
18 apparently is acting in concert with Complainer defendant Frazier to continue the
19 imprisonment of plaintiff Duff who is informed and believes that defendant Frazier is
acting for that purpose.-Zr\J
21At no time did Duff injure or intentionally injure defendants or their agents. The
22 incident arose out of Duff s notice to defendant Frazier that the regulatory action
Frazier claimed to be enforcing had no capacity to reach beyond the Bright Line
24 Boundary of Plaintiff Duffs Domain to compel or prohibit any action taken therein.
25 At no time did plaintiff Duff exit his private domain and capacity voluntarily or
consensually.26
27
Page 5 of 11
16. By right, plaintiff reasonably expects to proceed without injury, secure in his
capacities. By right, plaintiff reasonably expects to exercise his right to go upon the
public right of way unmolested and while recognizing he does have a duty to injure•>
no other in that pursuit.
4
5 17. Defendants have a legal duty to use due care and not cause an injury to Plaintiff or
g interfere with said rights in any way.
718. Defendants breached that duty by proximately or legally, directly and indirectly,
8causing the injuries to Plaintiff.
o19. Because of the actions committed with actual and implied force or the lack of action
of the defendants, plaintiff was immediately and directly injured and suffered loss of
11 liberty, Property and imprisoned under color of law.
12
20. Defendants have a duty to not cause plaintiff Duff to be imprisoned under color of
law, to not cause loss of liberty and to not search or seize Duff's person or property14
unreasonably. Further, defendants have a duty to prove jurisdiction when objection
to jurisdiction is asserted.16
17 21. Defendants have breached that duty. The damages claimed are all a result of the
lg injuries.
1922. The damages for the injury caused by defendants' actions are $5,000 for each day of
unlawful imprisonment and $500 for each day Duffs property is withheld as a result
of the actions of defendants.22
23. The damages for the injury caused by defendants' absence of required action is
24 $5,000 for each failure to act.
25
COUNT 2 OF CAUSE OF ACTION - TRESPASS ON THE CASE26
27
Page 6 of 11
24. Paragraphs 1 through 23 of CAUSE OF ACTION and count 1 are included by
reference as though fully stated herein.2
25. By right, plaintiff reasonably expects to proceed without injury, secure in his
capacities. By right, plaintiff reasonably expects to exercise his right to go upon the
5 public right of way unmolested and while recognizing he does have a duty to injure
g no other in that pursuit.
726. Defendants have a legal duty to use due care and not cause an injury to Plaintiff or
8interfere with said rights in any way.
9
27. Defendants breached that duty by proximately or legally, directly and indirectly,
1 1 causing the injuries to Plaintiff.
1228. The damages claimed are all a result of the injuries.
14COUNT 3 OF CAUSE OF ACTION - TRESPASS ON THE CASE
15
16 VICARIOUS LIABILITY
17
1 g 29. Paragraphs 1 through 23 of CAUSE OF ACTION and count 1 are included by
jo reference as though fully stated herein.
2030. Power is never without responsibility. And when authority derives in part from
21Government's thumb on the scales, the exercise of that power by private persons
22 becomes closely akin, in some respects, to its exercise by Government itself. Plaintiff
reserves the right to include additional defendants as they are identified.
24
25 31. The purpose of imposing vicarious liability is to insure the costs of injuries resulting
from defective actions are placed on the source of the actions and others who make26
the actions possible rather than on injured persons who are powerless to protect27
Page 7 of 11
themselves. For a defendant to be vicariously liable it must play an integral and vital
part in the overall production and promotion activity so that the actor is in a position2
to affect others or, at the very least, it must provide a link in the chain of exposing the
ultimate victim to the actor. The vicariously liable defendant must be in the business
of controlling, leasing, bailing, or licensing the actors.
5
g 32. Each defendant is an agent of the other, and each has his place in the chain of
exposing plaintiff Duff to the actors. Each defendant is vicariously liable for each
instance of injury to plaintiff.8
9 LAW OF THE CASE
1033. The law of this case is further decreed:
34. If any claim, statement, fact, or portion in this action is held inapplicable or
not valid, such decision does not affect the validity of any other portion of this
13 action.
14 35. The singular includes the plural and the plural the singular.
. 5 36. The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and the future the
present, and the past the present.16
37. The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter.17
38. If any person shall maliciously or wantonly damage or destroy any personal18 property, goods, chattels, furniture or livestock, the person so offending shall
pay to the party injured double the value of the things so damaged or
20 destroyed; and upon an affidavit that said damage or destruction was
wantonly or maliciously done, it shall be a good ground for an attachment to
issue, as in other cases by attachment, (effectively restated at RSMo 537.330)
((1973) Section 537.330 did not abrogate the common law right of punitive23
damages. State ex rel. Smith v. Greene (Mo.), 494 S.W.2d 55. ) (Section24
537.330 did not abrogate the common law right of punitive damages. State ex
rel. Smith v. Greene (Mo.), 494 S.W.2d 55.)
26
27
Page 8 of 11
39. A person commits the crime of false imprisonment if he knowingly restrains
another unlawfully and without consent so as to interfere substantially with2
his liberty.
40. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are the rules of the above-entitled court.
The rules shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and
5 inexpensive determination of this action.
6Definitions: (2) "Appropriate" means to take, obtain, use, transfer, conceal
7or retain possession of;
8(3) "Coercion" means a threat, however communicated:
(a) To commit any crime; or
11(b) To inflict physical injury in the future on the person threatened or
another; or13
14 (c) To accuse any person of any crime; or
(d) To expose any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or16
j j (e) To harm the credit or business repute of any person; or
18 (f) To take or withhold action as a public servant, or to cause a public
servant to take or withhold action; or
20(g) To inflict any other harm which would not benefit the actor.
21
22 A threat of accusation, lawsuit or other invocation of official action is not
23 coercion if the property sought to be obtained by virtue of such threat was
~4 honestly claimed as restitution or indemnification for harm done in the
circumstances to which the accusation, exposure, lawsuit or other officialJ-rJ
action relates, or as compensation for property or lawful service. The26
27
Page 9 of 11
defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification as to
any threat;2
3 COGNIZANCE REQUESTED
4Plaintiff requests this court take cognizance of Exhibits A, B, C, D (Affidavit of Truth of
Citizenship Status) and E (offer of proof of 2 distinct citizenship status in this American
Society) and apply the laws therein referenced to the instant case.
7REQUEST FOR RELIEF
8
9 41. For that cause of action therefore Plaintiff brings his suit.
10 42. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants, and each of them
individually and severally, as follows:
43. On all causes of action:12
44. For general damages in the sum of $25, 000 for the act of accosting, binding and
kidnapping Duff and $5,000 multiplied by the number of days in constructive and14 actual imprisonment;
15 45. For damages resulting from loss to Duff of his property in his Automobile including
16 personal private property therein multiplied by $500 per day until all said property is
17 returned to Duff in the same condition as when it was taken to toll from the day of the
,g taking.
46. For order of mandamus by this court for City of Kansas City Municipal Division to19
yield its action against Duff (see exhibit C) to this court as this court is superior to the
inferior Municipal court.
47. For this court to quash City of Kansas City Municipal Division charges expressed in
22 Exhibit C.
23 48. For loss of earnings according to proof;
49. That the court enter a declaratory judgment that defendants have acted arbitrarily and
capriciously and with willful and wanton intent, have abused their discretion and25
have acted not in accordance with law, but under color of law;26
27
Page 10 of 11
50. That the court enters a declaratory judgment that defendants have acted contrary to
constitutional right, power or privilege.2
51. That the court enters a declaratory judgment that defendants' actions were in excess
of statutory jurisdiction, authority and short of statutory right.
52. That the court permanently enjoin defendants from interfering in any way with
5 plaintiffs future lawful right of action;
53. That the court enter a declaratory judgment that the records of the court not of record
are impeached for want of jurisdiction in the Court or judicial officers, for collusion
between the parties, and/or for fraud in the parties offering the record, in respect to8
those proceedings;9
54. That the court grant plaintiff his attorneys fees;
55. That the court grant plaintiff such other and further relief as the court deems proper;
11 56. For interest as allowed by law; and
12 57. For costs of suit incurred.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of
This notice is actual notice to you and constructive notice to all agencies andagents of government;
I am a Sovereign Citizen, by birthright, acting in my own private capacity butexpressly not acting in the capacity of a US citizen who resides in this or anyState or any other legal fiction including but not limited to a corporation, bodypolitic, partnership or other unincorporated association. Nor am I acting in thecapacity of a "natural person" or a 'sovereign citizen' engaged in one of thosecapacities.
I do not consent to talk to you, and I must insist, unless you are placing meunder arrest, or can state specific facts which warrant your detaining me thatyou immediately leave me alone to go about my business, as is my Rightprotected by the controlling Constitutions
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT A MALA IN SE:FELONY OR MISDEMEANOR CRIME (the elements of which are "an actual harmto persons or property" "intent" and a "victim"), IS BEING OR HAS BEENCOMMITTED BY ME YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY WHAT-SO-EVER TO INTERFEREIN MY BUSINESS OR RESTRAIN OR SEARCH MY PERSON OR PROPERTY. HEREIS WHY;
If you are engaged in the enforcement of an ordinance or administrative regulation; see;
Missouri Court of Appeals Southern DistrictCase Style: City of Ash Grove, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ray Ridenour Christian,Defendant-Appellant. Case Number: No. 21161Handdown Date: 07/22/97
IN PERTINENT PART;
r/r/r/r"The law in Missouri considers violations of municipal ordinances to be civilmatters, but requires courts to apply the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonabledoubt because of the quasi-criminal aspects involved." University City v. MAJInv.Corp., 884 S.W.2d 306, 307 ( Mo.App. 1994).
AS SUCH; YOU HAVE NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE A CRIME IS OR HASBEEN COMMITTED AS YOU ARE NOW ENGAGED IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THETERMS OF A CIVIL MATTER WITHOUT SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE THAT I AMPARTY THERETO. HOWEVER, BY THIS DECLARATION, YOU DO HAVE SPECIFICKNOWLEDGE OF WHO I CLAIM TO BE
Pagel
NOTICE
CONSIDER THIS DOCUMENT TO BE ACTUAL NOTICE TO YOU ANDCONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE TO YOUR SUPERIORS THAT YOU ARE WITHOUT ALLAUTHORITY REGARDING THIS MATTER AND YOU ARE HEREBY INSTRUCTEDBY THIS CITIZEN TO CEASE AND DESIST FURTHER RESTRAINT OF THISCITIZEN.
I state here and now that I have exercised my unalienable rights in a fashion that is withinthe meaning and protection of the U. S. Constitution and the original Constitution of thisState, EXCLUSIVE OF THAT BODY OF LAW FLOWING FROM THE 14™AMENDMENT, and beyond that I have no duty to adhere to your or anyone else'ssensibility so long as I harm no one or do not trespass on their rights, (see HALE v.HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) (CASE NOT OVERTURNED ON THIS PRINCIPLE)
In addition, as it is my opinion, this detention is completely about converting mymoney/property to the use of this municipality, city, county and/or state, I inform you thatmy property is also protected by the Constitutions just mentioned and that my money, myperson and prerogative rights are my private property just as the auto is my privateproperty, all of which you are not authorized by me to disturb in any manner whatsoever. Ido not choose to nor do I consent to surrender it nor any other right or property protectedfor me by those Constitutions.
In addition, be advised that any act on your part to proceed under color of law against menot knowing full well I am party to the contract or engaged in a regulated activity whichenables you to enforce traffic laws, ordinances or administrative regulations (unless, thereis a real injured party willing to testify that I have done them harm) will be met with anaggressive and protracted and time consuming Court battle before a Jury of MY peers.
I am party to NQ contract (visible or invisible, implied in law or otherwise) with corporatebody politics in the City of Blue Springs, County of Jackson, State of Missouri, or any othercity, county, state in the Union nor the Federal Government.
I HAVE NO HISTORY OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AND AM THEREBY NO THREATTOYOUR SAFETY AS THAT FACT WILL NOT CHANGE NOW.
(PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE DOCUMENT PRIOR TO TAKING ANY FURTHERACTION WHAT-SO-EVER)
I have rescinded any assumed contracts this court or this city may be acting in accordancewith from their inception per Affidavit of truth of citizenship status currently filed with the16th judicial circuit court of Missouri and published at http://www.doprocess.net andwww.willj^mciuff.com
Further, If the process you are about to serve me does not afford me a judicial power trial
Page 2
NOTICE
with a jury of my peers and full due process of law exclusive of all theories of law flowingfrom the 14th amendment, such process can only be described as a Bill of Attainderwhich is specifically denied to all agencies of government by the controlling constitutions.
Citations supporting this notice;
"The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from policeinterference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner withcriminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by thecourts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport hisproperty thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile is not amere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a commonright which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky 731,17 SW2d 1012, and affirmed bythe Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E. 579.
Also See:
Cummings v. Missouri 71 U.S. 277 Syllabus
3. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without ajudicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed [71 U.S. 278] a billof pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder includebills of pains and penalties.
7. There is no practical difference between assuming the guilt and declaring it.The deprivation is effected with equal certainty in the one case as in the other. The legalresult is the same, on the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be doneindirectly.
And finally, DO NOT OVERLOOK Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, you arehereby informed regarding the fact that my fingerprints are private propertywhich cannot be taken over my objection without a valid court order and onlywhere a mala in se crime is charged. BE IT NOW RECOGNIZED THAT I DOOBJECT TO THE TAKING OF ANY OF MY PRIVATE PROPERTY.
THESE CASES HAVE NOT BEEN OVERTURNED WITH RESPECT TO THE SOVEREIGNCITIZEN AND ARE THE CONTROLLING LAW ON THE SUBJECT YOU ARE CURRENTLYENGAGING. IGNORING THIS NOTICE MAY EXPOSE YOU TO LOSS OF YOUR IMMUNITYFROM PROSECUTION
DO NOT MISS THE ABSOLUTE FACT THAT THIS DETENTION IS A CIVIL MATTER
Page 3
NOTICE
AND AS SUCH THAT NO PROBABLE CAUSE THAT A CRIME IS BEING COMMITEDCAN EXIST IN ANY WA YA TALL}
DO NOT MISS THE ABSOLUTE FACT THA T YOU HA VE NO SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGETHA TIAM PARTY TO ANY CIVIL CONTRACT OF ANY TYPE, THE TERMS OFWHICH YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO ENFORE HERE;
DO NOT MISS THE ABSOLUTE FACT THAT THE LAWS YOU ARE CURRENTLYENGAGED IN ENFORCING ARE LIMITED TO FEDERAL CITIZENS RESIDING INTHISSTATE;
DO NOT MISS THE ABSOLUTE FACT THAT I AM NOT A FEDERAL CITIZENRESIDING IN THIS STA TE;
AND FINALLY, DO NOT MISS THE FACT THAT BY THIS WRITING I AMCONTESTING ANY DETERMINATION YOU MAKE WITH REGARD TO ME OR MYPROPERTY UNLESS YOU LEAVE ME ALONE NOW TO GO ABOUT MY BUSINESS.
WILLIAM D DUFF, SOVEREIGN CITIZEN ACTING AS OF RIGHT (SUI JURIS)
Page 4
BILL OF SALE
I, Johnny Jones, the sole owner of all right, title and interest of every kind,
in the property described in detail at ebay.com in ebay.com's item #
4545916022, a 1996 Buick Riviera vin # Ig4gd2215t4710668, do cede all
right, title and interest to said property, as described above, to William D
Duff of 3030 NW Oak crest dr. K.C., Mo. 64151 in return for Two
Thousand-Eight Hundred-Fifty ($ 2,850.00) U.S. dollars tendered at the
signing of this document and in satisfaction of the auction agreement
between the parties as a result of the ebay auction.
J
(Print
name here ~~~~/~\Witness Signed //William D D
j&f^-jgt^
Witness: SignedLinda Talley
VIOLATION NOTICEAND INFORMATION 2243 356
OkOHtKVT
W-* ./•«*»
* HAKS*S an mou* AT of «t«i r^ocAinor L^^_ > / . . rn• > •' ^ • ; "•
Be it known to all governments, government sub divisions, courts, and other
parties, that I, William D Duff am a natural, freeborn Sovereign Missourian, as
described in 4 Wheat 402 as quoted by Bouvier's 14th edition law dictionary as it
describes individual American sovereignty and Hale vs. Henkel as it describes the
nature of Citizen of the several States. I am neither subject to any entity anywhere,
nor is any entity subject to me. I neither dominate anyone, nor am I dominated. I
am expressly not a United States citizen residing in Missouri as comprehended by
the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America or the
equivalent as represented in the contemporary Missouri Constitutions. No federal
or state declaration regarding the status of my nature can alter that fact without
diminishing my individually held rights without my consent. I do not consent. I
state here that I am of age of majority and competent and knowledgeable of the
following facts and law sufficient to assert this affidavit.
The nature of my status in America is described at 4 Wheat 402 as cited by
Bouvier's 14th edition in definition of 'Sovereignty", to wit;
Bouvier's 14th edition Law Dictionary (quoting from 4 Wheat, 402): "It has been
justly thought a matter of importance to determine from what source the United
States derives its authority... the question here proposed is whether our bond of
union is a compact entered into by the states, or whether the Constitution is an
organic law established by the People. To this we answer: We The People ...
ordain and establish this Constitution"... the government of the state had only
delegated power (from the People) and even if they had an inclination, they had no
authority to transfer the authority of the Sovereign People. The people in their
capacity as Sovereigns made and adopted the Constitution; and it binds the
state governments without the state's consent. The United States, as a whole,
therefore, emanates from the People and not from the states, and the Constitution
and laws of the states whether made before or since the adoption of that
Constitution of the United States, are subordinate to the United States Constitution
and the laws made in pursuance of it. The people are the Fountain of
sovereignty. The whole was originally with them as their own. The state
governments are but trustees acting under a derived authority, and had no
power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original
Fountain, might take away what they have lent and entrust to whom they please.
They have the whole title and as absolute proprietors have the right of using or
abusing, -jus utendi et abutendi. It is a maxim consecrated in public law as well as
common sense and the necessity of the case that a Sovereign is answerable for his
acts only to his God and his own conscience ... There is no authority above a
Sovereign to which an appeal can be made. "4 Wheat, 402 (Bouvier's 14th edition
Law Dictionary: "Sovereignty")
"The words "People of the United States" and "Citizens" are synonymous terms,
and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body that, according to
our Republican institutions form the sovereignty ... they are what we familiarly call
the "Sovereign people", and every citizen is one of these people and a constituent
member of the sovereignty..." Wong Earn Ark. P. 914, quoting Dred Scott vs.
Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 19 How 577. See also: Hancock vs. Carry Alcorn Mining
Co., Inc., Ky., 503 S. W. 2 d 710 Kentucky Constitution section 4; Commonwealth
Ex Rel. Hancock vs. Paxton Kentucky, 516 S. W. 2 d page 867(2) clause 3. "A
SOVEREIGN IS ANSWERABLE ONLY TO GOD AND CONSCIENCE"
TAKE NOTICE: SOVEREIGNTY DESCRIBED HEREIN EXTENDS TO
MY LIFE, MY LIBERTY AND MY PROPETY INCLUSIVE OF MY MIND,
PREROGATIVE AND CHOICE OF ACTION THAT HARMS NO OTHER,
ALL OF WHICH EXISTS SOLELY WITHIN MY OWN PRIVATE
DOMAIN WHICH IS MARKED AND SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THAT
OF THIS STATE AND WHICH IS BOUNDED BY A BRIGHT LINE
BOUNDARY ACROSS WHICH NO MAN OR AGENT OF GOVERNMENT
SHALL CROSS WITHOUT MY VOLUNTARY CONSENT.
Rights retained by the people include but are not limited to those eluded to in
the following U.S. Supreme Court case insofar as it supports my sovereign
birthright (accent added on point):
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled
to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited.
He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the
State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and
property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long
antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due
process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a
refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from
arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public
so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel. 201 U.S. 43 at
47(1905).
Rights possessed by me individually include but are not limited to;
The right to carry on my private business in my own way so long as that use does
not harm or trespass on anyone. Thus, be it known to all that even though I
recognize and respect those collectively held powers granted to governments, I
reserve my individually held prerogative rights of action not to be compelled to
perform under any contract or disability that I did not enter into knowingly,
voluntarily, and intentionally. A compelled state license to use my property upon
the public right of way is one such disability.
As such, the hidden or unrevealed contracts that supposedly create obligations to
perform, for persons of subject status, are inapplicable to me, and are null and void
acts when applied to me. If I have participated in any of the supposed "benefits"
associated with these hidden contracts, I have done so under duress from coercion,
mis-information, and ignorance of my true nature and rightful power. I correct that
ignorance here.
From my age of consent to the date affixed below I have never signed a contract
knowingly, willingly, intelligently, and voluntarily whereby I have waived any of
my individually held natural Rights, and, as such,
Take Notice that I revoke, cancel, and make void, ab initio. my power of
appointment on any and all contracts, agreements, forms, or any instrument which
may be construed in any way to give any agency or department of any federal or
state government authority, venue, or jurisdiction over me upon subject matter that
is solely within my individual province; one being my Right to be free from all
government restraint of my choice of action unless I have first harmed or
trespassed upon the rights of another.
This position is in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Brady v.
U.S., 379 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970):
"Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be
knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances and consequences."
Declaration of Citizenship. Any document signed by me, in which I answered
"yes" to the question, "Are you a U.S. citizen?" - cannot be used to compromise
my status as a Sovereign, nor obligate me to perform in any manner. This is
because it was not disclosed to me that being a U.S. citizen altered my birthright
and diminished my individually retained private rights through the "Doctrine of
Selective Incorporation".
I am not a "United States" citizen residing in Missouri. I am a Missourian as
comprehended by the birthright of "We the People" defined at 4 wheat 402. The
United States is an entity created by the U.S. Constitution with jurisdiction as
described on the following pages of this Affidavit. I am not a "resident of," an
"inhabitant of," a "franchise of," a "subject of," a "ward of," the "property of," the
"chattel of," or "subject to the jurisdiction of any corporate federal government,
corporate state government, corporate county government, corporate city
government, or corporate municipal body politic created under the authority of the
U.S. Constitution nor the Missouri Constitution as that jurisdiction comprehends
any subject matter that would diminish my individually held prerogative rights. I
am not subject to any legislation, department, or agency created by such
authorities, nor to the jurisdiction of any employees, officers, or agents deriving
their authority there from as that jurisdiction comprehends any subject matter that
would diminish my individually held prerogative rights. Further, I am not a
subject of the Administrative and Legislative Article FV Courts of the several
states, or Article I Courts of the United States, or bound by precedents of such
courts, deriving their jurisdiction from said authorities as that jurisdiction
comprehends any subject matter that would diminish my individually held
prerogative rights.
Take Notice that I hereby revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio any such
instrument or any presumed election made by any of the several states or the
United States government or any agency or department thereof, that I am or ever
have voluntary elected to be treated as a United States citizen, subject to its
jurisdiction, or a resident of any territory, possession, instrumentality or enclave
under the sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction of any of the several states or of the
United States as defined in the Missouri or U.S. Constitutions.
Therefore, in addition to the fact that no unrevealed federal or state contract can
obligate me to perform in any manner without my fully informed and uncoerced
consent, likewise, no federal or state statutes or regulations apply to me or have
any jurisdiction over my actions taken within my individually held prerogative
rights where same harms no one. I hereby affirm that I do not reside or work in
any federal territory of the "District" United States, and that therefore no U.S.
federal government statutes or regulations have any authority over me.
REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
Furthermore, I hereby revoke, rescind, and make void ab initio, all powers of
attorney, in fact or otherwise, implied in law or otherwise, signed either by me or
anyone else, as it pertains to the Social Security number assigned to me,
William D Duff as it pertains to my birth certificate, marriage or
business license, or any other licenses or certificates issued by any and all
government or quasi-governmental entities, due to the use of various elements of
fraud by said agencies to attempt to deprive me of my Sovereignty and/or property
and I demand that all moneys of whatever character which have been paid to such
entity in my name be returned to me without further delay.
I hereby waive, cancel, repudiate, and refuse to knowingly accept any alleged
"benefit" or gratuity associated with any of the aforementioned licenses, numbers,
or certificates. I do hereby revoke and rescind all powers of attorney, in fact or
otherwise, signed by me or otherwise, implied in law or otherwise, with or without
my consent or knowledge, as it pertains to any and all property, real or personal,
corporeal or incorporeal, obtained in the past, present, or future. I am the sole and
absolute lawful owner and possess all rights, title and interest in any and all such
property.
Take Notice that I also revoke, cancel, and make void ab initio all powers of
attorney, in fact, in presumption, or otherwise, signed either by me or anyone else,
claiming to act on my behalf, with or without my consent, as such power of
attorney pertains to me or any property owned by me, by, but not limited to, any
and all quasi/colorable, public, governmental entities or corporations on the
grounds of constructive fraud, concealment, and nondisclosure of pertinent facts.
I affirm that all of the foregoing is true and correct. I affirm that I am of lawful age
and am competent to make this Affidavit. I hereby affix my own signature to all of
the affirmations in this entire document with explicit reservation of all my
unalienable rights and my specific common law right not to be bound by any
contract or obligation which I have not entered into knowingly, willingly,
voluntarily, and without misrepresentation, duress, or coercion.
The use of notary does NOT grant any jurisdiction to anyone and as such none is
necessary as I personally will be glad, in special appearance, to verify that all
statements within are true to the best of my knowledge and that I assert each and
every one through this document as truth. My signature below is evidence of that
fact.
William D. Duff
Offer of Proof that two distinct status of citizenship exist
2. William Duff alleges there are two distinct status of citizen in this American societyand that plaintiff's status is as defined in his comes now section ,above, and defined as;the Sovereign Citizen. Are there two distinct status of citizen in America? Let's answerthat question;
U.S. Supreme Court in USv. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:"A person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but hisrights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under theother."
"an individual can be a Citizen of one of the several States without being a citizen of the UnitedStates," (U.S. v. Anthony), or, "a citizen of the United States without being a Citizen of a State."U.S. v. Cruikshank, (1875))
U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 2 guarantees "privileges and immunities" to Citizens of eachstate. K Tashiro v. Jordan 256 P 545, was later affirmed by US Supreme Court in 278 US 123:"There is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S. Citizenship does notentitle citizen of the privileges and immunities of the Citizen of the State"
The Supreme Court in Colgate v. Harvey 296 US 404, 429 clarified that rights of statecitizenship are in contradistinction to the rights of US citizenship: "The rights of a citizen underone may be quite different from those which he has under the other..."
3. It is, therefore, self evident there are two distinct status of citizen within America asrelated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Cruikshank, Tashiro, Colgate, Anthony abovequoted, and many others such as Hale v Henkel, Chisholm v Georgia etc. That beingnow a material fact, what is the difference between a citizen of the United States and aState Citizen? Lets answer that question;
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rightswhich formerly belonged to the king bv his own prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell9, (NY).
"Under our system the people, who were there (in England) called subjects are here theSovereign... their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to asentiment of loyalty to the person of a monarch. The citizen here (in America) knows no person,however in years to those in power, or however powerful himself to whom he need yield therights which the la\v secures to him..." United States vs. Lee 106 U.S. 196 at 208
United States v. 24 Federal Cases 829,830 (1873): "The rights of Citizens of the States, as such,are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before theadoption of the fourteenth amendment arid are fully guaranteed by other provisions."
"The words "People of the United States" and "Citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean thesame thing. They both describe the political body that, according to our Republican institutionsform the sovereignty... they are what we familiarly call the "Sovereign people", and every citizenis one of these people and a constituent member of the sovereignty..." Wong Kim Ark. P. 914,quoting Dred Scott vs. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 19 Ho\v 577. See also: Hancock vs. Cany AlcornMining Co., Inc., Ky., 503 S. W. 2 d 710 Kentucky Constitution section 4; Commomvealth ExRel. Hancock vs. Paxton Kentucky, 516 S. W. 2 dpage 867(2) clause 3
4. It is now self evident and material as related by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lansing,US v Lee, US v 24 fed cases, Dred Scott and many other cases on the subject that StateCitizenship possesses the sovereign prerogative as once possessed by the King ofEngland and are the sovereign in America, both individually and collectively. Bycontrast the United States Citizen is;
Amendment XIVSection 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdictionthereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
"A person may be a citizen of the United States, and not a citizen of any particular state. This isthe condition of citizens residing in the District of Columbia and in the territories of the UnitedStates or who have taken up a residence abroad."Prentiss v. Brennan Fed.Cas.No. 11,385, 2Blatchf.
United States v. 24 Federal Cases 829,830 (1873): "The rights of Citizens of theStates, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. Theystand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment and are fullyguaranteed by other provisions."
5. From the declaration in section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of theUnited States of America, it is clear, if not material fact, that the US citizen status ofcitizenship was created by concurring acts of the Congress and of the Legislatures ofthe States by granting an additional enumerated power to the congress to create andregulate this new status of citizen by and through amendment XIV. It is furtherapparent to plaintiff, if not this court, that the Missouri Constitution adopted in 1875and later in 1945 are recognition by the State of said amendment and regulation of saidU.S. citizen. It is further apparent to anyone of average intelligence that the StateLegislatures and the Federal Congress are creations of the sovereign citizens (statecitizens) as is recognizable by the source statements of the state and federalconstitutions, i.e. "We the People do ordain and establish" and "We, the people ofMissouri,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, do mutually agree to form and establish a free and independentrepublic, by the name of "The State of Missouri," and for the government thereof do
ordain and establish this constitution.", And it is material that said amendments andconstitutions and the laws arising from them do not comprehend the sovereign citizenbut recognizing the State Constitution of 1875 and laws arising there from enjoy farmore stealth on the subject than do the federal documents doesn't alter their intent andpurpose.
Obviously, there is a clear distinction between the two status' of citizenship. The natureof the State Citizen being in possession of sovereign prerogative ordaining andestablishing (creating) the State and Federal Governments, and the nature of theUnited States citizen being a creation of said State and Federal Governments. TheState Citizen (sovereign) created all government while the US citizen was created bythose governments.
6. The question of distinction is therefore one of possession of birthright to sovereignprerogative. Does the United States citizen possess sovereign prerogative such as doesthe State Citizen? The Supreme Court is silent on the subject of sovereignty being inthe possession of the United States Citizen however, other cases provide light on thissubject, but first what does sovereignty mean as applied to the state citizen;
The following definition of sovereignty is from Bouvier's 14th edition Law Dictionary (quotingfrom 4 Wheat, 402). "It has been justly thought a matter of importance to determine from whatsource the United States derives its authority... the question here proposed is whether our bondof union is a compact entered into by the states, or whether the Constitution is art organic lawestablished by the People. To this we answer: We The People... ordain and establish thisConstitution"... the government of the state had only delegated power (from the People) andeven if they had an inclination, they had no authority to trattsfer the authority of the SovereignPeople. The people in their capacity as Sovereigns made and adopted the Constitution; and itbinds the state governments without the state's consent. The United States, as a whole, therefore,emanates from the People and not from the states, and the Constitution and laws of the stateswhether made before or since the adoption of that Constitution of the United States, aresubordinate to the United States Constitution and the la\vs made in pursuance of it. The peopleare the Fountain of sovereignty. The whole was originally with them as their own. 77ie stategovernments are but trustees acting wider a derived authority, mid had no power to delegatewhat is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original Fountain, might take away whatthey have lent and entrust to whom they please. They have the whole title and as absoluteproprietors have the right of using or abusing, -jus utendi et abutendi. It is a maximconsecrated in public law as well as common sense and the necessity of the case that a Sovereignis ans\verable for his acts only to his God and his own conscience ... There is no authority abovea Sovereign to which an appeal can be made. "4 Wheat, 402 (Bouvier 's 14th edition LawDictionary: "Sovereignty )
"The words "People of the United States" and "Citizens" are synonymousterms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body that,according to our Republican institutions form the sovereignty ... they arewhat we familiarly call the "Sovereign people", and every citizen is one of
these people and a constituent member of the sovereignty..." Wong KimArk. P. 914, quoting Dred Scott vs. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 19 How 577. Seealso: Hancock vs. Carry Alcorn Mining Co., Inc., Ky., 503 S. W. 2 d 710Kentucky Constitution section 4; Commonwealth Ex Rel. Hancock vs. PaxtonKentucky, 516 S. W. 2 d page 867(2) clause 3. "A SOVEREIGN ISANSWERABLE ONLY TO GOD AND CONSCIENCE"
"The people, or the Sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes,restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Actsof limitation do not bind at the King nor the people. The people have beenceded all the rights of the king, the former Sovereign... It is a maxim of thecommon law that when an act of parliament is made for the public good, theadvancement of religion and Justice, and to prevent injury and wrong, theking shall be bound by such an act, though not named; but when a statute isGeneral, and any prerogative rights, title or interest would be divested ortaken from the king (or the people) in such case he shall not be bound, "thePeople vs. Herkimer 15 American Decisions 379, 4 Cowen (NY 345, 348(1825))
"Since in common usage, the term person does not include a Sovereign.statutes not implying the phrases are ordinarily construed to exclude it."lU.S.C.S. 1, n 12, United States vs. Fox 94 U.S. 315
Authors Note: Here it is demonstrated as material that the government, includingfederal and state, do not possess sovereignty but only sovereign powers granted by"The People" (the sovereigns) who did not cede said sovereignty to government. It is amaterial fact, then, that Government had no sovereignty to bestow on the US citizentherefore, the distinction between the two statuses is one of sovereign prerogativepossessed by the State Citizen (one of the "People", "We the People") and notpossessed by the United States citizen (creatures of government enactments).
7. Does the US citizen possess sovereign prerogative rights:
... citizens of the District of Columbia were not granted the privilege of litigating in the federalcourts on the ground of diversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for this fact exists thansuch citizens were not thought of when the judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution wasdrafted. ... citizens of the United States**... were also not thought of; but in any event a citizenof the United States**, who is not a citizen of any state, is not within the language of the[federal] Constitution. [Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914] [emphasis added
Persons are devided by la\v into natural and artificial. Natural persons are such as the God ofnature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human la\vs, for theputposesof society and government, which are called "corporations" or "bodies politic". 1 Bl. Comm.123 Blacks La\v Dictionary 1st Edition 1891
Amendment XIV designates a new class of citizen (see previous definition of artificial persons);Section 1. All persons bom or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdictionthereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall makeor enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the UnitedStates; nor shall any state deprive any per son of life, liberty, or property, without due process ofla\v; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In Powell v. U.S. 109 F2d 147, 149 (1940) the court determined wliat the term 'citizen'means infederal statutes. Notice that the term 'citizen,' when used in federal laws, excludes State citizens:"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, orraise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that 'citizen' means "citizen of theUnited States,' and not a per son generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
Your U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 2 guarantees "privileges and immunities" to Citizens ofeach state. K Tashiro v. Jordan 256 P 545, was later affirmed by US Supreme Court in 278 US123: "There is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S. Citizenship does notentitle citizen of the privileges and immunities of the Citizen of the State"
United States v. 24 Federal Cases 829,830 (1873): "Tfte rights of Citizens of the States, as such,are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before theadoption of the fourteenth amendment and are fully guaranteed by other provisions."
The Supreme Court in Colgate v. Harvey 296 US 404, 429 clarified that rights of statecitizenship are in contradistinction to the rights of US citizenship: "The rights of a citizen underone may be quite different from those which he has under the other..."
Your U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 2 guarantees "privileges and immunities" to Citizens ofeach state. K Tashiro v. Jordan 256 P 545, was later affirmed by US Supreme Court in 278 US123: "There is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S. Citizenship does notentitle citizen of the privileges arid immunities of the Citizen of the State"
United States v. 24 Federal Cases 829,830 (1873): "The rights of Citizens of the States, as such,are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before theadoption of the fourteenth amendment andare fully guaranteed'by other provisions."
The Supreme Court cases just above demonstrate that U.S. citizens are natural personspossessed of artificial citizenship status created by the States and the Congress for thepurposes of society and government, which are called "corporations" or "bodies politic".And, that the sovereign citizen is not comprehended in or by enactments respecting theUnited States citizen. The U.S. citizen does not enjoy the privilege and immunitypossessed by the sovereign citizen because a citizenship status created by government,and law, is not endowed by the creator of nature and because the Congress and theState Legislatures possessed no sovereignty with which to bestow same on naturalpersons who do not possess the birthright of sovereignty.
8. The question then arises respecting the nature of the sovereign citizen; Cangovernment presume the sovereign citizen to also be a United States citizen without hisconsent? Let's see what the Courts say on this subject;
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rightswhich formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell9, (NY).
"In the United States the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationshipto the people by taking a\vay their citizenship. " Afroyim vs. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
"Under our form of government, the Legislature is not supreme. It is only one of the organs ofthat absolute sovereignty which resides in the whole body of the people; like other bodies of thegovernment, it can only exercise such powers as has been delegated to it, and when it stepsbeyond that boundary, its acts.. . Are utterly void. "Billings vs. Hall, 7 CA 1 (Court of Appeals,U.S.)
"There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the UnitedStates. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no powerwhich they have not, by their constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." Julliard vs.Greenman, 110 U.S. 421
"The law subscribes to the king (in America, the people) the attribute of sovereignty; he issovereign and independent within his own Dominion; and o\ves no kind of subjection to anyother potentate upon earth. Hence, it is, that no suit or action can be brought against the king,even in civil matters, because no court can have jurisdiction over him; for all jurisdiction impliessupremacy of power. "Chisholmvs. Georgia 2 Doll. 419,458
"Since in common usage, the term person does not include a Sovereign, statirtes not implying thephrases are ordinarily construed to exclude it." 1 U.S.C.S. I, n 12, United States vs. Fox 94 U.S.315
"Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must be done voluntarily, they must be knowinglyintelligent acts, done with sufficient aw'areness of relevant circumstances and consequences. "Brady v US, 397 US 742
"Under the well-settled doctrine of "unconstitutional conditions," the government may notrequire a person to give up a constitutional right in exchange for a discretionary benefitconferred by the government where the property sought has little or no relationship to thebenefit. " Dolan v City ofTigard, 512 US 374
It is therefore apparent if not material that the governments cannot compel a sovereigncitizen to be the U.S citizen or even to adhere to the same rules as the U.S. citizen.Such can only be accomplished by the express consent of the sovereign.
9. All that being now material the final question must be; Is plaintiff such a sovereigncitizen?The answer must, by now, be self evident to this court. Plaintiff has filed an affidavit oftruth with this court and is on file in this case. Plaintiff was born and has lived his 57years right here within Missouri and as such is in possession of the birthright. As isreferenced in said affidavit, plaintiff, has rescinded all powers of appointment,admissions and contracts implied in law and in fact that bound him to obey theseoppressive laws, that body of laws arising out of the 14th amendment, by his consent.All were rescinded due to their being replete with disinformation, misinformation,deceit, coercion, fraud and bad faith rendering all such contracts and admissions tocontracts void ab initio from their inception. No one has the standing to challengeplaintiff's declaration as to his sovereign birthright.
Sovereignty has fairly been established through the Supreme Court decisions heretoforecited in that the individual people in possession of the birthright protected by theoriginal constitutions are the sovereign. Collectively, they make up the sovereignty ofthe people. And this plaintiff has proven herein to a certainty that he is such a citizen.This fact, being material to this action as plaintiffs cause of action which is predicatedon the allegation that defendants, et al, exceeded their granted power in numerousways and trespassed into the domain of this Sovereign Plaintiff without his consent, it istherefore necessary for the court to distinguish between the powers granted togovernment by the consent of the people and those retained by the people. It is withinthis analysis where clarity is given to the nature of the harm alleged by plaintiff to havebeen committed by defendants, et al.
The people consented to that which is written in the state and the federal constitutionsand retained for themselves all that is not included, but what is most important is; whatdid the people retain for themselves? Of course, throughout the articles of theconstitutions are references to limitations on granted powers. For the purpose of thisoffer of proof it should be enough to demonstrate both the federal and stateconstitutions prohibit government from searching and seizing anyone's person orproperty without a warrant, due process of law and probable cause that a crime isor has been committed. Remembering that a crime was a common law crime andincluded intentional harms against persons or property and did not comprehend thecontemporary application of the word crime as being the breaking of any rule thelegislature or ordinance the municipality makes. The people did not consent toanything more that what is contained in the constitutions.
10. SUMMARY;The material facts established heretofore are: State Citizens are distinctly different fromUS citizens in the eyes of the law; State citizens possess sovereign prerogative rights;US citizens do not possess either sovereignty or sovereign prerogative rights; The Statedoes not possess sovereignty itself but only sovereign powers granted to it by the
people which represent a kind of sovereignty it exercises over the national governmentbut none but that expressly bestowed by compact over the people; Government can notbestow that which it does not have on what it creates; and, Government can notpresume the sovereign citizen to be a United States citizen unless it can alsodemonstrate such citizen has expressly consented thereto; That I, William Duff am onesuch sovereign citizen; and finally, laws and due process that courts apply to thesovereign citizen must comprehend and be respectful of those prerogative rights notgranted to governments and that are protected by said constitutions. By contrast, theU.S. citizen is subject to that due process extended to them and defined by the laws ofthe government that created their status.
As this Citizen has herein proven and declared by affidavit, filed in this and otherJackson County court actions, that he is the Sovereign Citizen, as defined anddistinguished from a United States citizen above, and is in full possession of hissovereign prerogative herein notices this court that he enjoys sovereign immunity fromevery action of the legislature, Executive and Judicial branch of the MissouriGovernment, it's subdivisions, agencies and agents, where intentional harm to anotheris not associated or where he has not consented or where the action diminishes hisprerogative rights without his consent.
As such, it is necessary for the court to clearly and on the record, declare which"Citizen" plaintiff is and what due process and laws are applicable and identify which ofthese elements the court thinks it is addressing so that the appropriate due process andapplication of law will be secured. This determination is even more necessary in theinstant case as the judiciary of Missouri has apparently not cognized one of the peopleto be that sovereign citizen in any cases for the past 50 + years, in other cases thisplaintiff has been a party where this question has been ignored, and due to adetermination made by this judge to ignore plaintiff's collateral attack on the voidjudgment this case arises from while ordering process from a case this action wasseeking a collateral attack on the void judgment thereof, be imposed without hearingwhich is yet another failure on the part of the Missouri judiciary to cognize a MissouriCitizen to be the sovereign and to respect that fact. All such cases related to sovereignand/or natural rights claims during this period have been weighed, measured anddecided pursuant to the 14th amendment due process and privilege and immunitiesclauses as comprehended by the current Missouri constitution and laws of Missouri. Assuch, a reasonable man would conclude the State of Missouri is engaged in an effort toignore, if not destroy (bring about the genocide of), the rights of the sovereign statecitizen using the judiciary to deny people access to the sovereign protections. Nofurther obfuscation of this matter can or will be allowed where the question hereinproven is not controlling on the rule of decision for this court. This sovereign Citizenmust be protected by this judiciary in all the privileges and immunities inherent in hissovereign prerogative rights.
Wherefore, William Duff, recognizing that the word "law" describes two separate anddistinct bodies of "law" as above referenced, and that this fact is exculpatory in nature,moves this court to convene an evidentiary hearing to determine exactly which "law" isor is not applicable in this case without further delay and for all other protections thiscourt can and should provide upon the outcome thereof.
IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURICOUNTY OF CLAY - DIVISION 2
) CASE NO. 07CY-CV06125
) ACTION) FOR TRESPASS, AND) TRESPASS ON THE CASE
OFFICER WILLIAM FRAZIER, (SERIAL 3092)ANDOFFICER ALAN ROTH (SERIAL # 4090)Defendants.
) VERIFIED
EXHIBIT 'F'
LAW OF THE CASE
THE LAW OF THE CASE IS DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
I. LAW GENERALLY APPLICABLEThe Organic Constitution of Missouri 1820
1. The Constitution for the United States of America as it was Adopted, 1787 and First tenDeclaratory Articles (known as the Bill of Rights) and the 13th amendment thereto
2. A person commits the crime of false imprisonment if he knowingly restrains anotherunlawfully and without consent so as to interfere substantially with their liberty.
3. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are the rules of the above-entitled court. The rules shallbe construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of thisaction.
4. It is the public policy of this state that public agenciesexist to aid in the conduct of the people's business....Thepeople of this state do not yield their sovereignty to theagencies which serve them.
5. the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and theother public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business.... Thepeople of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.
6. Laws, whether organic or ordinary, are either written or unwritten.7. A written law is that which is promulgated in writing, and of which a record is in existence.8. The organic law is the Constitution for Government, and is altogether written. The written law
of this State is therefore contained in its Constitution, and in the Constitution of the UnitedStates.
9. Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of jurisdiction in the Court orjudicial officer, of collusion between the parties, or of fraud in the party offering the record, inrespect to the proceedings.
10. ...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on thepeople; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, butthey are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern butthemselves [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 LEd 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.J
The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of thesovereign makes law. [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.,29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas.1047.]
The people of this State, as the successors of its formersovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerlybelonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 IOC Const. Law Sec. 298;18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec.167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]
A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of theking. His majesty in the eye of the law is always present inall his courts, though he cannot personally distribute justice.(Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.l86) His judges are the mirror by which theking's image is reflected. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 270,Chapter 7, Section 379.
....This declaration of rights may not be construed to impairor deny others retained by the people." [Missouri Constitution,Article 1, Declaration Of Rights Sec. 24.]
The state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hertado v.California, 100 US 516.]
The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonablymade, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.[Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, therecan be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.[Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because ofthis exercise of constitutional rights. [Sherer v. Cullen, 481F 946.]
Whereas, the people of Missouri have presented aconstitution.... and which, on due examination, is found to berepublican in its form of government.... [Act [of Congress] forthe Admission of Missouri Into the Union, Volume 9, Statutes atLarge]
Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereigntyare vested in the people and are exercised by the people,
either directly, or through representatives chosen by thepeople, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [In reDuncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v.Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black's LawDictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.]
The State of Missouri is an inseparable part of the UnitedStates of America, and the United States Constitution is thesupreme law of the land. [Missouri Constitution, Article 3,Sec. 1.]
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States whichshall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, orwhich shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in everyState shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution orLaws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.[Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI,Clause 2.]
11. Conspiracy against rights: If two or more personsconspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any personin any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or Districtin the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilegesecured to him by the Constitution or laws of the UnitedStates, or because of his having so exercised the same; or Iftwo or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on thepremises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his freeexercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured •They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not morethan ten years, or both; and if death results from the actscommitted in violation of this section or if such acts includekidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse oran attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt tokill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned forany term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced todeath. [18, USC 241]
12. Deprivation of rights under color of law: Whoever, undercolor of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom,willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of anyrights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by theConstitution or laws of the United States, or to differentpunishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such personbeing an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than areprescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; andif bodily injury results from the acts committed in violationof this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use,or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire,shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than tenyears, or both; and if death results from the acts committed inviolation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping oran attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt tocommit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall befined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years orfor life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. [18, USC 2A2]
13. Property rights of citizens: All citizens of the UnitedStates shall have the same right, in every State and Territory,as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase,lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. [42USC 1982]
14. Civil action for deprivation of rights: Every person who,under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, orusage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the UnitedStates or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to thedeprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured bythe Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injuredin an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceedingfor redress, except that in any action brought against ajudicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer'sjudicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be grantedunless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory reliefwas unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act ofCongress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbiashall be considered to be a statute of the District ofColumbia. [42 USC 1983]
15. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights: Deprivingpersons of rights or privileges: If two or more persons in anyState or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway oron the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving,either directly or indirectly, any person or class of personsof the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges andimmunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing orhindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territoryfrom giving or securing to all persons within such State orTerritory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or morepersons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat,any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his
support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor ofthe election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector forPresident or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of theUnited States; or to injure any citizen in person or propertyon account of such support or advocacy; in any case ofconspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more personsengaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtheranceof the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured inhis person or property, or deprived of having and exercisingany right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, theparty so injured or deprived may have an action for therecovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation,against any one or more of the conspirators. [42 USC 1985(3}]
16. Action for neglect to prevent: Every person who, havingknowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, andmentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to becommitted, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing thecommission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if suchwrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the partyinjured, or his legal representatives, for all damages causedby such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligencecould have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in anaction on the case; and any number of persons guilty of suchwrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in theaction; and if the death of any party be caused by any suchwrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of thedeceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover notexceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widowof the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow,then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. Butno action under the provisions of this section shall besustained which is not commenced within one year after thecause of action has accrued. [42 USC 1986]
17. COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the placewhere the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, whereverthat may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]
18. COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directlyor indirectly under its authority, consisting of one or moreofficers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearingand determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rightsand alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctionsof the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course oflaw at times and places previously determined by lawful
authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067,1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]
19. COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must havefour characteristics, and may have a fifth. They are:
(a)A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercisingfunctions independently of the person of the magistratedesignated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188Mo.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]
B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jonesv. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parteGladhill, 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, orrecorded, 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; Erwinv. 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; Erwinv. 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.] [Black1s LawDictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph.Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Exparte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205,117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425,426]
20. The following persons are magistrates: ...The judges ofthe Circuit courts....
21. ...our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers,which under us have the laws of our land to guide, shall allowthe said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all theirpoints, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law.
[Confirmatio Cartarum, November 5, 1297, Sources of OurLiberties Edited by Richard L. Perry, American Bar Foundation]
22. Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not beserved on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man tolose his court. [Magna Carta, Article 34].
23. If any claim, statement, fact, or portion in this actionis held inapplicable or not valid, such decision does notaffect the validity of any other portion of this action.
24. The singular includes the plural and the plural thesingular.
25. The present tense includes the past and future tenses; andthe future, the present.
26. The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter.
n REPLEVIN27. Replevin; claim for possession of property.
1. Upon the commencement of an action, the plaintiff may recover possession of specificpersonal property before or after judgment.
(a) Claim for possession of property. A plaintiff may seek an order to obtainpossession of specific personal property as follows: Petition. The plaintiff shallfile a petition stating:
(1) Plaintiff is the owner or the person lawfully entitled to the possession, thespecific property and the factual basis for the claim;
(2) a description and value of the property;(3) the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, or is held by an
officer under legal process who has refused delivery on demand; and(4) the estimated value of the debt to defendant, if any.
(b) Prejudgment possession of property. A plaintiff may seek an order to obtainimmediate possession of specific personal property, before judgment as follows:Petition. The plaintiff shall file a petition signed under penalty of perjury stating:
(1) Plaintiff is the owner or the person lawfully entitled to the possession, thespecific property, and the factual basis for the claim;
(2) a description and value of the property;(3) the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, or is held by an
officer under legal process who has refused delivery on demand; and(4) the estimated value of the debt to defendant, if any.
(c) Hearing; notice, bond. After filing the petition, the plaintiff may apply to thecourt for an order for the delivery of the property prior to judgment on the meritsof the case.
(1) The application to the court for an order shall be by motion which, unlessmade during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, state withparticularity the grounds therefor and set forth the relief or order sought.
(2) The petition and application shall be served upon the defendant pursuanttoK.S.A. 61-3001 through 61-3006, and amendments thereto.
(3) After a hearing and presentation of evidence on plaintiff's motion, and ifthe court is satisfied as to the probable validity of plaintiff's claim andthat delivery of the property to the plaintiff is in the interest of justice andwill properly protect the interests of all the parties, the court may enter orcause to be entered an order for the delivery of the property to theplaintiff.
(4) Prior to the issuance of the order for delivery of the property, the plaintiffshall file a bond with the clerk of the court.
(d) Bond; contents, insufficiency.(1) The bond shall be executed by the plaintiff and one or more sufficient
sureties in a sum double the amount of the reasonable value of the debt,as determined by the court, or such lesser amount as shall be approved byan order of the court,
(2) The bond shall be to the effect that the plaintiff shall duly prosecute theaction, and pay all costs and damages that may be a\varded against theplaintiff, and that if the plaintiff is given possession of the property theplaintiff will return it to the defendant if it be so adjudged. If the bondshall be found to be sufficient, the court shall approve the same and noteapproval thereon.
(3) The defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the bond as provided insubsection (b) ofK.S.A. 60-705, and amendments thereto.
(4) The court shall release the bond, if the plaintiff abandons the right to takepossession of the property, prior to taking possession of the property.
(e) Replevin; without hearing, notice. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions ofthis section, the court may enter or cause to be entered the order for delivery ofproperty after an exparte hearing and without notice to and the opportunity for ahearing by the defendant, if the court is satisfied as to the probable validity of thefollowing additional allegations to be contained in plaintiff's petition:
(1) Possession of the property by the plaintiff is directly necessary to securean important private right, governmental or general public interest; and
(2) there is a special need for very prompt action due to the immediatedanger that the defendant will destroy, dispose of, or conceal theproperty.
(f) Property in custodia legis. If the property is in the custody of an officer under anylegal process, it shall nevertheless be subject to replevin under this section.
(g) Order for delivery of property. The order for the delivery of the property to theplaintiff shall be delivered to the appropriate officer or person authorized to serveprocess of any county in the state in which thepropertv is located. The order shallstate the names of the parties, the description of the property and the value of thedebt as set out in plaintiff's petition, or as found by the court at the hearing onplaintiff's application pursuant to subsection (c). The order shall command the
appropriate officer to take immediate possession of the property and deliver it tothe plaintiff and make return of the order on the day named therein,
(h) Execution of order, return. (1) In the execution of the order the officer may breakopen any building or enclosure in which the property is located, if the officercannot otherwise obtain possession of the property or entrance to the building ondemand.
(2) The appropriate officer shall execute the order by taking possession of the propertydescribed therein, and serving a copy on the person charged with the order of delivery inthe same manner as for personal or resident service if the person can be found in thecounty.
(3) The return day of the order of delivery shall be 10 days after it is issued, if the order isexecuted within the county where the court is situated. In all other cases, the return dayshall be 20 days after the order is issued.
(4) The plaintiff shall have the right to attend execution of the order. Upon inspection of theproperty the plaintiff may abandon their right to prejudgment possession and shall soadvise the appropriate officer and the court.
(i) Perishable goods. When property shall be actually seized which is likely to perishor to materially depreciate in value or threatens to decline speedily in value beforethe probable termination of the sttit, or the keeping of which would be attendedwith unreasonable loss or expense, the court may order the same to be sold on suchterms and conditions as the court may direct, by the person having charge of theproperty, and a return of the proceedings thereon shall be made by the per son at atime to be fixed by the court.
(I) Redelivery, bond. The defendant, after service of a copy of the delivery order, mayapply to the court for redelivery of the property. The court shall order return of theproperty to the defendant when the defendant files a bond with the clerk of thecourt, in an amount equal to the plaintiffs bond, executed by the defendant withone or more sufficient sureties. The bond shall be to the effect that the defendantwill deliver the property to the plaintiff if so adjudged, and will pay all costs anddamages that may be adjudged against the defendant. If the bond shall be found tobe sufficient, the court shall approve the same and note approval thereon. If thedefendant is a public officer, board or government agency, such officer, board oragency, in lieu of giving a redelivery bond, may retain possession of the propertyseized by filing with the clerk a response certifying that the public health, safety orwelfare would be jeopardized or impaired if the plaintiff acquired possession of theproperty prior to final judgment, in which case hearing may be had on the issue ofpublic interest at the instance of any party.
(k) Judgment in action. (1) In an action to recover the possession of personal property,judgment for the plaintiff may be for possession or for the recovery of possession,or the value thereof in case a delivery cannot be had, and for damages for thedetention. If the property has been delivered to the plaintiff and the defendantclaims a return thereof, judgment for the defendant may be for a return of theproperty, or the value thereof in case a return cannot be had, and damages fortaking and withholding the same.
1. In addition to other orders, the court may direct an appropriate officerto put the party entitled to possession in possession of the property.
2. That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government may berecognized and established, we declare,
1. That all political power is vested in, and derived from, the people.2. That the people of this state have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of
regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering andabolishing their constitution and form of government, whenever it may benecessary to their safety and happiness.
3. That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good,and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress ofgrievances, by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms, indefense of themselves and of the state, cannot be questioned.
4. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty Godaccording to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man can becompelled to erect, support, or attend any place of worship, or to maintain anyminister of the gospel, or teacher of religion; that no human authority cancontrol or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no person can ever behurt, molested, or restrained in his religious profession or sentiments, if he donot disturb others in their religious worship.
5. That no person, on account of his religious opinions, can be rendered ineligibleto any office of trust or profit under this state; that no preference can ever begiven by law to any sect or mode of worship; and that no religious corporationcan ever be established in this state.
6. That all elections shall be free and equal.7. That courts of justice ought to be open to every person, and certain remedy
afforded for every injury to person, property, or character; and that right andjustice ought to be administered without sale, denial, or delay; and that noprivate property ought to be taken or applied to public use without justcompensation.
8. That the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.9. That, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to be heard by
himself and his counsel; to demand the nature and cause of accusation; to havecompulsory process for witnesses in his favor; to meet the witnesses againsthim face to face; and, in prosecutions on presentment or indictment, to aspeedy trial by an impartial jury of the vicinage; that the accused cannot becompelled to give evidence against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, orproperty, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.
10. That no person, after having been once acquitted by a jury, can, for the sameoffence, be again put in jeopardy of life or limb, but if, in any criminalprosecution, the jury be divided in opinion at the end of the term, the court
before which the trial shall be had, may, in its discretion, discharge the jury, andcommit or bail the accused for trial at the next term of such court.
11. That all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capitaloffences, when the proof is evident or the presumption great, and the privilegeof the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended, unless when, in case ofrebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.
12. That excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, norcruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
13. That the people ought to be secure in their persons, papers, houses, andeffects, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to searchany place or to seize any person or thing can issue, without describing theplace to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as nearly as may be,nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
14. That no person can, for an indictable offence, be proceeded against criminallyby information, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in themilitia when in actual service in time of war or public danger, or, by leave of thecourt, for oppression or misdemeanor in office.
15. That treason against the state can consist only in levying war against it, or inadhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; that no person can beconvicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overtact, or on his own confession in open court; that no person can be attainted oftreason or felony by the general assembly; that no conviction can workcorruption of blood or forfeiture of estate; that the estates of such persons asmay destroy their own lives shall descend or vest as in cases of natural death;and when any person shall be killed by casualty there ought to be no forfeitureby reason thereof.
16. That the free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluablerights of man, and that every person may freely speak, write, and print, on anysubject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. That, in all prosecutionsfor libels, the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury maydetermine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court.
17. That no ex-post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, orretrospective in its operation, can be passed; nor can the person of a debtor beimprisoned for debt after he shall have surrendered his property for the benefitof his creditors in such manner as may be prescribed by law.
18. That no person who is religiously scrupulous of bearing arms can be compelledto do so, but may be compelled to pay an equivalent for military service in suchmanner as shall be prescribed by law; and that no priest, preacher of thegospel, or teacher of any religious persuasion or sect, regularly ordained assuch, be subject to militia duty, or compelled to bear arms.
19. That all property subject to taxation in this state shall be taxed in proportion toits value.
20. That no title of nobility, hereditary emolument, privilege, or distinction, shall begranted; nor any office created the duration of which shall be longer than thegood behavior of the officer appointed to fill the same.
21. That migration from this state cannot be prohibited.
22. That the military is, and, in all cases, and at all times, shall be, in strictsubordination to the civil power; that no soldier can, in time of peace, bequartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, butin such manner as may be prescribed by law; nor can any appropriation for thesupport of an army be made for a longer period than two years.
a. Powers retained by people as mandated upon the State by the Federal Bill ofRights and Article 4 section 2. This enumeration of rights shall not be construedto impair or deny others retained by the people; and all powers not herein delegatedremain with the people.
THE BILL OF RIGHTSAmendments 1-10 of the Constitution
28. PREAMBLE: The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting theConstitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, thatfurther declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground ofpublic confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
29. Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, inCongress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles beproposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of theUnited States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the saidLegislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Amendment IV30. 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 uponprobable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to besearched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V31. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, orin the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person besubject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelledin any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without justcompensation.
Amendment VT32. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, whichdistrict shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature andcause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsoryprocess for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for hisdefense.
Amendment VII33. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in anycourt of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment Vin34. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted.Amendment IX
35. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny ordisparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X36. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
THE PLAINTIFF RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVISE AND EXTENT THE LAW OF THIS CASEAT ANY TIME
![ORIGINAL - AAPS · original paul m. hitteli" sbn: ... support of petition for writ of mandate [exhibits 000 through xxx] ... in support of petition for write of mandate](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5b0c72347f8b9a02508c2e8f/original-paul-m-hitteli-sbn-support-of-petition-for-writ-of-mandate-exhibits.jpg)
