(Your header page goes in the text box, as you want it to appear) (From: ..

(To: ..)

(Apostille Number: 123456789 {state}) (Issued By ex officio Secretary of State of the United States; Secretary of The State of {state}, a Republic
Self-Authenticating; Rule 902(3), Federal Rules of Evidence Proof of Official Record:Your rule 27 rules of Criminal Procedure/ Your Rule 44(a)(2), Rules of Civil Procedure Superior Proof of Official Record: Your Rule 44/1991 Amendments

(Date: .) (Method of delivery: .) (Re: Return of mis-delivered Documents and Expressed Administrative Hearing to Determine Party-in Errors liability, lawfulness, true identities, lawful qualifications and constitutionality)

The Opening:
The Sixth Amendment of my Countrys Laws guarantees and mandates that I must understand the Nature and Cause of this action before this matter can proceed one-step further. I am going to express my concerns and factual knowledge of a lawful proceeding in my Country (United .States. of America), and this will make it incumbent upon you to then either dissuade my concerns, totally agree to my determinations, or correct my political beliefs with positive evidence. Positive evidence has been determined by Congress to be the certified (verifiable) production of Public Record Documents. Then the Supreme Court in its time honored and never disputed case of Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, declared that any proceeding as this must be politically correct. Your uniformly adopted Rule 301 of the Federal/STATE Rules of evidence states: a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption... Rule 301, Federal/STATE Rules of Evidence; Judicial Conference of the United States;

Enacted Public Law Title 28 U.S.C. (unstatutory) Appendix. This confirms the previous paragraph, and only reaffirms our common belief that one must be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that any presumptions made by you must be positively substantiated; because I am making the presumption that your presumptions are null, void, and mute. This will be concluded by the fairest and most equitable means possible, namely, by an easily answerable Expressed Administrative Hearing with the likely possibility of a noticed and recorded Political Default. Law, will require all parties, to participate, and all parties will be expected and required to act in a fair, timely, and equitable manner. This is basically a complete administrative investigation and administrative/equitable/political adjudication. These authorities will be separated, according to the supreme Law [Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date)], so that there can be absolutely no claim of unfairness, not being even-handed, bias, etc. There will also not be allowed any claim of ignorance, or the despotic and tyrannical characteristic of nonresponse. But at all times, self-incrimination, another of the supreme Laws of my Country, will, also not be tolerated. This whole thing is basically a procedure where we will be assured that your actions, thus far, are qualified, required, lawful, mandated, ministerial, recognizable, and documented. In addition, it will serve as an opportunity for you to justify and legitimize as I contend, all your questionable and unlawful actions and claims. It matters not how you may wish to identify this matter, as this Procedure has been determined by Congress and the Supreme Court as being a lawful, constitutional Procedure. I finally look forward to the res judicata (final) declaration that will conclude our Hearing and may render your past, current, and future actions null and void. I can only see three possible and lawful resolutions to this matter. First, a complete and total rebuttal of the presumptions that I hold concerning this matter: Second, an out and out confession of disqualification and misconduct (not allowed, in my System of supreme Law), and: Third, contemptuous. Despotic, tyrannical, and/or self-preserving character of non-response. The good news is that it does not matter which of these three possibilities are evidenced, we will still be able to get a Final Res Judicata Administrative/Political. determination and have it recorded. This will positively stand as the final, jointly agreed, lawful, constitutional political determination of this matter. To lead off this Administrative Political Investigation and Adjudication, we must first investigate my perceptions, beliefs, and facts as to this matter. I will make this statement, in affidavit form. I will not deal in my truth, but will deal solely in lawful and political fact. As I am in and part of the United States of America, then it is easily seen, that I must conform to the Laws of the United States of America. Many of my facts are based upon this supreme System of Law, and if you are fully qualified in your Office(s), then you, too, must also similarly conform. If not, then our hearing can be finally concluded at this point, because you can never force a foreign System of Law on someone who is in another Country, and I can never expect to do the same to you. What follows is my Affidavit of Fact.

Affidavit of Fact
As Mistaken Identity is politically a fatal flaw to any and all actions, I Affiant, am in good faith, returning your documents so that you may properly deliver the same to the party(ies) that you have designated! as said parties are definitely not me. Enclosed you will find the first two Witnesses of our joint Expressed Administrative Hearing. These documents are Domestically (United States of America) and Internationally (33 UST 883) Certified and Registered; just ,the positive proofs that we are looking for. It is from these

indisputable identifications that we can easily determine that your documents were mistakenly and improperly delivered. As a matter of good faith, they are being returned to you forthwith and before your time limits. As a matter of Law, we wilt determine why there was a fatal error on your part in this matter. There must be some reason for this grievous and damaging mistake. It is hoped that our joint Expressed Administrative Hearing will expose from which this fatal error arose, and if there need to be any further correction (redress) on your part; or, on the off chance of your mistaken continuation, assessment, application, and remuneration of damages. My enclosed Witnesses clearly show that I am and will be treated upon a diplomatic basis. And that Diplomatic Assaults (Enacted Public Law Title 18 U.S.C. 112) and Diplomatic Assaults by Mail (Enacted Public Law Title 18 876) carry penalties of imprisonment and fines, especially if the perpetrator is armed in any way. This document will finally determine whether or not there is a lawful, equitable, and constitutional relationship between us, who is Master and who is Servant (Sovereignty), who is lawful, who has, or has no Venue, etc. All this must be positively determined before this matter can move forward or even move at all, and therefore, must be expunged completely from any and all Official Public Records, so that there will be no further errors. Further: ________________________________________________________________________________________

(This is where you insert your Affidavit of Fact in the Expressed administrative Hearing)

Expressed Administrative Hearing:

This has, thus far, been the investigative and presumptive section of a lawful, constitutional, and congressionally dictated Expressed Administrative Hearing. Congress in its Enacted Public Law Title 5 U.S.C. 551-559 dictated statutorily the proper procedures and methods to administratively (politically) resolve any and all acts of any Government authority, alleged or otherwise. In 551 they limited this procedure to the Executive Branch alone, by not only excluding itself, the Legislative Branch, but, also, the Judicial Branch. There is also an excluding clause for territories, but since your moving party has not claimed territorial authority, there is no need to reflect upon this part of the statute. This was not to be the final word on the subject. In its landmark, time honored, and never disputed case, Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, the Supreme Court stated: The limitation of the Administrative Procedure Act to hearings required by statute [will of the Legislature] does not exempt hearings held by compulsion [Due Process] but only those which administrative agencies may hold by regulation, rule, custom, or special dispensation. They do not exempt hearings the requirement for which has been read into a statute by this Court in order to save the statute from constitutional invalidity. [Emphasis mine] Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 50; (1950). The constitutional requirement of procedural due process of law derives from the same source as Congress power to legislate 3

and, where applicable, permeates every valid enactment of that body. Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 49; (1950). In the case of all acts of Congress, such interpretation ought to be adopted as, without doing violence to the import of the words used, will bring them into harmony with the Constitution. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U.S. 86, 101 Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 50; (1950). In the present context these principles require timely and adequate notice detailing reasons , and an effective opportunity to defend by confronting any adverse witnesses and by presenting arguments and evidence. These rights are important in cases challenged as resting on incorrect or misleading factual premises or on misapplication of rules or policies to the facts of particular cases. Goldberg vs. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254. But the difficulty with any argument premised on the proposition that the statute does not require a hearing is that, without such hearing, there would be no constitutional authority Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 49; (1950). It was under compulsion of the Constitution that this Court long ago held that an antecedent statute must provide a hearing Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 49-50; (1950). It is plain to see that any narrative in between this line of Supreme Court declarations would only diminish their understanding. What is most obvious, is that Congress cannot make a statute that cannot be made the matter of an administrative hearing, and that was not explained clearly enough by Congress. As a matter of fact Congress initially tried to limit hearings to only the Executive Branch, but that would allow an immunity from constitutional authority that can never exist for the other Branches. And as your misdelivered document uses one of Congress statutes, then it is correct and factual to conduct an administrative hearing upon whether that statute is the grant of authority for you and your alleged court to bring an action against me, a Private, Sentient, Civilian, Absolute Sovereign Citizen of the United States of America and The State of Missouri. Of course, under the Separation of Powers Doctrine it is well established and well settled that I, as Head of State (by Natural Birth), am the lawmaking authority for the United States of America and our System of Law, Private Law/supreme Law, and that System of Law is only applicable to my fellow Heads of State and ourselves (Private Citizens). Whereas, the politically disconnected Public Law (U.S.C., C.F.R., etc.) can only, at best, apply to the creatures (citizens) for which this System of Law was, is, and will be created. When examining this alleged System of Law, i.e., that calling itself the IRC, and finding absolutely no grant of authority for its application to anything, especially in the Private Law, then I/We am/are therefore absolutely immune, by certified diplomatic status and Political Fact, from any and all of its claims, demands, jeopardies, and penalties. What is even more obvious, by Act of Congress (Enacted Public Law Title 1 U.S.C. 204; Notes) is that Congress too has disconnected this unknown and foreign IRC from itself, its lawmaking authority in the Public Law, and from its own creatures. So there really is not much that you, your alleged court, and all

others in concert can positively present to dissuade either Systems of Law from either recognizing an unfounded, non-granted, and unwarranted authority, or positively proving there to be some connection between the Private Law and Public Law other than absolute severability. What were the requirements read into (incorporated) this Act of Congress that would firstly insure the evil of blended functionaries/commingling of duties could not occur, and then to insure a constitutional Due Process hearing? What follows is the Supreme Courts constitutionalization of Congress Administrative Procedure Act. The history of this Act discloses that it is remedial legislation which should be construed, so far as its text permits, to give effect to its remedial purposes where the evils it is aimed at appear. Of the several administrative evils sought to be cured or minimized, only two are particularly relevant to issues before us today. One purpose was to introduce greater uniformity of procedure and standardization of administrative practice among the diverse agencies whose customs had departed widely from each other. More fundamental, however, was the purpose to curtail and change the practice of embodying in one person or agency the duties of prosecutor and judge. Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 41; (1950). Such blending of functions in one branch of the Government is the objectionable thing which the draftsmen of the Constitution endeavored to prevent by providing for the separation of governmental powers. Reid vs. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 39. The Administrative Procedure Act did not go so far as to require a complete separation of investigating and prosecuting functions from adjudicating functions. But that the safeguards it did set up were intended to ameliorate [to make or become better] the evils from the commingling [blending] of functions as exemplified here is beyond doubt. (Criminal Definition) Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 46; (1950). When the Constitution requires a hearing, it requires a fair one Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 49-50; (1950). And, of course, an impartial decision maker is essential. In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133; Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 45-46.

One can plainly see that blended functionaries were and are still a big concern of administrative judicial authorities. It is patently unfair and unlawful for the one who investigates to also adjudicate the same matter. Even though impartiality still remains to be seen in your and your alleged courts case, this is in no way a hindrance to our Expressed Administrative Procedure Hearing now being conducted. The two duties are in no way commingled. I have accepted the challenge and duty of Administrative Investigator and respectfully demand, according to Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution that you, your alleged court, and all those in concert administratively adjudicate this matter, pursuant to congressional dictates. I have the reasonable expectation that your adjudication will be impartial, timely, and will be by production of positive documented evidence if it is in conflict with our adjudication. This is what is required by all parties in this matter, and I am more than willing to accept not only this challenge of Administrative Investigator, but to accept this duty as a matter of good Citizenship. I, therefore, know the resolution will be by joint agreement and final. The first evil eliminated is blended functionaries, but there were other procedures that the Supreme Court examined as well. Of the others, the first that should be mentioned is a basic, fundamental, and rudimentary principle of Due Process, namely: The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard. Grannis vs. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394. The next constitutionalization deals with the meaningfulness of an administrative hearing. Congress has determined the manner, and that is by production of verifiable Public Record Documents (verifiable positive evidence). Just as we have delivered to the administrative judicial authority of this hearing domestic and internationally authenticated, certified and registered Public Record Documents of the United States of America which specifically identify and declare our true identities, a.k.a. trademarks/Common-Law copyrights, our rights as Private Citizens of the United States of America, the benefits, privileges, and immunities thereto, etc.; those ingenious subterfuges and devices used to abrogate these political facts; and, finally a Damage Clause for criminal/civil/maritime/commercial intentional misuse and/or conversion. As to timeliness, it appears that this procedure is to be done in a very rapid manner as Congress Fair Lending Act demands a three day time limit and the congressionally adopted BAR-Card members Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) demands the same. The hearing must be at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Armstrong vs. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552. Continuing with this subject of meaningful, we must address the subjects of responsibility and fairness. It is well settled and well established that when an alleged judicial authoritys claims/jurisdiction is put into question, it is mandatory, fair, and just to halt any and all proceedings until such time as the questioned authority can positively prove its claim and its lawful grant of its authority. Sometimes there exists such an arrogant, despotic character with the alleging judicial authority that there is many that resists, and even become violent, in the required lawful response. We must also consider the fear factor; there are those, according to our investigation, that cannot positively prove their claims or jurisdictions. Of course this is the very purpose of this whole administrative matter, and those who lack the political basis and have that knowledge are fearful from either discovery of this fact (criminal activity) or their despotic wish to continue to hide it. It should be mentioned that I as administrative investigator am in no way expecting that someone violate the Private Law and incriminate themselves, as this is against the Law [See Fifth Amendment; Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date)]. In such a case, and because this administrative procedure is a final adjudication, it is plain to see that a just decision will have been made by the administrative judicial authorities in this matter, and the rights of that administrative judicial authority will remain observed and protected, obviously at the expense of the equitable Clean Hands Doctrine.

Congress has determined that a fair and just Administrative Procedure Hearing has as its witnesses mandated Public Record Documents and their verifiable production. I have limited our administrative investigation to these, and as a matter of custom or routine of the self proclaimed authorities it is well known that non-response and/or obfuscation is the custom or routine. In some cases there is the unlawful procedure of bouncing Administrative Investigators from office to office (the yo-yo method). There is also evidence of further unsubstantiated and non-granted self-proclamations (i.e. absolute immunity claim, national defense/security etc.). But Politics, Congress, and the Supreme Court has provided us parties to this Expressed Administrative Hearing the meaningful opportunity to span disconnected jurisdictions and venue, to protect all parties from further incriminations, to finally adjudicate this matter, etc. All the scientific and hard work has been done, and all disputes will be resolved by the Witnesses those being readily available, verifiable, mandatory Public Record Documents. Because political questions are judicially non-reviewable/non-justicable, it is obvious the source of our witnesses must be separated by those political boundaries that have been established. Therefore, I, as administrative investigator and under the jurisdiction of the Private Law have respectfully and administratively demanded production of witnesses that would positively prove my contentions/presumptions to be erroneous, as I am capable of error in my investigation either from the ingenious subterfuges and devices perpetrated upon me, or misdirected threats, duress, coercions, force, violence, etc., or, simply, ignorance. Leading by example, I as the administrative investigator have presented a Witness to the administrative judicial authority, namely my superior, domestically (United States of America) and internationally (Law of Nations) authenticated, certified, and registered Reaffirmations which clearly and completely identify me, my Nations/Countries, my Form of Government, my System of Law, my benefits, my religious preference, my privileges, my absolute rights, and my absolute immunities, etc. This is readily available, verifiable, and according to your Rules, judicial Proof of Official Records of the United States of America, which have been properly and lawfully delivered, once again in accordance to your Rules (See Rule 4 F.R.C.P.), to the Administrative Judges of this lawful, constitutional Expressed Administrative Hearing, in all jurisdictions. As a matter of fact, there is within this superior Public Record Documents a Rebuttal Clause in which no timely rebuttal has ever been given, but pursuant to the Doctrine of Fairness, I feel it is justifiable and equitable to grant further opportunity for you to rebut the political facts that are contained in these Documents, once again, in a timely manner (three days) and in accordance with your own Rules of Evidence (See Rule 301). Even though these Documents are considered indisputable, I in no way wish to propound any Witness, to this Hearing that may be in error so, I believe, one final opportunity needs to be made available for timely rebuttal of our Witnesses. I have investigated your actions and have had to make presumptions as to why you would behave and act in the manner that is evidenced, because it appears as repugnant, and even traitorous to me. This unexpected and unlawful character may have surprised me to the point of error, and this is the one and only opportunity allowed, by Law, to correct (redress) my errors and justify your actions to the satisfaction of proper administrative procedure, which is known as political fact. This basically is a hearing in which the contending parties will be required to positively prove first their existence their jurisdictions, their qualifications, their fidelities, their judicial authority and its publicly displayed authorities, their Country, their Agreements, their Form of Government, their System of Law, their lawful grant of authority and power, their actual and lawful sovereignty, their citizens/subjects, etc., and then justify its actions thereto. All these presumptions have been specifically laid out in this document and all are of political (scientific) basis, and all are required to be made a matter of Public Record. This mandated Public Record is defined as follows: When all the requisites have been performed which authorize a recording officer to record any instrument whatever, and the order for that purpose has been given, the instrument is, in law, considered as recorded. Although the manual labour of inserting it in a book kept for that purpose may not have been performed. When, therefore, they are signed and sealed,

the order for their being recorded is given; and whether inserted in the book or not, they are in law recorded. Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 161. For example, the political qualifications of alleged countries, Public Servants, and judicial authorities will be a matter of verifiable Public Record. Those Records being surety bonded Public, timely, constitutionally prescribed, procedurally proper, lawful Oaths/Affirmations of Office; Records of full compensations; Records of lifetime good Behavior tenures; etc. The Records that are being demanded are those that will show that either the moving party in this matter is a fellow Head of State in our properly administered, lawful Form of Government, Country/Nation, and System of Law or merely a civilly dead body politic (incorporate). All that positive proof will be contained in the Public Record, readily available, easily produced and easily verified. It is the plain duty of the courts, regardless of their reviews of the wisdom or policy of the Act, to construe this remedial legislation to eliminate, so far as it text permits, the practice it condemns. Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 45; (1950). This last Supreme Court declaration basically relates that the administrative procedure that will be followed is that which can be positively proven by mandatory Public Record Document; and there will be no interferences of any kind allowed, such as opinion (comity/discretion), further unsubstantiated/false claims, threat, duress, coercion, force, arms, extortion, etc. In other words all evidences and witnesses must be able to stand a factual, administrative cross-examination and either contaminations and/or corruptions will not be allowed, as this is a pure, clean hands procedure (justified and equitable).

Statement of Venue:
In your Statement of Venue (scilicet, ss) you have written that your Plaintiff is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Though this may appear that this may be an attempt to identify The United States of America, it is fatally flawed and is, in Nature, Fact, and Law, an attempted enlargement, by means of fictions, of your nonexistent granted powers and authorities. In a landmark, time honored, never disputed, and still distinguished case we learn: The proper jurisdiction of the courts of Common Law is of things done within the bodies of counties, and its further enlargements, by means of fictions, can be considered only as ingenious subterfuges and devices, to amplify their powers. Justice Story; 1815 De Lovio vs. Boit, 2 Gall. 398; 7 Fed. Cas. 418; Case No. 1,776 (Reaffirmed 78 U.S. 1 to 396 U.S. 215). We are bringing to your attention, at this time, the second part of this indisputable political doctrine. In order to clarify this statement, we have taken the liberty of noticing synonyms to those words that may not be easily understood: and its further enlargements (expansions), by means of fictions (imaginary/legal assumptions), can be considered only as ingenious (clever) subterfuges (concealments) and devices (schemes), to amplify (exaggerate) their powers.

(Common-Language Clarification) The parties in your Statement of Venue are as imaginary as you can get. There is no basis, fundamental, or rudimentary principle that can be found to substantiate any party listed in your Statement of Venue. It factually appears that your parties while using a limited source of letters of our common-language have no other connection. In our common-language, words manufactured such as your parties are manufactured are either acronyms or, more loosely, abbreviations. If it is your contention that the manufacturing of the words identifying your parties are a part of our common-language, then this presumption is wholly debased, null, void, and corrupted beyond correction or remedy. There have been many exhaustive studies made concerning this very matter, and the conclusive results of those studies have perfectly shown that such manufacturing as evidenced in your Statement of Venue are unprincipled, corrupted, fictitious, and, most likely, foreign. At the same time that you contend that your corrupted manufactured parties exist, you also insist that their existence can only be represented by BAR-Card members (American Bar Association/A.B.A.). This is defined as a Privy Council, whereas Amendment VI (Sixth Amendment/Article the eighth) guarantees a choice of Assistance of Counsel and not corrupted Privy Council members. Of course, you will probably contend that this is not a criminal matter, but that, too, is a falsehood. This alleged Court is trying to adjudicate a political question (proper party identification) and then to conceal such an action as being a foreign, untranslatable CIVIL ACTION, and not being able to understand the Nature and Cause of this unintelligible statement, we are left to presume once again. This appears to be, when taken in its best light, as a criminal administrative action, which according to the Science of Law (Politics) will be an embarrassment and politically criminal to the other Branches of Government if allowed to proceed. More commonly this is positive evidence of practicing Law from the bench, a.k.a. judicial discretion, judicial comity, comity, etc. This does not even identify those political crimes such as treason, sedition, piracy (International Identity Theft), privateering (commercialization of Identity Theft), trademark/copyright counterfeiting, etc. It is a guaranteed right that no one can incriminate themselves. In the spirit of justice and fairness, we must insist that no one do such a thing and refrain from any further incriminations from the outset of this mandated hearing. As there is no grammatical authority, no printing standards authority, or even any legal/illegal authority to allow the manufacturing of your parties, then a declaration of Mistaken Identity is in order, which is, lawfully, an Estoppel by Law to not only this action but any further action commenced under these non-existent, false, fictitious, and foreign identities.

True, Correct, Complete, and Not Misleading Identification:

Enclosed you will find documents that are the positive evidence of our exact and lawful identifications that are universally recognized, internationally and domestically authenticated, internationally and domestically registered, internationally and domestically certified, and pursuant to your Federal/STATE Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence these Public Record Documents of the United States of America are foreign, superiorly authenticated, Official Proof of Public Record Documents of the United States of America. These Official Public Record Documents of the United States of America are titled Act of State: Act of state. An act done by the sovereign power of a country, or by its delegate (fully qualified Public Servant/Officer), within the limits of the power invested in him. An act of state cannot be questioned or made the subject of legal proceedings in a court of law.

Banco Nacional de Cuba vs. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398: Ricaud vs. American Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304: Oetjen vs. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297: F. Palicio y Compania, S. A. vs. Brush, 389 U.S. 830; 256 F. Supp. 481; 375 F.2d 1011: Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed. pgs. 33-34. This is obviously a political fact/question, or, in other words, a document pursuant to the science of Government, Law, Justice, and Equity. Of course the proper administration of any and all sciences are determined by absolute (ultimate) facts that are universally (internationally) recognized. It is also a political doctrine that in a republican form of Government that because of the three separate Branches of Government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) there are not only a system of checks and balances, but that in the matter of political questions, that there can never be a need for Judicial review as the administration, assignment of authority, and legislative process have already been lawfully accomplished and factualized. On this point, all jurisdictions agree: Political. Pertaining or relating to the policy or the administration of government, state or national. Pertaining to, or incidental to, the exercise of the functions vested (owned) in those charged with the conduct of government; relating to the management of affairs of state, as political theories; of or pertaining to exercise of rights and privileges or the influence by which individuals of a state seek to determine or control its public policy; having to do with organization or action of individuals, parties, or interests that seek to control appointment or action of those who manage affairs of a state. State ex rel. Maley vs. Civic Action Committee, 28 N.W.2d 467, 470; Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pg. 1158. More clarification is to be found in the following definition: Political. Pertaining to policy, or the administration of the government. Political rights are those which may be exercised in the formation and administration of the government; they are distinguished from civil rights, which are the rights which a man enjoys as regards other individuals, and not in relation to the government. A political cooperation is one which has principally for its object the administration of the government, or to which the powers of government, or a part of such powers have been delegated. Winspear vs. Dist. Tp., 37 Ia. 544; People vs. Morgan, 90 Ill. 563; Bouviers Law Dictionary, 8th ed., Pg. 2626.

10

Upon the face of these documents (Apostilles) it is evident that the Federal, et al. and, therefore, STATE, et al. courts have recognized these Official Proof of Foreign Public Record Documents by receiving the same into the Courts record, pursuant to Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch) 137. Lets check this definition from the perspective of our first common language dictionary. Political, Pertaining to policy, or to civil government and its administration. Political measures or affairs are measures that respect the government of a nation or state. So we say, political power or authority; political wisdom; a political scheme; political opinions. A good prince is the political father of his people. The founders of a state and wise senators are also called political fathers. 2. Pertaining to a nation or state, or to nations or states, as distinguished from civil or municipal; as in the phrase, political and civil rights, the former comprehending rights that belong to a nation, or perhaps to a citizen as an individual of a nation; and the latter comprehending the local rights of a corporation or any member of it. 3. Public; derived from office or connection with government; as political character. Other synonyms to that which is a political question are organic, de jure, and, in our guaranteed republican form of Government, constitutional (supreme Law, Common-Law, and Private Law). Anyone will suffer severe consequences if they should try to interfere, in any way, with this administration: Political crime. In general, any crime directly against the government; e.g. treason; sedition. It includes any violent political disturbance without reference to a specific crime. Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pgs. 1158-1159. The enclosed Document is further titled Reaffirmation of Dual Citizenship. This, too, is an ultimate fact. The Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date) in its further declaratory and restrictive clauses, namely the First Amendment administratively declares and restricts: shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Article the third; Amendment I; Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date).

11

One can easily see that it is a political fact as to the freedom of any Private Citizen in the pursuit of their religious establishment, and in the case of this Private Citizen, the established religion is one commonly known as Christianity. The doctrines of its Divine Law clearly declare that this Private Citizen, by Natural Birth, in the Venue of the United States, is ultimately the Subject Citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven and its organic act is noted in the Act of State. There is no need to have any further interpretations or clarifications in this matter (Christianity) as it is the Private Citizen, solely, that determines how this Divine and Constitutional Absolute Right will be practiced, determined, and executed. There are many other matters that have the same outcome as the establishment of religion by a Private Citizen and the unlawfulness of the establishment of a religion by the Government. This is a separation of powers; it is true, but that separation is strictly based upon sovereignty.

The Conspiracy?
One of most disturbing aspects of this matter is the involvement of the alleged Department of Justice. Even though, more than likely, bribery, blackmail, violent extortion, etc. has probably been involved it is hard to believe that any authority purporting Justice would ultimately act in the manner that has been exposed in this matter. It seems that this authority should be renamed as the Department of Criminal Injustice. When viewed in the light of fact and true Law, it is well known and well established, that those proclaiming status of U.S. Attorney are merely false impersonators (See Enacted Positive Public Law Title 18 U.S.C. 912) as they are not qualified for such a claim as all have Neglected their Office, a political crime. There is another reason, that being that they are the previous Successor to the Alien Enemy Programs Alien Property Custodian, which is the position that your moving party has assumed since 1968 (See E.O. 11281). The history of the Alien Enemy Program is shrouded in deceit, despotism, tyranny, and treason. It started honorably enough, by seizing or restricting the economic assets of our congressionally declared enemies. In this Program there were basically three Officers: 1) Coordinator of Cultural and Economic Relations of the American Republics; 2) Administrator of Export Control; and 3) Alien Property Custodian. Alien enemies were listed, at that time, on a list labeled as Proclaimed List of Certain Blocked Nationals. On 8 July 1946 a presidential administrative (political) order was given to withdraw this list immediately (See 11 Fed. Reg. 7567). Unlike the Civil War where at the cessation of hostilities there was a presidential grant of amnesty and pardon for all Southern Citizens was eventually honored by all authorities, with the help of the Supreme Court; this was not the case in July of 1946. Following withdrawal on July 8, 1946, by the United States of the existing Proclaimed List of Certain Blocked Nationals, the Department of State, on July 9, issued a press release, which read in part: The Department of State (acting) with the concurrence of the Departments of Treasury (acting), Justice, and Commerce, announced on July 9, the withdrawal of the Proclaimed List of Certain Blocked Nationals, generally known as the American Black List. The withdrawal is to be effective immediately. This measure was decided upon after extensive consultation with the British and Canadian Governments, which are taking similar action with respect to the British Statutory List and the Canadian List of Specified Persons. The three lists have been virtually identical since shortly after the Proclaimed List came into existence on July 17, 1941. Other governments, including those recognizing the list or maintaining lists of their own, were informed in advance of the intended measure. The Proclaimed List named persons and companies, resident in areas outside of enemy control, who directly or indirectly rendered substantial aid to the enemy war machine. Those listed were denied the privilege of trading with the United States. Before V-E Day, the British, Canadian, and the U.S. Governments were in consultation with respect to the continuation of the list after the conclusion of active hostilities. The Governments were in

12

agreement that it would be essential to continue the lists but that they should be reduced to a hard core. Thus the Proclaimed List, when withdrawn, consisted of 5,887 names, representing a substantial reduction from 15, 446 at its peak on July 28, 1944. These reductions resulted from both the elimination of undesirable influences or interests in various listed firms and the deletion of the less serious offenders. The withdrawal of the Proclaimed List does not in any way constitute a termination or slacking in the program for the permanent elimination of Axis external influences either in this Hemisphere or in the Eastern Hemisphere. With respect to the other American republics, the program for the marshaling, liquidation, vesting, and exportation or forced sale of Axis spearhead business enterprises is based on various inter-American resolutions, beginning with those adopted at the Rio de Janeiro Conference of January 1942, and the last of which was at the Mexico City Conference (Chapultepec) of FebruaryMarch 1945. These resolutions and the programs to be executed pursuant to them are based on a recognition of the importance and urgency of eliminating Axis influences in this Hemisphere as essential to inter-American security. The Government of the United States is prepared to cooperate fully with the governments of the other [End Page 114.] American republics in carrying out the letter and spirit of these inter-American agreement. The withdrawal of the Proclaimed List does not necessarily affect other existing controls. For example, the withdrawal of the Proclaimed List does not mean that accounts, where such exist, of all persons formerly included in the list are now unfrozen in the United States. In certain cases, accounts will continue to be blocked by reason of nationality. Similarly, the withdrawal of the Proclaimed List does not imply that all former Proclaimed List nationals are regarded as satisfactory agents for American business. However, the withdrawal of the Proclaimed List does represent an important step in the United States policy of freeing trade from wartime controls as soon as such action becomes possible. XV Bulletin, Department of State, No. 368, July 21, 1946, pgs. 112-113. Attached to the above announcement was a memorandum describing the history and scope of the Proclaimed List. The memorandum is printed in XV Bulletin, Department of State, No. 368, July 21, 1946, pgs. 113-114, 118. Digest of International Law; Volume 10; Alien Enemy; Pgs. 113-114; Marjorie M. /Whiteman, B.A., LL.B., M.P.L., J.S.D., LL.D.(HON) Assistant Legal Advisor, the Department of State. We have taken excepts from this Digest that show that there exists today a congressionally undeclared economic war being conducted by the current Alien Enemy Program Officers against any and all Private, Sentient, Civilian, Absolute Sovereign Citizens of the United States of America, and because of the volume of these excerpts, we incorporate these excerpts from this Digest into this document as if written as an Exhibit. Even though it may appear that this was a Program solely directed against Axis powers, much before this time provisions were made by Executive Order, the exclusive lawmaker of this Program, to include all Private Citizens of the United States of America. How can one know for sure that one is considered as an Alien Enemy? If one is having any property seized by the Alien Enemy Custodian, or is required to gain a license for any reason, who is being attacked by the Alien Property Custodian in United States courts, is listed upon the new Proclaimed List of Blocked Nationals, U.S. (United States of America), etc. And, as your moving party is the collector of all these, then it is safe to say that the Alien Property Custodian of the unlawful and unconstitutional Alien Enemy Program is presently your moving party. Studying the history of these Alien Enemy Program Officers reveals that in 1946 the Secretary of Commerce had already succeeded the Office of Administrator of Export Control. The Secretary of State has assumed the Coordinator of Cultural and Economic Relations with the American Republics.

13

1 October 1948 the Attorney General was transferred the authority of the Alien Property Custodian as is evidenced in the cases of 255 F.2d 236 (1958), 170 F. Supp. 419 (1959), 299 F.2d 923, 301 F.2d 544 (1962), 301 F.2d 546 (1962), etc. Attorney Generals Rogers and Kennedy claimed to be Successor to the Alien Property Custodian. Further evidence is found in this Digest: By Executive Order No. 11281, May 15, 1966, President Johnson stated that whereas, the functions of vesting property under Trading with the Enemy Act and under section 202 of the International Claims Settlement Act [22 U.S.C. 1631 (a)] have been terminated, and that whereas the Office of Alien Property would be abolished on or before June 30, 1966, the authority granted to the Attorney General by Executive Order No. 9989 (supra) [above] with respect to property and interests blocked or otherwise restricted under Executive Order No. 8389 was thereby terminated and Executive Order No. 9989 superceded, and the Secretary of the Treasury should thereafter be responsible for administration of the controls exercisable under Executive Order No. 8389 with respect to any property or interests that remained blocked or restricted under Executive Order No. 8389. 31 Fed. Reg. 7215-7216; Digest of International Law; Volume 10; Alien Enemy; Pgs. 111; Marjorie M. /Whiteman, B.A., LL.B., M.P.L., J.S.D., LL.D.(HON) Assistant Legal Advisor, the Department of State. So your moving party, the assessment and collection arm of the Secretary of the Treasury from the foreign, fictitious, non-existent Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; by and through its fraudulent and unconstitutional Agreements with every fictional Federal, STATE, COUNTY, and CITY; under threat, duress, coercion, force, and arms to all Private Citizens; using violent extortions and bribery to illicit aid from false personating Public Servants; to prosecute an unrecognized, foreign, unconstitutional system of false laws; for illegitimate, fraudulent, unlawful, and unwarranted collections of taxes (sic, revenues); while all the while having no sovereignty, no grant of authority and/or power, official capacity, no political basis and no venue whatsoever; is now trying to force us who are knowledgeable to these political facts and our only response can be to presume that there may be found clean hands in the Law amongst those of you who have been recruited into this aberration. We are also under the belief that the Clean Hands Doctrine may not be able to be honored by you, your alleged outlaw court and all those in concert, so we have taken the appropriate remedy to even rectify this without you having to incriminate yourself.

Sovereignty:
Sovereignty determines power and authority of parties. There are many types of sovereignty doctrines, the most significant in this matter is the Doctrine called Master and Servant Relationship. In the BAR-Card members publication, Corpus Juris, a.k.a. Corpus Juris Secundum/C.J.S., its 2000 edition has suddenly fallen silent from well over fourteen hundred pages previously. As this profession has always done, it has tried to obfuscate its actions, and therefore, its intentions by means of fictions in ingenious subterfuges and devices such an action as this is not surprising as truth and facts are the A.B.A.s fatal flaw. In another of the BAR-Card members publications, namely the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) it has tried to amplify the powers of commerciality to include the Master and Servant Relationship to that of another doctrine of commercial sovereignty, Principle and Agent Relationship. This is like comparing apples and oranges, as the former deals with Private Citizens and the latter imaginary/legal assumptions, but the most important consideration is the lawful granting of power and authority. Fortunately, this is not a controversial subject, as there have been many authorities, alleged or otherwise that have weighed in on this very matter of sovereignty and its lawful practice. Firstly, up until the formation of our Government, the previous forms of Government, sovereignty, was based upon the authority assuming the right to write the superior Law. In most cases throughout history, this authority was a singular entity that usually embodied a self-proclaimed deity, royal birth, etc. There are many

14

instances of violent means being used to hold ones singular authority, and we call these dictatorships. Roman Canon Law is the mere replacement of these authorities by a legislative body. That is not the case of our form of Government. Rulers and Servant, or more commonly, Master(s) and Servant Relationship have replaced this principle of ruler and subject relationship, in our Government. In a landmark, time honored, and never disputed case, the Supreme Court declared: Sovereignty. in our republican forms of government the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people [Private Citizens] of the nation: and the residual sovereignty of each state, not granted [contracted] to any of its functionaries, is in the people [Private Citizens] of the state; [Lawful Clarification] Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 U.S. (Dall.) 471 Bouviers Law Dictionary, 8th ed., Page 3096. Absolute Sovereignty is known internationally as Head of State; anciently as Ruler, and relationally as Master. Today, there is little difference, as absolute sovereignty is still the absolute property of the Head of State-RulerMaster of Government, and our Founding Fathers turned this upside down by having many Rulers and few Subjects, and it has now universally recognized; In international law a state is considered sovereign when it is organized for political purposes and permanently occupies a fixed territory. It must have an organized government capable of enforcing law and be free from all external control. A wandering tribe of savages, or nomads, or people united merely for commercial purposes or under control of another state (United States of America) cannot be considered as a sovereign state. The fact of sovereignty is usually established by general recognition of other states, and, until such recognition is universal (International), no community (United States, et al.) can be considered as sovereign. (Constitutional Clarification) Snow, Int. Law 19; Bouviers Law Dictionary, 8th ed., Pg. 3096. The United States, et al. does not possess any of the required sovereign characteristics. The first paragraph clearly shows the inability of the United States, et al. of being capable of being a Body Politic. Its alleged judicial branch is forbidden by definition from participating in the check and balance system of a truly republican Form of Government. In Enacted Public Law Title 5 U.S.C. 551 even the alleged legislative branch of the United States, et al. has declared that it is politically inept. This basically means that the alleged executive branch is left the task of politically dealing with the Private, Sentient, Civilian, Absolute Sovereign Citizen of the United States of America or to positively show that the United States, et al. is, characteristically, no political state (International), lawful Government, etc. As to permanent territory, every square inch of the United States of America is surveyed and has perfect title. These perfect titles (Land Patents) are perpetual to not only the initial Purchaser (Private Citizen), but to the

15

heirs and assigns of this purchaser, also, in perpetuity. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, et al. this method of titling is free from any error and is permanent. The second paragraph is even more obvious, the organized government of the United States, et al is nothing more than a para-military police state. Much like that the Private Citizens of pre-World War 2 Germany had to face. To have the ability to enforce the law, first there must be a system of law to enforce. As was stated in one of the Supreme Courts landmark, time honored, and never disputed case: For martial law, which is built upon no settled principles, but is entirely arbitrary in its decisions, is, as Sir Matthew Hale observes, in truth and reality no law, but something indulged rather than allowed as a law. 1 Blackstones Commentaries 413, Sir William Blackstone; Reid vs. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 19. Further substantiation can be found in the International Law for this militarization of and by the United States, et al. For the purpose of ensuring, or, as the case may be, strengthening the genuine link between a State and ships flying its flag, and in order to exercise effectively its jurisdiction and control over such ships as well as with regard to administrative, technical, economic and social matters, a flag State shall apply the provisions contained in this Convention. Registration of Ships and Mortgages, United Nations Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships, 1986; Geneva, February 7, 1986 Article 1, Objectives This same objective is also restated in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. So just what does the International Law of the Flag declare as to the alleged Government of the United States, et al.? The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. 34 Op. Att. Gen. 483, Department of Justice, May 15, 1925. Knowing this, we are led to the inescapable conclusion that all the alleged departments and agencies of the alleged Government of the United States, et al., their practices, their actions, etc. are all militaristic in Nature, Fact, and Law. It would also be remiss if the full Tacit, International, Public, Notice concerning the International Law of the Flag was not revealed. In the alleged Courts of the United States, et al. it is declared them to be not only military, Commander-In-Chief, no law tribunals, but, also, maritime hypothecations (e.g. piracy, privateering, bottomry bonds, salvage, etc.). Whereas, on the other hand, the United States of America is completely different, all the practices, procedures, principles, doctrines, Law, etc. are not only politically correct, but also universally recognized. By factually

16

describing the United States of America, and, then, noting the deficiencies of the United States, et al. we will be able to factually declare that one of the above is a Lawful, universally recognized, political Government, and the other, by means of fictions, is merely a corrupt organization (RICO) of ingenious subterfuges and devices for the singular purpose of unlawfully and evilly extending their non-granted (arbitrary), unfounded, imperfectly titled, and non-existent powers and authority militaristically and violently over Private Citizens of the United States of America. United States of America. 4. In these matters, particularly in the limitations put on the sovereignty of the states, it has been sometimes said that the Constitution(s) executes itself. This expression may be allowed; but with as much propriety these may be said to be laws which the people have enacted themselves, and no laws of congress can either form, add to, or confirm them. They are rights, privileges, or immunities which are granted by the people, and are beyond the power of congress or state legislatures; and they require no law to give them force or efficiency. It is obvious that no law can effect this immunity. On these subjects all laws are purely nugarory [having no power], because they go beyond (falsely enlarged) or fall short (not granted) of the provisions of the Constitution(s), that must always be appealed to. An individual (Private Citizen) has just what that gives him, no less and no more. It may be laid down as a universal rule, admitting no exception that when the Constitution(s) establish a disability of immunity, a privilege or a right, these are precisely as that instrument has fixed them, and can be neither augmented nor curtailed by any act or law either of congress or a state legislature. [Politically Corrected] Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1870. Whereas, it can be said of the United States, et al., that it is a very unusual word in the Law. In Law dictionaries, it does not appear until 1968 in Black' 4h ed., page 1703. It was at this time that the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES interpreted this word to have multiple meanings (See Hooven & Allison Co. vs. Evatt, U.S., Ohio, 324 U.S. 562). For 181 years, United States meant nothing other than a respelling of united States (Declaration of Independence) and United States (Articles of Confederation, Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date), and all State Republic Constitutions) which is, in Nature, Fact, and Law, the collection of the separate state Republics, Treaty States, several States, our guaranteed Republics [see Article IV, 4 of the Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date)] conveniently and commonly labeled thereto. It has been by mere unlawful, violent, and criminal fictional enlargement, which gives the appearance of including the united States, the organic United States, the several States, etc., whereas, in actuality, Nature, Fact, and Law it is the non-sovereign, non-existent, untitled, unauthorized, politically criminal RICO

17

organization which goes by many disguises such as UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF ___, COUNTY OF ___, CITY OF ___, United States, Federal, National, etc. that is actually being purported and this, too, is void of any recognizable sovereignty. This entity has many aliases and must use vi et armis (force and arms), dictatorially, and militaristically to enforce its beliefs, will, and demanded obedience (voluntary compliance) upon the true Private, Sentient, Civilian, Absolute Sovereign Citizen of the United States of America, and such actions negate any claim of authority absolutely. Its most popular fictional non-existent form is in a false corporate form and has taken the fictional, unauthorized, untranslatable, foreign name of UNITED STATES, et al. It is a parent corporation by its own admission of bankruptcy through Commander-In-Chief Proclamation (Executive Orders), and therefore, civilly dead. Just as there is a defined and distinct hierarchy in Sovereignty, there also politically exists a hierarchy in Systems of Law. Specifically, a Hornbook which is a textbook of the science of Law declares and defines: Anglo-American law has been separated into two main divisions Public Law: which has to do with the regulation of relations between independent states and between a state and its (Public) citizens and: Private Law: which regulates the relations between the citizens of the state. [Emphasis and Clarification mine] Handbook on Common Law Pleading, Page 8; Joseph H. Koffler, Professor of Law, New York Law School and Alison Reppy, Late Dean and Professor of Law, New York Law School West Publishing Co. (1984) We are sure that this law school textbook, which, by the way, is authored by BAR-Card members, had as its intent to obfuscate, but to merely illuminate those scientific facts about our System of Law. The law making authorities certainly agree with this basic, fundamental, and rudimentary principle as even Congress has declared that it can only legislate, with the advice and consent of the Executive Branch, Public Law (P.L.). The alleged charging document that we have received is infested with creatures calling themselves :IRC . Well, Congress, in its very first code book (P.L.), declares: The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) was enacted in the form of a separate (disconnected) code (Lawful Definition) Enacted Public Law Title 1 U.S.C. 204; Congressional Notations. This sheds a very disturbing and corrupting light upon the self-proclaimed Department of Justice. It is a political fact that it is the supreme Law that we are held, and no other. Law science principles completely agree. We are not liable to the Public Law, as we are the creators of the Public Law-Making authorities (Servants), so how could we possibly be liable to an alleged system of law that has been twice removed? To believe such a thing is not only totally ridiculous, but smacks of communism, tyranny, and despotism. And this

18

is where the Department of Justice stands, trying to violently and maliciously apply a completely unknown semblance of law to its own Masters and Absolute Sovereigns. What a blight upon the science of Law (politics) and Equity the Department of Justice has cast. But Political Crimes are not intended to be pretty and because of the abhorrence they inspired, the penalties that are to be applied are great, and most times Capital. In the next section, we will examine closely just who are these alleged authorities that are the moving party, the prosecutorial, the self-proclaimed judicial authority, etc. Just as we have shown in the claim to any form of governmental Sovereignty that the claimant must be fully qualified, and that is strictly a political matter.

Political Qualification:
Like Sovereignty, there is a hierarchy in Political Qualification. There are in fact different levels of Qualifications, but the determining factor is the intentions of the official position. It is true that one purporting to hold a position in the Private Law must be fully qualified in order to settle and establish that claim. On the other hand one trying to enlarge their limited authority to Private Law parties and have not made themselves fully qualified are ignored and if persistent are dealt with harshly for commission of political crimes. It is an extremely simple matter to check whether or not a propoundment is fully qualified. In order for us to be lawfully able to proclaim ourselves to be Private, Sentient, Civilian, Absolute Sovereign Citizens of the United States of America and The State of Colorado, a.k.a. Mater, Ruler, Head of State, I the People, etc. there is only one qualification that I must initially satisfy. That is simply that I have to show that I have sustained a Natural Birth in the lawful Venue of the United States of America. Even though these same rights, privileges, and immunities of a Natural Borne Private Citizen are extended to anyone of a different Venue, in this Case, there need be made no reference to this lawful practice. According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (See 23 UST 3227, Article 13, 1) a Law of the United States of America, when I have announced our arrival into any foreign authority, even those of fictional propoundment, then from that point on, I lawfully enjoy absolute immunity from any and all actions commenced from any foreign authority, foreign system of law, and any service from any foreign official, civilly, criminally, and commercially. Our births were announced to the entire World, and therefore, by International Law, I possess and enjoy absolute immunity, until deportation, from any foreign Government, law, or the officials thereto. Can it be shown that this is the case in this matter? Upon our natural births, the Government generated documents that announced all aspects of our natural births and then distributed them to all levels of its Government as well as all financial and commercial authorities. The Government then made the announcement of our arrivals to the World (International). It is demanded by 23 UST 3227, Article 13, 1 that there be one of two methods used to sustain absolute immunity in any foreign country (state), and the announcement/notification of arrival is one of those. And it is obvious that this has already been accomplished, in our case, and there can be made no excuse or reason given to deny that we have not announced our arrivals pursuant to both the International Law and the Laws of the United States of America. To either believe or act otherwise is defined, declared, settled, and established as being a perpetrator of a political crime, which carries with its conviction great and overwhelming jeopardies and penalties. As to the production of the positive proof required to determine who and/or what foreign, I need only rely upon Congress and our Law Science Schools to factually determine this foreign political question. Congress has declared in its Enacted Public Law Title 28 U.S.C. 1746 this fact of foreign designation. This Act has to do with making required unsworn declarations either within (domestic) or without (foreign) the United States (et al.). The evidence is that Congress has determined that an unsworn declaration without the United States is made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America. This Act of Congress makes no mention of any System of Law within the United States, et al., but there is mention of a System of Law without the United States, a.k.a. United States of America.

19

A source more to the point on this foreign matter is found, once again, in the textbooks of law schools. It is believed that every law student is required to purchase this book on the subject of citation. Citation is basically where a form of shorthand is devised so that there is no need to write a law publications title, etc. in its entirety. This book has in blue pages given the abbreviations to all such publications, etc. within the jurisdiction of the United States, et al. Also in blue pages are Tables that are lists of different subjects, e.g. Foreign Jurisdictions, Treaty Sources, etc. It is Table 11 (page 311) that is most interesting and revealing. Table 11 is titled Geographical Terms. The first list is predominately the abbreviations for the States of the Union. It may be surprising to many that these are not the all capital two letter abbreviations that were found in the first set of blue pages listed as United States Jurisdictions of these same Abbreviations that are found in the 2000 edition of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE Style Manual, which lists these as being the Postal Zones of the subcontracting financial institution (See Enacted Public Law Title 31) known as the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS). These abbreviations are in upper and lower case and range from two to five letters in size, with a period at the end of each abbreviation: so much for the common misperception that the Union of States has either been militarily or commercially taken over. The next list is a list of Australian states and Canadian provinces and territories, which is of little note in this matter. It is the third and final list that is most helpful and informative in factually answering this foreign question. The third list is titled Foreign countries and regions. It is a rather extensive list that covers pages 311 to 314. It is on page 314 that I find our answer to this foreign question. Lo and behold under the title of Foreign countries and regions (that is to the United States, et al.) is to be found United States of America and its abbreviation U.S. As this publication is purported to be in the initial library of every law student, and this revelation must be shown to be positive proof, an investigation to the source of these listings of abbreviations is necessary. The title of this publication is The Bluebook in its Seventh Printing of its Seventeenth Edition and is Compiled by the editors of the Columbia Law Review, the Harvard Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and The Yale Law Journal. Very prestigious publications, indeed! Why even the Supreme Court uses these publications as references in forming its opinions. I certainly do not feel qualified or knowledgeable to dispute this publications listings. Therefore it has been positively proven that you, your alleged court, and your moving party are not even in the same country that we are, which according to the International Law (Law of Nations) that if we are perfectly placed in our Venue which is not in dispute, then you, your alleged court, and your outlaw moving party are desperately trying to commit the political crime of trying to enforce a foreign law upon a, not only foreign, but completely immune Private Citizens of a declared, defined, and expressed sovereign foreign Nation. In other words, any law of the United States, et al., and most especially your outlaw, disconnected moving party cannot possibly be applicable to us as we are sovereign, foreign, and absolutely immune from any and all processes, procedures, and ingenious subterfuges and devices that you, your alleged court and your outlaw moving party and those in concert (DOJ, et al.) may wish to apply. Under this heading of Political Qualification I have proven in Nature, Fact, and Law that we are to be afforded political (diplomatic) immunity from all foreign authorities and are solely responsible to the Laws of the United States of America to which all that you are and all that you do and all that you claim is not only unfounded, unauthorized, unauthenticated, but is unlawful. Of course, you will be given customary, reasonable, and meaningful opportunity to provide verifiable, positive evidence either equal to (meet) or greater than (rebut), as is required by your own Rules of Evidence (Rule 301) and your own statute (no law), namely, Enacted Public Law Title 5 U.S.C. 556 d, to the positive, politically factual evidence that we have lawfully presented.. We have positively proven that both ourselves and our Country, Government, and Law all are of lawful status and at the same time I have also positively proven that the alleged country/government calling itself the United States, et al. has neither authority, power, grant, venue, or politically qualification. Fortunately for this investigation, there are political (scientific) characteristics or, better said, qualifications that one can positively identify a Country/Nation. I have already shown that our Country, The United States of America, was, is, and will always be compliant to the scientific (political) principles and doctrines, but as a matter of Equity, you, your alleged outlaw court and all those in concert (i.e. DOJ, et al.) will be given timely, Public, lawful, meaningful opportunity to either meet or rebut these, at this time, presumptions. This is certainly more than you, et al.

20

have offered to us, but, if nothing else, I have already shown ourselves, our Country, and our Laws to be of better character and lacking any corruptive activities. In order for a Country/Nation to have Sovereignty as such, that Country/Nation must possess, absolutely, certain political characteristics. These characteristics are: 1) Universal (international) recognition; 2) It must occupy a fixed territory (land mass); 3) Organized for political purposes only; 4) It must be capable of enforcing law; and 5) Free and independent from all external controls. The United States of America completely and precisely fulfills all these characteristics/principles; whereas, your purported country, United States, et al., has absolutely no qualifications of being a true and lawful country. For example, returning to your alleged Public Law (U.S.C.), specifically Enacted Public Law Title 28 U.S.C. 1746 (2), where its subject is authentification of unsworn statements, it is revealed in this statute that there can be two different statements, those emanating outside the United States, et al. (Without) and those emanating inside the United States, et al. (Within). Outside the United States, et al. is defined by this statute as the United States of America and its Laws thereto. And as these Laws and this Country (United States of America) are universally recognized, then the political question of what qualifications are required for constitution of a lawful Nation and lawful recognition of its Private Citizens thereto are ultimately answered, as the foreign alleged country, the United States, et al. in its own undefined and non-existent (fictitious) law recognizes this superior sovereignty. It may seem strange that, according to this statute, that the foreign Country of the United States of America has a recognized System of Law, but, at the same time, the United States, et al., a false personating Country has no recognized or declared System of Law. This goes, once again, to what qualifications are required for absolute recognition of a universally recognized Country such as the United States of America. The Laws of the United States of America are enforceable, whereas, the United States, et al. doesnt even have a politically recognized system of law to enforce. This explanation is also universally recognized: This Public Law/disconnected code (IRC) no-law system of law is better explained in the following Supreme Court case that is landmark, time honored, and has been never disputed: Military law is, in many respects, harsh law which is frequently cast in very sweeping and vague terms. Reid vs. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 38 For martial law, which is built upon no settled principles, but is entirely arbitrary in its decisions, is, as Sir Matthew Hale observes, in truth and reality no law, but something indulged rather than allowed as a law. 1 Blackstones Commentaries 413, Sir William Blackstone. Reid vs Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 19. Every extension of military jurisdiction is an encroachment on the jurisdiction of the civil courts, and, more important, acts as a deprivation of the right to jury trial and other treasured constitutional protections. Reid vs. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 21. In this landmark, time honored, and never disputed case, the Supreme Court in its orbita dicta defined and revealed exactly the meaning of the above statute commonly and historically known as a No Law System of Law, a.k.a. despotism, tyranny, fascism, communism, dictatorships, etc. Its officers, false personators, despots, etc. are, in this same case, defined as blended functionaries, which is a perfect description for the self-proclaimed officers of the para-military United States, et al. (e.g. judges determined to write the law,

21

wandering, heavily armed thugs falsely and unlawfully assuming the duties of the Grand Jury and/or Magistrates, etc.). Politically (administratively) this same Court called this characteristic an evil to be ameliorated (eliminated) (See Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33) and that is just what we as domestically and internationally authenticated, certified, and registered Heads of State (Private, Sentient, Civilian, Absolute Sovereign Citizen of the United States of America and The State of Colorado) are doing in a lawful, exhaustive, and forgiving manner. Just as there are ultimate qualifications for authentification of a Country/Nation/state, there are also qualifications within our lawful and political Country/Nation for its Public Servants. In the United States of America there are international (constitutional) qualifications for all members of the Government of the United States of America. Whether duly elected or appointed, all these qualifications are demanded and required before anyone can enter any Office, perform any duties, or receive any compensations. Without just one of these qualifications, then the one claiming any Office has neglected the same and has suffered an unrecoverable civil death, which not only results in immediate loss of said Office, but results in the inability to ever again to make a Public Servant claim. There has never been a correction, remedy, etc. that can be used to regain ones neglected Office. If, perchance, one does assume an Office they have neglected, or holds such a neglected Office by the efforts, obfuscations, or apathy of other Officers, then the political crimes that have been committed by the neglecting party become the character and behavior of the enabling party. The qualifications are as follows; The members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall (peremptory mandate) be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution [Constitution for The United States of America (1791 to Date)] [Emphasis mine.] Article VI, Clause 3; Constitution for The United States of America (1791 to Date). Bound. As an adjective, denotes the condition of being constrained by the obligations of a bond, contract, covenant, or other moral or legal obligation. Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed., pg. 186. In other words, all those purporting to be Public Servants/Officers of our lawful Government will possess, before entering Office a surety bonded, Public, timely, constitutionally prescribed, procedurally proper, lawful Oath/Affirmation of Office to the Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date). And all those who have not done this, Neglected their Office, are not and can never be that which they claim. In the States there can be found no one who is truly and/or fully qualified, from alleged Governor to alleged Dog Catcher. It is also well established and well settled that those authorities known as Committees, Conferences, Independent Agencies, Councils, etc. all, too, have neglected their Office. Evidence of Neglect of Office and an unlawful assumption of said Office results in the political crimes of treason, sedition, piracy, etc. and the receiving of compensations results in Embezzlement of the Public Money, Securities Fraud, etc. Our System of Law realizes that the greatest amount of protection and harm can come from the same source, and this evil and depredation would be embodied in the Office of a Judge if said Judge was not secured (personally and financially), assured (lawfully), and bound to the Laws of the United States of America. Thus:

22

This Constitution, [Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date)] and the Laws of the United States (Public Law) which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States (Article II, 2, Cl. 2) shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby Article VI, Clause 2; Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date). This is a simple and easy counteraction to the possibility of corrupted Judges. Lawfully, therefore, a Judge not only has to be fully qualified by a bonded oath/affirmation of fidelity to the Constitution, but must also make a bonded oath/affirmation of fidelity with the Private Law, Public Law, and constitutionally limited International Law. A judge must also be protected from outside pressures and/or influences. Hence: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Article I, 1, Cl. 1; Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date). Obviously, there has been no repealing Amendments to this supreme Law so it stands as read into this document. Conclusively, there can be no contrary interpretation, i.e. legal/illegal, ingenious subterfuges and devices, etc. There have been some judicial interpretations to this subject, but it does not bode well for this action or this alleged court. In a case that was neither the customary military appeal nor a normally mishandled Private Citizens Petition of Redress, an acting Public Servant brought a complaint of constitutional malpractice against Congress. This Public Servant actually was an inferior judicial authority in the only ordained and established inferior Court. As another judicial authority from the split apart Court joined this complaint, the United States, et al. alleged judicial authority could only answer questions that would expose every other judicial authority and clearly show the void of any lawful judicial authority of any and all officers and courts of the alleged United States, et al. As these petitioners were, in fact, judicial authorities in Courts that had just recently received diminishment in their compensations by Congress, they reasoned that it would not be in good Behaviour to have their Courts be involved in any adjudication that could possibly lead to the restoration of their unencumbered compensations. Therefore, their action started as a claim against the United States, et al. and it was the Court of Claims that then petitioned the Supreme Court to give its interpretation on two questions. Upon this state of the record the Court of Claims certified the following questions upon which it desires instructions, under 3 (a) of the Act of February 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 936, 939: ODonoghue vs. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 528-529. I chose to handle these two questions individually for matters of consistency and clarification. I. Does Section 1, Article III, of the Constitution of [for] the United States apply to the Supreme Court [and to the Court of Appeals]

23

of the District of Columbia and forbid a reduction of the compensations of the Justices thereof during their [good Behavior] continuance in office? [Clarification and Correction Constitutional] Court of Claims; ODonoghue vs. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 529. This is exactly the question that we must asked all those who claim to be lawful, constitutional Public Servant Judges, and, since it is a requirement of lawful record keeping to be able to certify and positively prove this qualification, then we are required to in this document, constitutionally, congressionally, and judicially, respectfully demand certified (minimally) copies of such applicable records. This is even more demanding upon the answer given by the Supreme Court. In accordance with that view the questions propounded are answered. Question No. 1, Yes. ODonoghue vs. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 551. It is quite obvious from this answer, that all those proclaiming judicial authority will be treated in a constitutional manner and if there is diminishment in compensation, then the one receiving such diminishment cannot possibly be considered as a domestic, constitutional, lawful judicial authority. What needs to be addressed now is whether there can be constituted any reason for diminishment in compensation of a lawful judicial authority, and this to was asked and answered. II. Can the compensations of a Justice of the Supreme Court {or of the Court of Appeals} of the District of Columbia be lawfully diminished during his [good Behavior] continuance in office? [Constitutional Correction] {Clarification mine} Court of Claims; ODonoghue vs. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 529. In accordance with that view the questions propounded are answered. Question No. 2, no. ODonoghue vs. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 551. Obviously, this eliminates all possibilities of any ingenious subterfuges and devices, concepts of substantive compliance, etc. from being applied to this absolute constitutional doctrine and principle. It even eliminates the anti-Christian belief of self-proclaimed immunity (See Satanic Doctrine of Deification). In between the asking of these questions and their corresponding and unquestionable answers, there was approximately twenty pages of orbita dicta that this alleged Court used to explain and find basis for their answer. The basic question that needs to be answered in respect to proper judicial authority, once again, must go to the question of the organic act. This alleged Courts organic act is commonly called the Judiciary Act of 1789. It was at this time that Congress saw fit to legislate an act that could only be interpreted one way. Those who believe that this act ordained and established inferior constitutional Courts are mistaken; in order for Congress to have such authority, it too must have been seated constitutionally. At the time, Congress had neither Venue nor opportunity to take any constitutional action. There is a serious problem that arises when examining opportunity as the custom of Congress is to adjourn unlawfully. As to Venue, Congress did

24

not constitutionally Accept the cessation of Virginia and Maryland until 1801. As everything must be timely in the Law, it is obvious that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was never intended and could never be considered as the lawful authority for constitutional ordination and establishment of our constitutional judiciary. To believe otherwise, is to believe that Congress could lawfully perform duties, without first having a lawful Office to perform those duties from. There were no provisional grants of authority given to Congress ability to publicly legislate, within constitutional limitations, on a provisional basis. So can the intent of Congress be determined at this time? The Supreme Court certainly declared so: It is not hard to justify this observation in respect of courts created for a purely provisional government to serve merely between events ODonoghue vs. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 544. The political fact is that the Constitution for the United States of America (1787) was proposed in 1787, and it was not a popular idea as the Private Citizens were abhorrent of its lack of protection of the rights, properties, privileges, and immunities of the Private Citizens, and refused to ratify this Constitution in its original form. So the Union of States created further declaratory and restrictive clauses to the Constitution for the United States of America (1791). These further declaratory and restrictive clauses were transmitted to Congress and Congress adopted them just prior to its Judiciary Act of 1789. Approximately twenty-seven months later, the ninth State finally ratified the Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date). Prior to this, many States had promised to ratify if the further declaratory and restrictive clause were made part of the Constitution for the United States of America (1789). Finally, on approximately 15 December 1791 the Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date) was properly and lawfully ratified. Are we to believe that Congress would unlawfully purport to do something unconstitutional and then apply duress, coercions, and threats with force and arms (vi et armis) to all those knowledgeable to the factual basis of the formation of our constitutional Government? This is to ridiculous to even consider. Congress saw two great events transpiring. They were a change in our Form of Government, and made provisions judicially to handle these changes. All these provisions were not under the Constitution, but were in Nature, Fact, and Law made by the Articles of Confederation, the only lawful form of Government available to Congress, and then upon Articles of Confederation Courts. To believe otherwise would be to believe that Congress was corrupted and, therefore, could never be constitutional. To summarize, there exists scientific (political) qualifications that can be examined/tested to determine if someone or something is purporting to be a Country, a Government and its Branches, Departments and Agencies thereto, a Public Servant, a Court and a Judicial Authority. These qualifications are not based upon the determination of opinion, Congressional Acts, A.B.A. opinions, judicial discretion, comity, violence (civil or criminal), terrorism (domestic or foreign) or even force and arms. These qualifications are universally recognized and are a matter of Official Public Record. And it is those Records that must be shown to positively prove that all those involved (who touches) this matter are lawfully, politically, constitutionally, internationally, properly and fully qualified, by positive, verifiable evidence. If this cannot be shown for all, then this action is fatally flawed and as a matter of Christian forgiveness will be forgotten and returned for correction, not involving us, and all those records created that do, fictitiously and unlawfully, involve us will be completely expunged to our possession. We must now examine the lawful determinations concerning final adjudication, and, most especially, that of the seemingly routine non-response. The next Part deals directly with this matter.

Notice of Political Default (Final):

In an Administrative Hearing, an impartial decision is based upon an absolute, joint agreement, based upon the true Official Public Record, between the contending parties as both parties that are mandated to participate in

25

such an impartial decision. This is the Administrative Procedure and its basis is scientific (political) in accordance with the Law and Government. the decision makers conclusion must rest solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. vs. PUC, 301 U.S. 292; United States vs. Abilene & S. R. Co., 265 U.S. 274, 288-289. Of course, this final absolute, joint agreement can lawfully come in two forms, by Agreement/Declaration, or, sadly, by Agreement/Default. When it comes to this lawful, constitutional, and politically correct administrative procedure, there remains a strong possibility that the administrative judicial authority may, intentionally or otherwise, not respond, or will respond in an oblique/evasive, defaulting manner. Either response invokes the same final adjudication. It is known that this has been an age-old problem. That is where someone or something is required to respond to the questions of a superior authority, that they will either remain silent, which is lawful in the matter of self incrimination, or will try to divert the attention from the required matter by going off point or maybe believe themselves to have some form of non-existent immunity, or it may be merely a matter of arrogance, tyrannical and/or despotic character, especially if violence is offered. In this matter, there has to be justification of present actions before a new subject can be examined. There is no exception, and as the Administrative Investigator, I must inform the administrative judicial authority as to this problem and assure the same that final adjudication will be obtained. In other words, there will be an answer to the administrative (political) question, even if that answer is silence (non-response), untimely, unfounded, inferior, evasive, or oblique. This is defined a contemptuous behavior by anyone who would act in such a manner. There is a Principle, which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorancethat principle is contempt prior to investigation. Herbert Spencer, British Philosopher. It is expected that no such contemptuous behavior will be displayed in this matter, but it is, at the same time, understood that the Fifth Amendment may require such a response, but is also believed that notice will be given upon the invocation of the Fifth Amendment. Lets imagine that either a non-response or an evasive answer is received by us. Just how can this be seen as a final adjudication? This is the timeless choice, and every age acts on it one way or another. Failure to chose is nonetheless choice and, either way we cannot escape the consequence of our decision or refusal to decide. The Search for Natural Law; Frederick Graves, Judges/Defendants. There is a legal basis for this Doctrine: Acquiescence. Acquiescence is where a person who knows that he is entitled to impeach a transaction or enforce a right neglects to do so for such a length of time that, under the circumstances of the case, the other party may fairly infer that he has waived or abandoned his right.

26

Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd ed., pg. 20. There is even a Common-Law basis: Nihil Dicit. He says nothing. This is the name of the judgment which maybe taken as a matter of course against a defendant who omits to plead or answer the plaintiffs declarations or complaint within the time limited. In some jurisdictions it is otherwise known as judgment for want of a plea. Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd ed., pg. 818. As a matter of fact and proper procedure in your own Rules, administrative judicial adjudication is final upon entry of the partys default. As your Rule states: Entry. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead, or otherwise defend and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the partys default. (Emphasis Mine) Federal/STATE Rules of Civil Procedure Default, Rule 55 (a). As this document is purely defined as being an Affidavit of Fact (Affidavit in Fact upon Default), and it is for affirmative relief, it is quite obvious that either the clerk of this court or any court of similar authority or greater authority, as there exists no jurisdictional disputes, is peremptorily mandated to perform their duty by recording into the proper book the fact that this partys default has been duly entered upon the Courts Public Record. Additionally, according to Marbury, entry is lawfully accomplished upon delivery to a competent authority whether or not the manual labour of inserting said Political Default into the proper book has been accomplished. Entry. The act of making or entering a record: a setting down in writing of particulars; or that which is entered; an item. Generally synonymous with recording. Enter, in practice, means to place anything before the court, or upon or among records, and is nearly equivalent to setting down formally in writing, either in full or abridged form (affidavit or otherwise) but it may be used as meaning simply to file or duly deposit. Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed. Pg. 533.

27

Can the weight of such adjudication be determined? BAR-Card members and the Federal Courts believe so: A judgment by default is just as binding and forceful as a judgment entered after a trial on the merits of the case, and it is not to be discredited or regarded lightly because of the manner in which it was acquired. A default judgment determines a plaintiffs right to recover and a defendants liability just as any conventional judgment or decree. 49 C.J.S. Judgments 200 pg. 356. See also Meisch vs. Brady, 606 S.W.2d 112, 114. In the same court and A.B.A. publication it is stated that additionally default adjudication by any means available is for the convenience of the court itself and to relieve the burden to the courts time and resources. This is obviously not a judicial authority matter, but ultimately a clerical responsibility and ministerial duty. It has been stated authoritatively that an additional purpose of the entry of a default judgment is to keep the dockets current and expedite disposal of litigation, thereby preventing dilatory tactics on the part of a defendant from impeding the plaintiff in the establishment of his claim, and that it is not designed to furnish an advantage to the plaintiff so that a defense may be defeated or a judgment obtained without the rigors encountered in a contest. 47 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments, 1152, pg. 184. See also Meisch vs. Brady, Ark. App. 606 S.W.2d 112, 114-115. Dilatory. tending or intended to cause delay; Websters College Dictionary, 2003 ed.; pg. 249. Obviously, it is easily seen that no matter what reaction you can provide, Nature, Fact, and Law have made that action final and most binding. When one is left merely with the reactions of another, then the Law will supply final administrative adjudication, politically, equitably, or otherwise. Quite simply, our lawful and constitutional Expressed Administrative Hearing will not be cheated or vexed out of its final adjudication and/or determination based upon the verifiable mandatory Public Record. Even a non-response, vexation, or even mere delaying tactics will not be either effective or tolerated. Of course the members of this hearing must also be aware that there may be parties that rely and will rely, in this case, upon violence and criminality to either delay or defeat this Hearing, but such concerns are inconsequential in the demand for lawfulness, constitutionality, justice, and fairness that will be the result of our hearing. When it comes to the touchy subject of Damages, there can be found many interpretations of, alleged and unfounded, immunities. But the Fact of the matter is that there are basically three levels of assignment/ application of Damages. The first level involves absolute agreement, tacit or otherwise, and is merely a restorative procedure, with common interest, of course. The second level is best defined, as lawful, upon obfuscation, where treble damages are then demanded along with common interest. This level is commonly called pursuant to the Common-Law and the Spanish Law (Civil). The third and final level is justicable Damages that are awarded by jural authority that cannot only be most expensive but also allows even a further assignment of Punitive that can run into extreme amounts. I reasonably expect that we are dealing with the

28

First Level of Damages because no matter what your actions may be, we will reach final administrative/political adjudication in this matter.

Constitutional (International) and Mandatory Judicial Damages:

We must now discuss probably the most controversial subject of this matter, the awarding of lawful and warranted damages, costs and interests. As your own rules state: Judgment. By the Clerk. When the plaintiffs claim against a defendant is for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain, the clerk upon request of the plaintiff and upon affidavit of the amount due shall enter judgment for that amount and costs against the defendant, if the defendant has been defaulted for failure to appear (Non-Response). (Emphasis Mine) Federal/STATE Rules of Civil Procedure; Default, Rule 55 (b)(1). Once again, in examining our only Witness (Reaffirmation ), thus far it is domestically and internationally authenticated, certified, and registered the following Damage Clause: will result in damages of Ten Million Dollars of United States (Treaty States, nation-state) specie Money (United States Dollars silver/Blocked), that being enumerated in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 as gold and silver Coin in the Constitution for the United States of America (1791 to Date), to be multiplied by not only the damaging party(s), but all those in concert and causes of action. Though currently, a number of damaging parties can already be identified, as well as causes of action, it would be highly unfair and inequitable to do this computation until our Expressed Administrative Procedure Hearing is completed and full disclosure of the political facts have been made. In other words we will not even attempt to guess at the damages and reserve computation until our final adjudication whether by default or otherwise. There is also no concern, as to burden, inconvenience, or even cost that can be shown that could possibly influence this matter. In the case of the constitutionalization of this Expressed Administrative Procedure Hearing it further declares: Nor can we accord any weight to the argument that to apply the Act to such hearings will cause inconvenience and added expense Of course it will, as it will to nearly every agency to which it is applied. Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 46 (1950). But the power of the purse belongs to Congress, and Congress has determined that the price for greater fairness is not too high. Wong Yang Sung vs. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 46-47; (1950). We look forward to this complete administrative investigation and final administrative adjudication to finally resolve this matter. I have chosen the least expensive, shortest, most accurate, inter-jurisdictional, and least

29

confrontational method that can be found to resolve this apparent unlawful matter. I have not respectfully demanded any action that is not required for every one. As a matter of fact, in order for a mandamus to lie against you, there need only be three conditions: 1) My Absolute Right; 2) Your absolute Duty which you already claim; and 3) Universal Application. Therefore, we look forward to your lawful, constitutional, ministerial, and mandated redress in this matter, whether that be admission of mistake and its expungement or even a non-responsive/defaulting/joint agreement remedy. I declare being the Age of Majority, a Citizen of both the United States of America and The State of Missouri, and under the penalties of perjury, pursuant to the Laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true, correct, complete, and not misleading. ___________________________________________ American; Christian; Private, Sentient, Civilian, Sovereign Citizen: United States of America, a Republic; The State of Missouri, a Republic: County of Jackson Township Within. at the mouths of two, or at the mouths of three the matter is established. Deuteronomy 19:15

_________________________________ Divine and Common Law Witness End of Document

_________________________________ Divine and Common Law Witness

30