WHAT IS FRAUD?

We will begin with the subject of FRAUD for the specific purpose to provide you with the knowledge and ability to argue this most serious defense, because it will in fact negate most problem Contracts which you will be confronted with. So a very good understanding of this subject will clearly help you in most serious cases wherein you have been confronted with adhesion contracts like a “ Drivers License or Social Security Card Identification or I.R S. assessment procedures.

Let us begin with definition of what FRAUD really is.

FRAUD is defined in BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 6th Edition on page 660

" An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in

reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to

surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether

by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment

of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended

to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Anything

calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by the

suppression of truth, or by suggestion of what is false, whether it be by

direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech of silence, word of mouth, or look,

or gesture. Delanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa. Super. 90, 464

A. 2nd 1243, 1251. A generic term, embracing all maltofarious means

which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one

Individual to get advantage over another by false suggestions or by

suppression of truth, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling,

and UNFAIR way by which another is cheated. Johnson v. McDonald,

170 Okl. 117, 39 P.2nd 150 " BAD FAITH " and " FRAUD " are

synonymous, and also synonyms of dishonesty, infidelity, faithlessness,

unfairness, ect."

An example defense argument for where FRAUD is at issue:

I wish to point out that this explanation applies fully to my case to date. I further wish to express my serious and sincere CONSTRUCTIVE OBJECTIONS to the Arbitrary and Capricious manner in which my case has been handled to date by those who are sworn on SACRED OATH to protect me and my interests from such travesty of Justice. I am the beneficiary of " THE CONTRACT " between the Government and it's great PEOPLE

as I am one of " THE PEOPLE ". Please see BYARS vs. UNITED STATES 273 U.S. 28 and 16th American Juris Prudence 2nd Section 97, which held the Constitution shall be liberally interpreted to include every word, phrase, and syllable, in favor of the Clearly intended and expressly designated " BENEFICIARY THE CITIZEN " for the protection of RIGHTS AND PROPERTY. MY PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN PROTECTED IT HAS BEEN STOLEN ON A TAKING BY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF A GOVERNMENT BODY POLITIC, WHO IS CLEARLY OUT OF CONTROL IN EVERY ASPECT.

All WE ARE trying to do is get a fair and impartial hearing on the merits of my just complaints. Now WE honestly feel that the PLAINTIFF(S) and the Michigan Courts have perpetrated a FRAUD IN FACT AND LAW upon me and my lawfully owned property to my great injury and then knowingly continue the FRAUD when WE seek redress in the MICHIGAN COURTS for this injury, because WE dare to seek Justice and the protection of OUR Constitutional Rights against this FRAUDULENT OUT OF CONTROL CITY OF THE WHATEVER, THE PLAINTIFF(S), who have repetitively sought to injure or DEFRAUD these citizen members of the PEOPLE IN FACT AND LAW on so many, many occasions that it is Criminal NEGLECT of their sworn DUTY.... RES ipsa loquitur, WITH EXCLUSIVE CONTROL,[ Plaintiff(s) could choose to injure or NOT choose to injure me of their own free volition thereby having voluntary exclusive control ], and clearly these PROTECTORS knew or should have known and are knowledgeable of exactly what they are doing or they clearly should know and these Plaintiff(s) deliberately do the deed or injury voluntarily, ANY.....WAY, AND TO HELL WITH THE LAW OR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!! THIS IS A STONE FACT!!!

Now WE give OUR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS to this arbitrary and capricious deliberate administrative abuse of process and also give OUR FORMAL NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS you are about to BE SUED!! WE INTEND TO SUE FOR OUR INJURIES and name every swinging joker for their unlawful or criminal deeds to injure US. LET ALL PARTIES TAKE JUST NOTICE OF THIS FACT!!

These so-called OFFICERS OF THE LAW, all long schooled in the art and practice of LAW, have willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and wantonly have clearly deliberately injured us and induced us to our injury or irreparable harm by a specie of misinformation, disinformation, or a SPECIE OF SILENCE, wherein they have used all manner of colorable officialdom to make false and FRAUDULENT CLAIMS AND ACTIONS against us, personally or against our Lawfully owned property, which is a total violation of LAW and these Plaintiff(s) damn well knew exactly what was done and by whom!!

Please see U.S. vs. Prudden 424 F2d 1021, and U.S. vs. TWEEL, 550 F2d 297 AT 299-300, WHICH CASE HELD " silence can only be equated with FRAUD when there is a legal and moral duty to speak the TRUTH or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading to the injury of the parties."

FURTHER,.....In Re: Dunahay vs. Struik, 393 P 2d 930, (1964) 96 Arizona 246, which case held,...." FRAUD may be committed by a failure to speak when the DUTY, ( RES ipsa loquitur, with exclusive control), emphasis added mine, of speaking is imposed."

FURTHER,.....In Re: Batty vs. Arizona State Dental Board, 112 { 2d 870, 57 Arizona 239 (1941 case), which held,... " FRAUD may be committed by a failure to speak when the DUTY of speaking is imposed as much as by speaking falsely."

FURTHER,..... In Re: State vs. Coddington, 662 P 2d 115, 113 Arizona 480, Arizona App. (1983 case) which case held,.... " WHEN one conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the concealment of others, such concealment is in effect a false and FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION that what is disclosed is the whole truth and nothing but the truth." and one can go on and on,...." Suppression of a material fact which a party is bound in good faith to disclose is equivalent to a false or FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION, thereby inducing me to my great injury, please see Leigh vs. Loyd , 224 P 2d 356, Arizona 84 (1954 case) and further see " WHEN one conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the holding back of other facts FRAUD OR DECEIT may arise from silence where the DUTY TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, as well as prohibition from speaking an UNTRUTH existed under the LAW, ALSO FURTHER SEE Morrison vs. Acton, 198 P 2d 590, 68 Arizona 27 , (1948 case), which also supports Leigh v. Loyd SUPRA.

In short these case go on and on and on so ANY PARTY could be given sufficient NOTICE OR WARNING of activity which would or could be FRAUDULENT and books and books of considerable collections at LAW LIBRARIES speak volumes to this very SUBJECT and clearly the Plaintiff(s) knew or should have known what they were doing to injure me was wrong, FRAUDULENT, AND UNLAWFUL IN FACT. Now when such activities of misinformation or disinformation or a specie of silence, whose clear purpose it to mis-inform, or dis-inform a party in interest of real facts and Lawful Rights then FRAUD HAS CLEARLY BEEN DONE, especially if a party has relied in GOOD FAITH on such reliances to their very great injury then clear UNLAWFUL INSTITUTIONAL BAD FAITH HAS IN FACT OCCURRED AND THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY WHO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH ACTIVITY KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY IS IN BREACH OF THEIR ORIGINAL CIVIC PURPOSE THEY WERE IN FACT CREATED TO PROTECT AGAINST AND THIS IS A BREACH OF FAITH SUBJECTING THE OFFENDING PARTY TO

" QUO WARRANTO " OF THEIR INTENDED GOVERNMENTAL ENFRANCHISED POWER OR RIGHTS, which they were originally created under their Corporation CHARTER pursuant to Public Acts 231 of Public Acts, HOME RULE, OR CHARTER, for ALL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES and that is just a fact.

WE CLAIM FRAUD AND WE TIMELY OBJECT TO ALL THE FRAUD IN THIS CASE AND FOR WARN THE PARTIES THAT LEGAL ACTION IS EMINENT AND WILL BE COMMENCED VERY SHORTLY IF THIS MATTER IS NOT TIMELY REPAIRED IN TOTAL TO MY COMPLETE SATISFACTION. FAIR WARNING IS GIVEN!

Now you hit them with this kind of argument and they get all panicky and if they got a brain in their heads they settle and fast just to keep the Law Suits from canceling their insurance policies to run their little Megopolis. Remember knowledge is power, and properly used knowledge can and will effect change. Remember we want our Country and it’s Constitutional Republican form of Government back and you got to take it back if you truly want to effect changes for the better. Good luck and God Speed!

WHAT IS A SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND HOW DO I DEFEND AGAINST THIS OBVIOUS TACTIC TO DENY ME A FAIR AND HONEST HEARING ON THIS CASE.

Now this is a dirty tactic whose purpose is clearly designed to discriminate against you getting your honest day in Court and a chance to present your case and REDRESS YOUR LAWFUL GRIEVANCES. It was created by Lawyers, who rather routinely look their noses down on PRO SE Litigants who dare to come to Court and speak to the Court themselves rather than hire a learned lawyer or attorney long schooled in the art and practice of LAW.

Now first we will give you the Court Rules on the subject and then we will give you the defense or argument to allow you your day in Court or give you considerable argument for your appeal of the case should you be in fact discriminated against in this cowardly manner. You see attorneys hate to get beat by a PRO SE LITIGANT and will do ANY…..THING to avoid such a life long humiliation, because all their buddy attorneys will rib them to death about “ HEY, YOU TAKE ON ANY BIG CASES LATELY? DID YA WIN, HA HA, AND BEAT THAT PRO SE LITIGANT?!!!!!” AWE SHUT UP IS THE RETORT BACK!!! “

So we do want to WIN, HUH?!! Now read very carefully especially section “ (C) “ as this section gives you all the reasons and of course how to defend against this type legal manoover.

MCR 2.116 MICHIGAN COURT RULES

WEST'S MICHIGAN COURT RULES

CHAPTER 2. CIVIL PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER 2.100 COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION; SERVICE OF

PROCESS; PLEADINGS; MOTIONS

Current with amendments received through 2-15-96

RULE 2.116 SUMMARY DISPOSITION

(A) Judgment on Stipulated Facts.

(1) The parties to a civil action may submit an agreed-upon stipulation of facts to the court.

(2) If the parties have stipulated to facts sufficient to enable the court to render judgment in the action, the court shall do so.

(B) Motion.

(1) A party may move for dismissal of or judgment on all or part of a claim in accordance with this rule. A party against whom a defense is asserted may move under this rule for summary disposition of the defense. A request for dismissal without prejudice under MCL 600.2912c; MSA 27A.2912(3) must be made by motion under MCR 2.116 and MCR 2.119.

NOTE THIS ESPECIALLY IT IS A MUST

(2) A motion under this rule may be filed at any time consistent with subrule (D) and subrule (G)(1), but the hearing on a motion brought by a party asserting a claim shall not take place until at least 28 days after the opposing party was served with the pleading stating the claim.

ESPECIALLY NOTE THE FOLLOWING:

(C) Grounds. The motion may be based on one or more of these grounds, and must specify the grounds on which it is based:

THIS> (1) The court lacks jurisdiction over the person or property.

THIS> (2) The process issued in the action was insufficient.

(3) The service of process was insufficient.

THIS> (4) The court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter.

THIS> (5) The party asserting the claim lacks the legal capacity to sue.

(6) Another action has been initiated between the same parties involving the same claim.

THIS> (7) The claim is barred because of release, payment, prior judgment, immunity granted by law, statute of limitations, statute of frauds, an agreement to arbitrate, infancy or other disability of the moving party, or assignment or other disposition of the claim before commencement of the action.

THIS> (8) The opposing party has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

THIS> (9) The opposing party has failed to state a valid defense to the claim asserted against him or her. THIS INCLUDES FAILURE TO PROPERLY NAME THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST CALLED FAILURE TO JOINDER THE PROPER PARTIES A FATAL ERROR AND THE CASE MUST BE DISMISSED.

(10) Except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law.

THIS> (D) Time to Raise Defenses and Objections. The grounds listed in subrule I must be raised as follows:

THIS> (1) The grounds listed in subrule I(1), (2), and (3) must be raised in a party’s first motion under this rule or in the party’s responsive pleading, whichever is filed first, or they are waived. LACHES INCURRS!!

NOW your Honor may it please the Court the Plaintiff(s)/ Petitioner(s) have further made numerous errors in their Petitions and Complaints and I wish to further bring arguments as follows:

A TYPE OF ARGUMENT

FORMAL DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND

CLAIM OF FRAUD BY, PUT YOUR CHRISTIAN NAME HERE eg. John Edward, , Smith, a real live human being natural person, as THE ACCOMMODATION PARTY AND THE

HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.

Now first off PUT YOUR NAME IN HERE , a real live natural human being natural person, as The Holder in DUE COURSE of the STRAW MAN , PUT NAME HERE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS ,

( AN ARTIFICE, ARTIFICIAL PERSON, NOT A REAL FLESH AND BLOOD PERSON, A CORPORATION OR PRIVILEGED ENTITY), AND I FORMALLY OBJECT AND DENY OUTRIGHT THAT HE OWES TO PLAINTIFF(S) ANY JUST AND LAWFUL DEBT OR DAMAGE AND LEAVES THE PLAINTIFF(S) TO THEIR STRICTEST PROOFS OF ANY SUCH CLAIMS OF DEBTS IN A COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. PUT YOUR NAME IN HERE , The Holder in DUE COURSE, AND ACCOMMODATION PARTY, APPEARING IN PROPRIA PERSONA, FORMALLY CLAIMS THAT SHE GAVE NO PERMISSION OR AUTHORITY OR POWER OF ATTORNEY TO USE THE "STRAW MAN " , JOHN EDWARD SMITH, AND AS THE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE FIRST LIEN HOLDER CLAIMS FRAUD ON THE CONTRACT, JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR COMPLAINT AND FRAUD VOIDS THE MOST SACRED CONTRACT, PLEASE SEE, U.S. vs. TWEEL 550 U.S. 297, 299-300. ALSO SEE THE FRAUD SECTION OF THIS ANSWER AND MOTION FOR DISMISSAL AND OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SECTIONS. WE ARE GOING TO REVERSE THE PROGRAM BACK ON THEM WITH OUR OWN SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARGUMENTS

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF A PRO SE LITIGANT IS FORBIDDEN BY LAW

Now it appears to the Alleged Defendant(s), that the Plaintiff(s) and the COURTS are in fact operating in a modified form of SUMMARY JUDGMENT under Political expediency for the specific purpose of enhancing PUBLIC POLICY that the KING CAN DO NO WRONG and you are just out of luck Alleged Defendant(s) for we have no intention of letting you have your day in Court. MY COUNSEL IS....." I WOULD RECONSIDER YOUR UNLAWFUL POSITION BEFORE SERIOUS LITIGATION AND SANCTIONS ARE IN FACT INITIATED, BECAUSE ONCE INITIATED THEY WILL NOT BE STOPPED UNTIL FULL SATISFACTION OF THE CONTRACT IS TO BE HAD IN SPADES!!!! FAIR WARNING!!!! NO EXCEPTIONS WILL BE MADE!!!! Please see the following for your immediate perusal and understanding.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PRO SE LITIGANT

FURTHER the Plaintiff(s) in this particular case are PRO SE LITIGANTS and WE ARE not looking for any special treatment, but are merely asking for our chance to get a hearing on the merits of this case. The United States Supreme Court has spoken quite emphatically on the issue of SUMMARY JUDGMENT as it deals with the Pro Se Litigant. Unless it appears beyond absolute doubt that the Plaintiff(s) Pro Se can prove no set of facts in support of their claims, which would be entitled to relief Summary Judgment IS NOT POSSIBLE OF A PRO SE LITIGANT.

The Plaintiff Pro Se Complaint must be viewed in a light most favorable to the Pro Se Litigant as the Pro Se Litigant is not held to the same standards as a learned Attorney Counselor long schooled in the art and practice of the Law That the complaint must be viewed most favorably to the Plaintiff(s) are presumed right until proven in Court wrong and unless it is so obviously spurious or so totally defective as to be moot the case must be heard. Please see Conley vs. Gibson 355 U.S. 41 at 46-47 (1957 case). Also please see Hughs vs. Rowe 449 U.S. 5 AT 10 and U.S. vs. GAUBERT 113 L.Ed. 2nd 335 (1991 case). In McGuckin vs. Smith et al 947 F2d 1050 (1992 case) the Court held that before the District Court may dismiss a Pro Se litigant complaint for failure to state a valid claim the Court must provide the Pro Se Litigant an opportunity to amend the complaint and or fix any errors prior to the dismissal and this has yet to be done in this case.

In addition in U.S. SUPREME COURT in Scheuer vs. UNITED STATES 416 U.S. 232 AT 236 (A 1974 CASE) " WHEN A FEDERAL COURT REVIEWS THE SUFFICIENCY OF A COMPLAINT BEFORE THE RECEPTION OF ANY EVIDENCE EITHER BY AFFIDAVIT OR BY ADMISSIONS, ITS TASK IS NECESSARILY A LIMITED ONE. THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF WILL PREVAIL ULTIMATELY ON THE MERITS, BUT WHETHER THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO OFFER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ACTUAL CLAIMS. INDEED IN MAY APPEAR ON THE FACE OF THE PLEADING THAT RECOVERY IS VERY REMOTE AND UNLIKELY, BUT THAT IS NOT THE TEST. THE TRUE TEST IS WHETHER THE CLAIMANT IS AFFORDED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND PRESENT HIS CLAIMS TO REDRESS HIS JUST GRIEVANCES. THEREFORE THE COURT MUST ACCEPT AS TRUE ALL THE CLAIMANT'S FACTUAL PLEADINGS AND ALLEGATIONS AND DRAW FROM THEM ALL REASONABLY FAVORABLE INFERENCES PLEASE SEE D.P. ENTERPRISES Inc. vs. BUCKS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE 725 F2D 943 AT 944 AND HAINES vs. KERNER 404 U.S. 519 (A1972 CASE) PRISONER PRO SE COMPLAINT SEEKING RECOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON HIS CLAIMS.

NOW CLEARLY THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS OR PROPOSED ORDERS ARE CONSIDERABLY PREMATURE AND DID NOT EVEN AFFORD THE Alleged Defendant(s) AN OPPORTUNITY TO TIMELY RESPOND WITHIN THE 28 TWENTY EIGHT DAYS, M.C.R. 2.116(B)(2)(a), AND CLEARLY THIS RUSH JOB BY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IS DESIGNED TO CAUSE THE PRO SE LITIGANT TO BE DENIED A PROPER EVIDENTIAL HEARING TO PRESENT THEIR JUST CLAIMS FOR REDRESS. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SET THE STANDARD OF REVIEW AND THAT STANDARD IS AT LEAST AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND PRESENT OUR EVIDENCE AND OR CASE AND WE HAVE YET TO GET THAT TOTAL REVIEW OF OUR CASE TO DATE. THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT POSSIBLE BY LAW, WHERE A PRO SE LITIGANT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL OPPORTUNITY AT A HEARING ON THE MERITS TO PRESENT THEIR FACTS AND OR EVIDENCE, OR CASE IN CHIEF, TO AN INDEPENDENT TRIOR OF FACTS. Please see … HAINES vs. KERNER, SUPRA. COUNSELS ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY ARE MISINFORMED AND OR MISPLACED IN FACT. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SPOKE VERY CLEARLY IN STARAE DECISIS AND RES JUDICATA AND SAYS THIS MANDATE MUST BE FOLLOWED EXACTLY AS WRITTEN. Please see BUTLER vs. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 1-88, FOR THE COURT IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO DO WHAT ALL OTHERS CAN SEE AND KNOW IS WRONG, NOR MAY THE COURT DO COVERTLY WHAT IS FORBIDDEN OVERTLY! THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS TO BE PROTECTED EXACTLY AS WRITTEN, NOTHING ADDED TO OR TAKEN AWAY FROM THAT CONSTITUTION, FOR IT IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT POSSIBLE WHERE THERE ARE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF A FACTUAL COMPLAINT. FURTHER the Alleged Defendant(s) in this particular case are PRO SE LITIGANTS and they are not looking for any special treatment, but are merely asking for their chance to get a fair hearing on the merits of his case. HAINES vs. KERNER 404 U.S. 519 (A1972 CASE) PRISONER PRO SE COMPLAINT SEEKING RECOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON HIS CLAIMS. WE ARE PRAYING BEFORE THE COURT FOR THIS SAME RIGHT ON HIS JUST AND LAWFUL CLAIMS.

NOW CLEARLY THE PLAINTIFF'S OR THE COURT'S MOTIONS ARE CONSIDERABLY PREMATURE AND DID NOT EVEN AFFORD THE Alleged Defendant(s) AN OPPORTUNITY TO TIMELY RESPOND WITHIN THE (14) FOURTEEN DAYS AND CLEARLY THIS RUSH JOB BY THE PLAINTIFF(S) OR THE COURTS IS DESIGNED TO CAUSE A PRO SE LITIGANT TO BE DENIED A PROPER EVIDENTIAL HEARING TO PRESENT THEIR JUST CLAIMS FOR REDRESS.

THIS IS AN UNLAWFUL ACTION AND ALL PARTIES ARE CLEARLY POSTED TO THAT FACT. THE OPPOSING PARTY IN MY CASE TO DATE HAS FAILED TO TIMELY RESPOND OR OTHERWISE BY CONTRAVENTION ARGUMENT EVER REFUTE THE BASIC CHALLENGES RAISED PURSUANT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW REQUIREMENTS, WHICH THE Alleged Defendant(s) have continually and repetitively challenged them to in fact do and to date no proper opportunity to force the Plaintiff's or the Court to hold an honest hearing on the merits and hold Plaintiff's feet to the fire so to speak has in fact occurred to date and this is why these Alleged Defendant(s) NEED TO GO FORWARD, SO JUSTICE WILL IN FACT BE DONE!! THE PLAINTIFF(S) obviously do NOT wish to give these Alleged Defendant(s) their just and honest day in Court TO REDRESS THEIR LAWFUL GRIEVANCES, for they wish by trickery to SUMMARY JUDGMENT the Alleged Defendant(s) by FRAUD serving this PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED ORDER FOR SUBMISSION OR SIGNING BY THE COURT EVEN BEFORE THERE IS A HEARING OF THE CASE OR THE (28) DAYS REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPER NOTICE ARE GIVEN! IT IS FRAUD PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

NOW your Honor obviously SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF A PRO SE LITIGANT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE, JUST, OR PROPER JURIS PRUDENCE TO FOLLOW and I would most respectfully encourage your Honor most respectfully to decide in favor of PUT YOUR CHRISTIAN NAME HERE eg John Edward, , Smith, , who is the real aggrieved Party here before you today.

Now WE are down to the chase here. I am presently preparing an ORIGINAL JURISDICTION LITIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ON OUR COUNTER CLAIM FOR THE INJURIES WRONGFULLY SUSTAINED BY THE Alleged Defendant(s) and WE ARE going to sue THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, THE STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT SYSTEM, THE COUNTY OF ST CLAIR, ALL THEIR LACKIES, AGENTS, ASSIGNS, ACTORS, EMPLOYEES, COUNSELORS, CONTRACTORS, AND ANYBODY ELSE, WHO ENTERED INTO THIS CONTRACT TO DELIBERATELY INJURE OR DEFRAUD US!!!!!

FAIR WARNING IS GIVEN SO ALL PARTIES CAN TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS HERE. WE ARE NOT SCREWING AROUND HERE. WE REFUSE TO LET ANYBODY JUST TAKE ADVANTAGE OF US OR UNJUSTLY INJURE US, OR WHO DELIBERATELY PUSH US AROUND AND STEAL OUR LAWFULLY OWNED LAND ON SOME PRETEXT OF LAW JUST FIGURING WE ARE A PLUMP CHICKEN RIPE FOR THE PLUCKING, ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE LITTLE CITIZENS AND LOOK LIKE A GOOD EASY TARGET.

WE ARE ALL DONE PLAYING AROUND HERE . Believe me these guys are in for one hell of a fight, pure and simple and you would think that if they took the time to read the briefs a child of three could see, hey, these Alleged Defendant(s) do NOT know the meaning of the word " QUIT " and maybe we should just leave these little guy defendant(s) alone, before they really gets pissed and file something "HEAVY DUTY" that we could not answer even on a dare, WITH ALL KINDS OF BIG NUMBERS WITH 12 ZEROS TRAILING ON THEM.

I am talking FIVE HUNDRED MILLION IN DAMAGES PLUS PUNITIVE DAMAGES ON TOP OF THAT!!! NOW RAISE ME AND CALL AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS HERE!!!! WE GOT ALL KINDS OF TIME ON MY HANDS TO PERFECT MY CLAIMS AND DAMAGES AND IT IS A LABOR OF LOVE FOR US TO DO IT!! SO " MAKE MY DAY"!!! I love my GRAND KIDS HOW BOUT YOU??? DO YOU WANT THIS SYSTEM TO BE A YOKE ON YOUR GRAND KIDS. Wake up and smell the coffee!

NOW DO NOT LET THESE BUMS GET AWAY WITH THIS SUMMARY JUDGMENT GARBAGE! WHAT ABOUT YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO REDRESS YOUR GRIEVANCES?

HOW TO ARGUE JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES TO THIS CASE.

Jurisdiction comes in two basic forms or categories. These is “ IN REM “ JURISDICTION , which basically means I got possession of you right now in your proper person and if you move I can tell that bailiff to seize you and he will do that so matter of fact I got you babe. Next there is “ SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION “ WHICH MEANS JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER AS APPLIED TO YOU. There are many, many challenges here and one needs to really pay attention to what they are doing, because this subject is like fly paper, and once you are stuck, you are probably for all purposes stuck good, so watch it.

JURISDICTIONAL ARGUMENT

ARGUMENT No. 1

The alleged Defendant’s ANSWER AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAINTIFF’S/ PETITIONER’S

PROPOSED ORDER

NOW COMES, PUT FULL CHRISTIAN NAME HERE eg. John Edward, , Smith, the Alleged Defendant(s), APPEARING IN PROPRIA PERSONA, on his own behalf APPEARING ON A SPECIAL APPEARANCE AS IS DISTINGUISHED FROM A GENERAL APPEARANCE as a Courtesy to this Honorable Court and formally CHALLENGES JURISDICTION OF PLAINTIFF(S)/ PETITIONER(S) to bring this ACTION AND MAKES JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES AND CLAIMS OF BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ESPECIALLY FOR DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS AS NO HEARING OR TRIAL ON THE MERITS HAS BEEN ACTUALLY DONE CONCERNING THIS CASE AND A PROPOSED ORDER IS CONSIDERABLY PREMATURE AT THIS TIME THEREBY DENYING THE Alleged Defendant(s) DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

MAJOR OBJECTIONS

1) First for the Record I formally OBJECT to the Plaintiff(s)/ Petitioner(s) claims of ASSUMED JURISDICTION. I cite McNutt vs. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP. 56 S. Ct. 502, which case held ….. Jurisdiction may NEVER be assumed not even by COLORABLE CLAIMS OR STATUS OR BLACK ROBES OR OFFICIALDOM OR APPEARANCES, but must be substantively proven by the PLAINTIFF(S)/ CLAIMANTS of said Jurisdiction. Once challenged by ANY PROPER PARTY the Plaintiff(s)/ Claimants MUST prove their JURISDICTION in a timely manner. Failure to timely prove said claimed Jurisdiction and LACHES INCURRS. Now Title 5 U. S. CODE section 556(d) which states;

(d) Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the agency as a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. A sanction may not be imposed or rule or order issued except on consideration of the whole record or those parts thereof cited by a party and supported by and in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. The agency may, to the extent consistent with the interests of justice and the policy of the underlying statutes administered by the agency, consider a violation of section 557(d) of this title sufficient grounds for a decision adverse to a party who has knowingly committed such violation or knowingly caused such violation to occur. A party is entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. In rule making or determining claims for money or benefits or applications for initial licenses an agency may, when a party will not be prejudiced thereby, adopt procedures for the submission of all or part of the evidence in written form.”

UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED

TITLE 5. GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

PART I--THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

CHAPTER 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

Current through P.L. 104-98, approved 1-16-96

Sec. 557. Initial decisions; conclusiveness; review by agency; submissions by parties; contents of decisions; record

(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, when a hearing is required to be conducted in accordance with section 556 of this title.

Especially note this section because any denial of basic DUE PROCESS OF LAW RIGHTS AND ALL JURISDICTION CEASES AUTOMATICALLY BY THIS STATUTE, BUT YOU GOT TO CLAIM IT BY RIGHT.

UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED

TITLE 5. GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

PART I--THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

CHAPTER 7--JUDICIAL REVIEW

Current through P.L. 104-98, approved 1-16-96

Sec. 706. Scope of review

To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall--

(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and

(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be--

(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;

(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;

(D) without observance of procedure required by law;

(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or

(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.

In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.

Mr. EDWARD SWINKE, ESQUIRE, IS NOT A PARTY IN INTEREST WITH STANDING

OR CAPACITY TO SUE OR PROSECUTE A CLAIM , ANY CLAIM, IN THIS CASE AND NEITHER DOES THE PLAINTIFF(S) , WHO USE EDWARD SWINKE, AS A DEFACTO AGENT, ASSIGN, ACTOR, COUNSELOR, CONTRACTOR, OR QUASI EMPLOYEE TO DO PLAINTIFF'S BIDDING OR TASKS.

Now your Honor all the above duly considered, and not forgetting all that has been currently filed document wise in this case to date of the transgressions of these Plaintiff(s)/ Counter Defendant(s) the simple fact of the matter is THE PLAINTIFF(S) OR THEIR DEFACTO AGENT," MR. EDWARD SWINKE, ESQUIRE (P-28578), WHO HAS NO TIMLEY FILED OATH OF OFFICE ON FILE WITH EITHER THE CLERK OF MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN OFFICE OF THE GREAT SEAL IN LANSING, TO ACTUALLY OPERATE AS AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF'S, AND SIMPLY PUT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR THE CAPACITY TO SUE, OR BRING THIS FRIVOLOUS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, PLAIN AND SIMPLE MATTER OF FACT.

A party to a Lawsuit must possess the capacity to sue or prosecute their claims. M.C.R. 2.201 (C), AN INCORPORATED ENTITY aquires the capacity to SUE or prosecute their claims in the STATE OF MICHIGAN through incorporation and /or compliance with the Laws of the State of Michigan, M.C.L.A. 450.1911. The Plaintiff(s) MATTER OF FACT DO NOT EXIST AND DID NOT EXIST IN LAW AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINATION OF THIS COMPLAINT AS BEING A BANKRUPT CORPORATION AND CIVILLY DEAD, SEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 192 JUNE 5th, 1933, and certainly did not exist at the time of the alleged Plaintiff's Complaint and Plaintiff(s)/APPELLEE(S) do not exist presently as a matter of fact and LAW!! THEY ARE A CIVILLY DEAD, a BANKRUPT CORPORATION. . PLAINTIFF(S)/ ARE IN FACT LIARS AND PERJURERS ON THE RECORD, AND I AM TRYING TO BE MY NORMAL POLITE, BUT THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH!! THEY LIED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, and assumed they would NEVER be caught!! PLAINTIFF(S) YOU ARE CAUGHT, A STONE FACT!

Now your Honor Michigan Courts have consistently held that a dissolved Corporation is essentially a " DEAD PERSON ", the same applies to a BANKRUPT CORPORATION, making any action taken by IT NULL AND VOID OF LAW. Please see Matter of Dissolution of Esquire Products Intern,, Inc. 145 Michigan Appeals 106, 377 NW 2nd 356 (a 1985 case), citing U.S. TRUCK Co. vs. Pennsylvania Surety Corp., 259 Mich. 422, 243 NW 2nd 311 (a 1932 case).

All these cases assumed that at one time the Corporation was in fact in existence LAWFULLY, but some how went into a state of dissolution. THESE PLAINTIFF(S) ARE IN FACT A BANKRUPT CORPORATION AND CIVILLY DEAD ON THE RECORD OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AS SUCH BANKRUPT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF(S) OPERATE AS A FICTION OR DEFACTO CORPORATION. PLEASE SEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 192 JUNE 5th, 1933., ALSO NOTE MR. EDWARD SWINKE, ESQUIRE, IS NOT THE TRUSTEE OF THAT STATE OF MICHIGAN BANKRUPTCY AND WOULD HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR THAT BANKRUPT CORPORATION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES EVEN IF HE WAS PROPERLY LICENSED AND SWORN HIS TIMELY OATH OF OFFICE AND FILED HIS SURETY BONDS TIMELY WITH THE PROPER AUTHORITY. HE HAS NO DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR OR ACT FOR THE BANKRUPT CORPORATION THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. FURTHER THE PLAINTIFF(S) HAVE NO STANDING OR LAWFUL CAPACITY TO SUE THIS Alleged Defendant and any claims to the contrary are 100% FRAUD IN FACT!!

The Plaintiff(s)/ FLAT OUT LIED ON THE SWORN RECORD OF THIS HONORABLE COURT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, AND THEIR ATTORNEY MR. EDWARD SWINKE, ESQUIRE, SWORE ON THE RECORD THAT THE PLAINTIFF(S) LIES WERE TRUE IN FACT. SEE MICHIGAN COURT RULE 2.114 (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), AND (F) and clearly this is an ABUSE OF PROCESS NOT TO MENTION PERJURY AND FRAUD ON THIS HONORABLE COURT, A CAPITOL FELONY, A FACT!!

Now the Plaintiff(s) APPELLEE(S) are NOT A REAL PARTY IN INTEREST TO SUE, BECAUSE THEY ARE A BANKRUPT ENTITY, SEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 192, JUNE 5TH, 1933, and therefore the Plaintiff's/ APPELLEE'S COMPLAINT ACTION IS BARRED AS A MATTER OF FACT AND LAW. Please see Michigan Court Rule, 2.201(B)

ISSUES REAL PARTY IN INTEREST " STANDING"

" (B) Real Party in Interest. An action must be prosecuted in the name of the REAL PARTY IN INTEREST."

THERE IS NO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST WITH " THE PLAINTIFF(S), THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, which is FRAUD,

., a fraud, as they are NOT INCORPORATED LAWFULLY !!THEY ARE CIVILLY DEAD!!

Now Michigan Courts have addressed the " STANDING TO SUE " DOCTRINE in several cases. In Department of Social Services vs. Baayoun 204 Mich. Appeals 170 , 514 NW 2nd 522 (a 1994 case), the Court held that " STANDING " relates to position or situation of a Party relative to the cause of action and other Parties at the time of Party seeks relief from the Court. Now in Taylor vs. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, 205 Mich. App. 644, 517 NW 2nd 864 (a 1994 case), the Court held that

" STANDING " is a legal term used to denote the existence of a Party's interest in the outcome of litigation, which will assure sincere and vigorous advocacy. The Court further stated for the Record that to have "STANDING " a Party MUST DEMONSTRATE

a legally protected interest that is in jeopardy of being adversely affected and must allege a sufficient personal stake in the outcome of the dispute to ensure that the controversy to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversarial setting capable of judicial resolution.

In order to have standing, a party MUST SHOW a substantial interest and stake in the outcome of a controversy. Further see; ROGAN Vs. MORTON, 167 Mich. App. 483, 423 NW 2nd 237 ( a 1988 case), which held, " STANDING", AS A REQUISITE TO SUE, ensures that only those who have a substantial interest in the outcome of a LAWSUIT will be allowed to come into Court and Complain. Further see in support WHITE LAKE IMPROVEMENT ASS'N vs. WHITEHALL, 22 Mich. App. 262, 177 NW 2nd 473 (a 1970 case )

Now Upon examination of these facts clearly THE PLAINTIFF(S)/ ARE NOT A PROPER PARTY, WITH STANDING, OR CAPACITY, TO BRING SUIT IN ANY CAPACITY BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT FOR THEY DO NOT EXIST IN LAW OR FACT, AND ARE CLEARLY CIVILLY DEAD IN FACT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO CAPACITY TO SUE ANY PARTY IN THIS HONORABLE COURT OR ANY MICHIGAN COURT AS THEY ARE A BANKRUPT ENTITY SINCE 1933 AND IN FACT ARE IN RECEIVERSHIP AND CIVILLY DEAD. SEE CLEARFIELD BANK AND TRUST vs. UNITED STATES, 462 F.Supp. 1193 , SEE THE CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE A STUDY IN JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS. OBVIOUSLY, PLAINTIFF(S) ARE A DEFACTO ENTITY , AND THEIR AGENT, MR. EDWARD SWINKE, ESQUIRE, is a DEFACTO AGENT, A FICTION OF LAW A MERE NULLITY OR NON-EXISTENT PERSON AND IN THIS CASE A FRAUD ON THIS HONORABLE COURT and these Alleged Defendants and ACCOMMODATION PARTIES AS THE HOLDERS IN DUE COURSE, THE PLAINTIFF(S) HAVE NO STANDING OR CAPACITY TO LAWFULLY BRING PLAINTIFF'S UN FOUNDED, PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS, OR SPURIOUS COMPLAINTS BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT AND SUE. TO DO SO IS FRAUD, 100% FRAUD BY PLAINTIFF(S).

RULES FOR LAWFUL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Now your Honor may it please this Honorable Court obviously some errors have occurred in this case and NO PROOFS OF ANY LAWFUL JURISDICTION has been in fact proven by these Plaintiff(s)/ Claimants to this very date. So it is clearly very premature for the Plaintiff(s) to be in fact issuing a PLAINTIFF(S) PROPOSED ORDER IN THIS MATTER as we have not even satisfied the basic standards of Review or PROPER IN REM OR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION of the Plaintiff’s/ Petitioner’s petitions or complaints. I OBJECT TO THAT AND AGAIN ISSUE MY FORMAL CHALLENGES OF PROPER JURISDICTION and I invoke Michigan Court Rule concerning REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST WITH “ STANDING “ to even bring suit and I ALLEGE FRAUD ON THE CONTRACT.

MCR 2.116

WEST'S MICHIGAN COURT RULES

CHAPTER 2. CIVIL PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER 2.100 COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION; SERVICE OF

PROCESS; PLEADINGS; MOTIONS

Current with amendments received through 2-15-96

RULE 2.116 SUMMARY DISPOSITION I SO MOTION THE COURT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT YOUR HONOR MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT FAILURE TO STATE A VALID CLAIM FOR WHICH THIS HONORABLE COURT CAN LAWFULLY GRANT ANY RELIEF TO THE OPPOSING PARTY AND FURTHER STATE YOUR JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES, BECAUSE ONCE JURISDICTION IS CHALLENGED IT MUST BE TIMELY PROVEN BY THE PLAINTIFF(S) / CLAIMANT’S OF SAID JURISDICTION. THEY CAN’T DO IT AND THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR ALL GOOD AND JUST CAUSE BEING CLEARLY SHOWN ON THE RECORD.

ARGUMENT No. 2

Not a proper party with standing and NO OATH OF OFFICE TO ACT AS SAID OFFICER IN AUTHORITY FOR HE IS A DEFACTO OFFICER.

Mr. PUT GOVERNMENT AGENT’S NAME HERE , ESQUIRE, (P-12345), OTHERWISE KNOWN FROM HERE ON OUT AS PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, IS NOT A PARTY IN INTEREST WITH STANDING

OR CAPACITY TO SUE OR PROSECUTE A CLAIM , ANY CLAIM, IN THIS CASE AND NEITHER DOES THE PLAINTIFF(S) , WHO USE PUT GOVERNMENT AGENT’S NAME HERE, (P-12345), AS A DEFACTO AGENT, ASSIGN, ACTOR, COUNSELOR, CONTRACTOR, OR QUASI EMPLOYEE TO DO PLAINTIFF'S BIDDING OR TASKS.

Now your Honor all the above duly considered, and not forgetting all that has been currently filed document wise in this case to date of the transgressions of these Plaintiff(s)/ Counter Defendant(s) the simple fact of the matter is THE PLAINTIFF(S) OR THEIR DEFACTO AGENT," PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL ”, WHO HAS NO TIMELY FILED OATH OF OFFICE ON FILE WITH EITHER THE CLERK OF PUT COUNTY CLERK HERE, COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN OFFICE OF THE GREAT SEAL IN LANSING, TO ACTUALLY OPERATE AS AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF'S, AND SIMPLY PUT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR THE CAPACITY TO SUE, OR BRING THIS FRIVOLOUS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, PLAIN AND SIMPLE MATTER OF FACT.

A party to a Lawsuit must possess the capacity to sue or prosecute their claims. M.C.R. 2.201 (C), AN INCORPORATED ENTITY acquires the capacity to SUE or prosecute their claims in the STATE OF MICHIGAN through incorporation and /or compliance with the Laws of the State of Michigan, M.C.L.A. 450.1911. The Plaintiff(s) MATTER OF FACT DO NOT EXIST AND DID NOT EXIST IN LAW AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINATION OF THIS COMPLAINT AS BEING A BANKRUPT CORPORATION AND CIVILLY DEAD, SEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 192 JUNE 5th, 1933, and certainly did not exist at the time of the alleged Plaintiff's Complaint and Plaintiff(s)/APPELLEE(S) do not exist presently as a matter of fact and LAW!! THEY ARE A CIVILLY DEAD, a BANKRUPT CORPORATION. . PLAINTIFF(S)/ ARE IN FACT LIARS AND PERJURERS ON THE RECORD, AND I AM TRYING TO BE MY NORMAL POLITE, BUT THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH!! THEY LIED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, and assumed they would NEVER be caught!! PLAINTIFF(S) YOU ARE CAUGHT, A STONE FACT!

All these cases assumed that at one time the Corporation was in fact in existence LAWFULLY, but some how went into a state of dissolution. THESE PLAINTIFF(S) ARE IN FACT A BANKRUPT CORPORATION AND CIVILLY DEAD ON THE RECORD OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AS SUCH BANKRUPT CORPORATION PLAINTIFF(S) OPERATE AS A FICTION OR DEFACTO CORPORATION. PLEASE SEE HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 192, JUNE 5th, 1933., ALSO NOTE MR. PUT GOVERNMENT AGENT’S NAME HERE (P-12345) , IS NOT THE TRUSTEE OF THAT STATE OF MICHIGAN BANKRUPTCY, AND WOULD HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR THAT BANKRUPT CORPORATION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN IF HE WAS PROPERLY LICENSED AND SWORN HIS TIMELY OATH OF OFFICE, AND FILED HIS SURETY BONDS TIMELY WITH THE PROPER AUTHORITY. HE HAS NO LAWFUL DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR OR ACT FOR THE BANKRUPT CORPORATION THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. FURTHER THE PLAINTIFF(S) HAVE NO STANDING OR LAWFUL CAPACITY TO SUE THIS Alleged Defendant and any claims to the contrary are 100% FRAUD IN FACT!!

The Plaintiff(s)/ FLAT OUT LIED ON THE SWORN RECORD OF THIS HONORABLE COURT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, AND THEIR ATTORNEY PUT GOVERNMENT AGENT’S NAME HERE (P-12345) SWORE ON THE RECORD THAT THE PLAINTIFF(S) LIES WERE TRUE IN FACT. SEE MICHIGAN COURT RULE 2.114 (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), AND (F) and clearly this is an ABUSE OF PROCESS NOT TO MENTION PERJURY AND FRAUD ON THIS HONORABLE COURT, A CAPITOL FELONY, A FACT!!

ISSUES REAL PARTY IN INTEREST " STANDING"

" (B) Real Party in Interest. An action must be prosecuted in the name of the REAL PARTY IN INTEREST."

THERE IS NO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST WITH " THE PLAINTIFF(S), THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, which is FRAUD,

., a fraud, as they are NOT INCORPORATED LAWFULLY !!THEY ARE CIVILLY DEAD!!

Now Upon examination of these facts clearly THE PLAINTIFF(S)/ ARE NOT A PROPER PARTY, WITH STANDING, OR CAPACITY, TO BRING SUIT IN ANY CAPACITY BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT FOR THEY DO NOT EXIST IN LAW OR FACT, AND ARE CLEARLY CIVILLY DEAD IN FACT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO CAPACITY TO SUE ANY PARTY IN THIS HONORABLE COURT OR ANY MICHIGAN COURT AS THEY ARE A BANKRUPT ENTITY SINCE 1933 AND IN FACT ARE IN RECEIVERSHIP AND CIVILLY DEAD. SEE CLEARFIELD BANK AND TRUST vs. UNITED STATES, 462 F. Supp. 1193 , SEE THE CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE A STUDY IN JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS/ DIVERSITY. OBVIOUSLY, PLAINTIFF(S) ARE A DEFACTO ENTITY , AND THEIR AGENT, MR. PUT NAME OF DEFACTO AGENT OFR OFFICER HERE , ESQUIRE, (P-12345), is a DEFACTO AGENT, A FICTION OF LAW A MERE NULLITY OR NON-EXISTENT PERSON AND IN THIS CASE A FRAUD ON THIS HONORABLE COURT and these Alleged Defendants and ACCOMMODATION PARTIES AS THE HOLDERS IN DUE COURSE, THE PLAINTIFF(S) HAVE NO STANDING OR CAPACITY TO LAWFULLY BRING PLAINTIFF'S UNFOUNDED, PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS, OR SPURIOUS COMPLAINTS BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT AND SUE. TO DO SO IS FRAUD, 100% FRAUD BY PLAINTIFF(S) OR THEIR AGENTS, ASSIGNS, ACTORS, CONTRACTORS, EMPLOYEES, OR COUNSELORS.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE CLAIMS AND GLARING ERRORS

There are many, many glaring ERRORS in this case to date, but none so glaring as the FACT that , THE Alleged Defendant(s), THE ACCOMMODATION PARTIES, HOLDERS IN DUE COURSE do not owe the debt claimed by the Plaintiff(s), who just made this Debt up and would not even sit down with us and explain to these ACCOMMODATION PARTIES, how this debt came to be in the first place and Plaintiff(s) refused to even correspond with the Alleged Defendant(s) , ACCOMMODATION PARTIES INQUIRIES and submit facts and verified evidence of their claims of the Debt for some supposed tort or first hand injury.

Now Plaintiff(s) have hired some hotshot Attorney collection agent to try and extort monies from these alleged Defendants to extort from the Alleged Defendant(s) by use of legal robbery in the Courts to coerce the Alleged Defendant(s) to pay this FRUADULENT CLAIM OF A DEBT OF THE Alleged Defendant(s) TO THE PLAINTIFF(S) for this tort!! Such debt, which is NOT OWED by PUT YOUR CHRISTIAN NAME HERE eg. John Edward, , Smith , THE ACCOMMODATION PARTY AND HOLDER IN DUE COURSE, U.C.C. 3-419 AND 9-317, U.C.C., AND 1-207 U.C.C., all rights reserved, and is totally FRAUD, 3-305 U.C.C., and without proper verification or merit in fact, and without due process of Law being afforded to this Alleged Defendant(s).

This is EXTORTION IN FACT AND A TOTAL VIOLATION OF LAW!! THE Alleged Defendant's DENY OUT RIGHT THIS FRAUDULENT CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF'S DEBT OR TORT INJURY, BECAUSE THE Alleged Defendant(s) DO NOT OWE THIS DEBT. PLEASE SEE, the case of RUFF vs. ISAAC, MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS, CASE No. 192615, Oct 17th,1997, A COPY ENCLOSED AND ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE PART OF THE RECORD, which case held that if an agency of Government failed in its "DUTY" to provide one, "ANY", proper required procedure in processing claims, which worked to deny a party DUE PROCESS OF LAW that this error in procedure voided TOTALLY AND ENTIRELY, the AGENCY claims to debt, or property even by claim of even the I.R.S., who in this case had already seized the property and made attempt to transfer title of that property to another third party in a TAX SALE, and that transfer was in fact totally STOPPED AND VOIDED, and held void, and the I.R.S. had to give the property back to the original owner for that ERROR IN NOT PROVIDING DUE PROCESS OF LAW. THE MAIN ISSUE HERE IS DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND PLAINTIFF(S) ARE TOTALLY IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS AND HAVE DELIBERATELY STONE WALLED THE Alleged Defendants on all their many, many serious efforts to get proper lawful inquiry of this matter and are acting in the FEDERAL ZONE as " PIGGY BACKING THE FEDERAL LAW PER STATE OF MICHIGAN IRREVOCABLE COVENANT (1837) AS CONDITION OF STATEHOOD, BUT Plaintiff(s) totally ignore all the LAW IN TITLE 5 U.S. CODE section 556 (d), THE PROPONENT OF A RULE OR ORDER HAS ENTIRELY THE BURDEN OF PROOFS, 557 DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS and section 706 JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS FOR LACK OF DUE PROCESS. NOW PLAINTIFF(S) WANT IT BOTH WAYS TO HAVE THEIR CAKE AND EAT IT TO AND THE LAW BE DAMNED AND THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS. PLEASE SEE FRANKLIN vs. FRANKLIN, 283 S. W. 2d 483,486, THE CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE, which case held one seeking equitable relief can not take advantage of ones own wrong doing to get that equitable relief, and must come to equity with clean hands. Now Plaintiff(s) have violated the MICHIGAN COURT RULES ON GARNISHMENT M.C.R. 3.101 AND THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION ACTS AND CERTAINLY ARE IN VIOLATION OF RUFF vs. ISAAC, SUPRA AND CLEARLY MANY, MANY VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS HAVE IN FACT BEEN VIOLATED.

CHALLENGES AND PROOFS OF JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The Alleged Defendant(s) would challenge the Plaintiff(s) to timely PROVE JURISDICTION AND VENUE and would further claim that JURISDICTION AND VENUE MAY NOT BE JUST ASSUMED BY CLAIM OF THE PARTY UNDER COLORABLE ROBES OF OFFICIALDOM, BUT MUST BE SUBSTANTIVELY PROVEN AND VERIFIED BY THE PLAINTIFF(S) CLAIMANT(S) OF SAID JURISDICTION AND VENUE PURSUANT TO McNutt vs. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP. 56 S. Ct. 502. NO PROPER JURISDICTION HAS IN FACT BEEN TIMELY PROVEN TO DATE AND LACHES HAS IN FACT INCURRED AND PLAINTIFF(S) ARE ESTOPPED FROM PROCEEDING BY LACHES.

DUTIES

RES ipsi loquitur WITH EXCLUSIVE CONTROL

Next the Courts and Officers of the Court, are empowered with a main "DUTY" or purpose, RES ipsi loquitur, with exclusive control, to effect that "DUTY BEING DONE" and that primary mission is to PROTECT AND DEFEND the LAW and meter out JUSTICE TO "EACH" AND EVERY LITTLE CITIZEN, SUCH THAT IN DOING THIS VITAL DUTY, JUSTICE AND THE LAW ARE IN FACT PRESERVED AND SERVED IN THE INTEREST OF ALL CITIZENS, NOT JUST THE CORPORATE ELITE!!

Well the Courts failed miserably in their sacred "DUTY" in this case and clearly it was a failure done deliberately with malice and or forethought and I OBJECT TO THAT ON THE RECORD. THE COURT WAS CLEARLY BIASED AND PREDISPOSED AGAINST THIS alleged Defendant!! WHY, BECAUSE SHE DARES TO STAND UP AND CLAIM HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!! A FACT!!! THAT IS A CAPITOL FELONY ON THE RECORD OF THIS CASE!!! I OBJECT TO THAT!!

The Court Officers are all SWORN ON OATH TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION BOTH FEDERAL, ARTICLE VI PARA #3 AND STATE ARTICLE 11 PARA#1, FROM ALL ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, AND CLEARLY THIS COURT IS DUTY BOUND TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTIONS BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE FROM ALL ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, AND DO THEIR DUTY TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITIES TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. RES ipsi loquitur, with EXCLUSIVE CONTROL!! EMPHASIS ADDED MINE!

I came to this Court with the Constitutions both Federal and State in my hand as a " BENEFICIARY" OF THE CONTRACT, FOR THE "CITIZEN" IS THE DIRECT BENEFICIARY of the Contracts, please see BYARS vs. UNITED STATES 273 U.S. 28 and 16 American Juris Prudence 2nd, section 97, the Constitutions are supposed to be interpreted liberally in favor of the clearly intended and expressly designated "BENIFICIARY..., THE CITIZEN", for the protection of RIGHTS AND PROPERTY, and all WE asked the Court was a fair and impartial adjudication of this case based on the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and the Court totally ignored THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND TO MY VERY GREAT INJURY. WE say the Constitutions are THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND AND MOVE TIMELY TO PROTECT THEM, MARBURY vs. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), AND THE MICHIGAN COURT RULES AND I FURTHER SAY THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS WERE ALL MEANT TO BE FOLLOWED EXACTLY!! FAILURE TO IN FACT PROTECT THOSE CONSTITUTIONS IN AN OPEN COURT OF LAW IS A FELONY TREASON!! A STONE FACT! Please see 18 U.S. CODE, sect. 2381 thru 2384.

BUT THE COURT HAS IGNORED ITS SACRED "DUTY" AND FAILED TO PROTECT IT'S PRIMARY BENEFICIARY " THE ACCOMMODATION PARTIES, THE HOLDERS IN DUE COURSE OF THE CONTRACT"," THE CITIZENS" FOR THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND PROPERTY ITS PRIMARY FUNCTION OF ITS EXISTENCE!! WE OBJECT TO THAT AND CLAIM CAPITOL FELONIES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN THIS OPEN COURT BY THIS COURT'S OFFICERS!! Mr. Put defacto agent or officer’s name here, ESQUIRE,(P-12345), A DEFACTO PLAINTIFF'S AGENT OR ASSIGN.

Now the Court is prepared to do another travesty and award costs, fees and sanctions to these very Plaintiff(s), who literally have committed FRAUD, THE WHOLE CASE, and who clearly do not have one (1) LAWFUL ARGUMENT FOR WHICH THIS HONORABLE COURT CAN LAWFULLY GRANT RELIEF, see M.C.R. 2.116(C)(1),(2),(8),(9),(10), and M.C.R. 2.603 (A), (B), (C), (D), the Court is going to grant judgments against the Alleged Defendant(s) for exercising their RIGHTS TO REDRESS their JUST GRIEVANCES UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND UNDER THE STATE OF MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION AND GRANT PLAINTIFF(S) SUMMARY JUDGMENTS, and now the Court is to award costs, fees and damages against the Citizen BENEFICIARY TO THE CONTRACT, THE CONSTITUTIONS NAMELY ARE IN FACT A CONTRACT, THERE IS AN OFFER, A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION AND AN AGREEMENT, AND THIS IS HAPPENING BECAUSE THE Alleged Defendant(s), ARE TO BE PUNISHED FOR DARING TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. PLEASE SEE MILLER vs. UNITED STATES 230 F 2d 486 , which case held "THE CLAIM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CAN NOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME OR PUNISHED!!"

Now normally this would not even be a consideration in a normal Court of Law, but we are not in a normal Court of Law and you notice the PLAINTIFF(S) have brought the MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COSTS, FEES AND SANCTIONS, NOW DID YOU NOT?

INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH THE PLAINTIFF(S) ARE NOT ENTITLED ANY FURTHER RELIEF OF THE COURTS FOR BEING IN VIOLATION OF THEIR OATH OF OFFICE, SO MANY TIMES IT IS TRULY A JOKE TO EVEN MENTION IT. I OBJECT TO THAT AS CLEARLY DISCRIMINATORY OBVIOUSLY THE PLAINTIFF(S) KNOW THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, OR THEY WOULD NOT DO THIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COSTS, FEES, AND SANCTIONS FOR MY EXERCISE OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

NO THEY ARE WORKING HAND AND GLOVE WITH THE COURT TO INJURE THESE Alleged Defendant(s), WHO ARE MERELY TRYING TO GET AN HONEST DAY IN COURT TO REVIEW HONESTLY THE CASE FAIRLY AND JUSTLY!

Now I came to this Court seeking Justice and my Constitutional Rights to be enforced and the education I got was the Constitutions Federal and State of Michigan to include the MICHIGAN COURT RULES are not worth the paper they are printed on to wipe you know what, and the reality of that is there is really NO LAW, BUT ONLY EXTRA-JUDICIAL WHIM OF BUDDIES WITH THEIR BUDDIES, DISCRIMINATING AGAINST SOME TARGETED INNOCENT CITIZEN, …ME, CLEARLY A CONSPIRACY OF FACT AGAINST THIS NAMED Alleged Defendant(s).

I OBJECT TO THAT AND I AM NOT GOING TO EVEN PLAY FURTHER. I AM GOING TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND WE SHALL SEE IF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE COURT RULES ARE IN FACT THE SUPREME LAW OR JUST BULL SHIZEN. I PROPOSE THAT THEY ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SAY I AM RIGHT ON THAT FACT OF LAW!! Even if I am wrong I have relied on the counsel of (9) Justices of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND HAVE A PERFECT DEFENSE FOR ANY WILLFULNESS, WILLFULNESS DEFINED AS AN EVIL MOTIVE OR INTENT TO AVOID A KNOWN DUTY OR TASK UNDER THE LAW WITH A MORAL CERTAINTY. I HAVE MY RELIANCE ON THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ON (9) JUSTICES OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. PLAINTIFF(S) DO NOT HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WHICH THIS HONORABLE COURT CAN LAWFULLY GRANT JUST RELIEF AND THEREFORE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS NAMED Alleged Defendant put Christian name here eg. John Edward, , Smith, for ALL GOOD AND JUST CAUSE BEING CLEARLY SHOWN ON THE RECORD..

PROBLEM IS THE LAWYERS DO NOT HAVE A CLUE ABOUT THE COURT RULES OR THE CONSTITUTION AND IN FACT BY DEFAULT CLEARLY ARE NOT FOLLOWING THOSE MANDATES OF THE LAW, BUT ARE ONLY OPERATING UNDER COLOR OF LAW TO THE INJURY OF ALL CITIZENS, in plea bargain agreements, WHO SEEK JUST RELIEF BY THE LAW. I OBJECT TO THAT AND CLAIM THESE SWORN OFFICERS HAVE COMMITTED CAPITOL FELONIES IN AN OPEN COURT OF LAW. LET THE RECORD BE FACTUALLY CLEAR NOTICE OF FELONY IS GIVEN AND GIVEN AND GIVEN!!! TITLE 18

U. S. CODE SECTIONS 2381,2382,2383, AND 2384 AND 1621 PERJURY OF OATH OF OFFICE IF YOU CAN FIND ONE TIMELY FILED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

OATHS OF OFFICE

NOTE: SEE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION ART 11 SECTION #5 IT IS (10) DAYS FROM THERE, THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER, USUALLY NOV 3RD, OR 5^TH otherwise known as “ELECTION DAY “

Further the Officers have failed to timely file their OATHS OF OFFICE , MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED 49.33, 49.44 AND M.C.L.A. 85.10, 201.3 (7), IN THIS CASE AND IN FACT ARE CLEARLY DEFACTO, FALSE, AND FRAUDULENTLY OFFICERS, DOING BUSINESS AS IF THEY WERE REAL OFFICERS, CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF ALL LAW!! I OBJECT TO THAT AND TO ANY RULING OR JUDGMENT, WHICH THEY MAY UNLAWFULLY AND FRAUDULENTLY MAKE OR RULE UPON. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT I OBJECT TO THAT TIMELY ON THE RECORD!!

NOW WE HAVE NO CHOICE IN THIS CASE BUT TO TIMELY DEFEND OURSELVES OR GO DOWN IN FLAMES AND LOOSE ALL OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, TO INCLUDE THIS CASE, AND WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF DOING THAT. MAYBE THE SUPREME COURT CAN FIGURE THIS WHOLE CASE OUT, AND WE WILL FINALLY GET JUSTICE THERE, BUT I HONESTLY FEEL THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN THE COURTS AS LONG AS THESE KIND OF RAIL ROAD GAMES ARE ALLOWED TO BE PLAYED BY PLAINTIFF(S) TO DATE, AND I AM DONE PLAYING GAMES!! SO TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WE ARE GOING IF WE CAN NOT GET JUSTICE HERE AND THIS CASE RESOLVED FAIRLY AND JUSTLY!!!

ALL OF THE MICHIGAN COURT RULES and the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GREAT STATE OF MICHIGAN were totally ignored by these PLAINTIFF(S), to OUR very great tortious injury. It seems that MR. Put defacto agent or officer’s name here, ESQUIRE, (P-12345) DEFACTO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY forgot to timely file his OATH OF OFFICE Michigan Constitution article 11 Para. 1 , or U.S. Constitution Article VI Para 3 and so Hon. JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM does not feel honor bound to in fact uphold those CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES EITHER, a FELONY in an open Court of LAW. Please see MARBURY vs. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

NOTE:

5 US 137 Marbury v Madison 1 Any law repugnant to the constitution is null and void of Law

An act of congress repugnant to the constitution can not become a law. The courts of United States are bound to take notice of the constitution.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law. Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law was illogical. For certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other law and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis of all law. And for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it never existed for unconstitutionality would date from enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law.

ALSO NOTE:

NORTON v SHELBY COUNTY An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

U.S. Supreme Court

NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

118 U.S. 425

NORTON

BOYD v US 116 U.S. 616, The Court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionality or secured liberty.

Fifth Amendment rights

U.S. Supreme Court

BOYD v. U S, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)

116 U.S. 616

BOYD and others, Claimants, etc.,

UNITED STATES.

Filed February 1, 1886

U.S. Supreme Court held: The Court is not at liberty to do what all others can see

In… and know is wrong, nor is the Court to add a meaning

U.S. v. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1-88(1936) to the Constitution, which is not clearly written

nor take away a right which is clearly mandated be

protected and the Court is not to grant covertly

what is forbidden overtly.

CLEARLY, THE LAW HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE PLAINTIFF(S) AND JUST AS CLEARLY THE PLAINTIFF(S) ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY RELIEF OF THIS HONORABLE COURT FOR THEY HAVE NOT ONE GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT TO SUPPORT THEIR PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS AND SPURIOUS COMPLAINT AND AS SUCH PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR GOOD AND JUST CAUSE BEING CLEARLY SHOWN. IT IS THE RIGHT AND JUST THING TO DO!!

FRAUD AND CONSUMER FRAUD

NOT A LAWFULLY SWORN OR SEATED PROSECUTOR

NOW COMES, PUT YOUR CHRISTIAN NAME HERE eg. John Edward, , Smith , THE Alleged Defendant(s), APPEARING IN PROPRIA PERSONA on our own behalf herein before this Honorable put in what county Court here, COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Hon. PUT JUDGES NAME HERE, CIRCUIT JUDGE, and herein ANSWER AND GIVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS, WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS AND MOTIONS TO QUASH, DISMISS OR DENY THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR COSTS, FEES, DISBURSEMENTS, AND EXPENSES AND FURTHER MOTION TO QUASH, DISMISS, OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH PREJUDICE THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR JUST CAUSE AND MR. PUT DEFACTO OFFICER OR AGENT’S NAME HERE, ESQUIRE, (P-12345) DEFACTO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY has no valid timely filed OATH OF OFFICE FILED WITHIN (10) TEN DAYS OF HIS TAKING OFFICE, FROM THE APPOINTMENT OR ELECTION, which is clearly required by statute and or LAW and FEDERAL Constitutional mandate Article VI para 3 U.S. CONSTITUTION and Article 11 Para 1 MICHIGAN STATE CONSTITUTION and numerous statutes Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated Sections 15.151, 85.10, 49.33, 168.420, 168.422, 168.440, 168.467j, 168.467l, 168.426n, ect.

THAT CLEARLY PLAINTIFF’F COUNSEL, Mr. PUT DEFACTO AGENT OR OFFICER’S NAME HERE, ESQUIRE,

(P-12345) voluntarily vacated his OFFICE AS PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, M.C.L.A. 201.3 (7), by failing to timely meet the requirements of the above noted statutes and Laws requiring a timely OATH OF OFFICE BE FILED WITHIN (10) TEN DAYS of ones appointment or election to Office of PROSECUTING ATTORNEY or any other office and that failing that requirement MR. PUT DEFACTO AGENT OR OFFICER’S NAME HERE, ESQUIRE, (P-12345) did vacate voluntarily his SEAT AS PROSECUTING ATTORNEY , M.C.L. A. 49.33, 49.44 and clearly is now a DEFACTO OFFICER OR CORAM NON COUNSELERE, M.C.L.A. 201.3 (7) and has no power or authority to issue ANY COMPLAINT OR ORDERS AS HE IS NOT AN OFFICER OF A COURT OF RECORD BY LAW.

NOTE MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED LAW AS FOLLOWS:

M.C.L.A. 15.151

MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED

CHAPTER 15. PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

CONSTITUTIONAL OATH OF OFFICE

Current through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,

28 to 58, and 61 to 100

15.151. Employees and persons in service of state to take constitutional oath of office

Sec. 1. All persons now employed, or who may be employed by the state of Michigan, or any governmental agency thereof, and all other persons in the service of the state or any governmental agency, shall, as a condition of their employment, take and subscribe to the oath or affirmation required of members of the legislature and other public officers by section 2 of article 16 of the constitution of 1908 of the state of Michigan. [FN1]

[FN1] See, now, Const. Art. 11, Sec. 1.

M.C.L.A. 49.33

MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED

CHAPTER 49. PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS

ASSISTANTS, CLERKS, AND INVESTIGATORS

Current through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,

28 to 58, and 61 to 100

49.33. Statement of appointment, filing

Sec. 3. The prosecuting attorney shall, within 10 days after entering on the execution of the duties of his office, file in the office of the county clerk a statement in writing of his appointments, designating 1 assistant prosecuting attorney as chief assistant prosecuting attorney and designating all other assistant prosecuting attorneys in the order in which they shall rank in discharging the functions and performing the duties of the office of prosecuting attorney.

M.C.L.A. 49.42

MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED

CHAPTER 49. PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS

ASSISTANT PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS

Current through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,

28 to 58, and 61 to 100

49.42. Assistant prosecuting attorney; term, duties, oath, compensation

Sec. 2. Any such assistant prosecuting attorney shall hold his office during the pleasure of the prosecuting attorney appointing him, perform any and all duties pertaining to the office of prosecuting attorney at such time or times as he may be required so to do by the prosecuting attorney and during the absence or disability from any cause of the prosecuting attorney, but he shall be subject to all the legal disqualifications and disabilities of the prosecuting attorney, and shall before entering upon the duties of his office take and subscribe the oath of office prescribed by the constitution of this state and file the same with the county clerk of his county. The compensation of any such assistant prosecuting attorney shall be paid by the prosecuting attorney appointing him.

M.C.L.A. 49.52

MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED

CHAPTER 49. PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS

SECOND ASSISTANT PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS

Current through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,

28 to 58, and 61 to 100

49.52. Second assistant prosecuting attorneys; term, duties, oath, compensation

Sec. 2. Any such assistant prosecuting attorney shall hold his office during the pleasure of the prosecuting attorney appointing him, perform any and all duties pertaining to the office of prosecuting attorney at such time or times as he may be required so to do by the prosecuting attorney and during the absence or disability from any cause of the prosecuting attorney, but he shall be subject to all the legal disqualifications and disabilities of the prosecuting attorney, and shall before entering upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe to oath of office prescribed by the constitution of this state and file the same with the county clerk of his county. Any such assistant prosecuting attorney shall be allowed by the county for his services such reasonable compensation as the board of supervisors shall determine.

M.C.L.A. 85.10

MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED

CHAPTERS 81 TO 113. FOURTH CLASS CITIES

FOURTH CLASS CITY ACT

CHAPTER V. OFFICERS

QUALIFICATIONS, OATH AND BOND OF OFFICE

Current through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,

28 to 58, and 61 to 100

85.10. Oath of office

Sec. 10. All officers elected or appointed in the city, within 10 days after receiving notice of election or appointment, shall take and subscribe the oath of office prescribed by the state constitution of 1963 and file the oath with the city clerk.

M.C.L.A. 85.11

MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED

CHAPTERS 81 TO 113. FOURTH CLASS CITIES

FOURTH CLASS CITY ACT

CHAPTER V. OFFICERS

QUALIFICATIONS, OATH AND BOND OF OFFICE

Current through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,

28 to 58, and 61 to 100

85.11. Bond or security

Sec. 11. Each officer elected or appointed in the city, before entering upon the duties of his or her office and within the time prescribed for filing the official oath, shall file with the city clerk the bond or security required by law, ordinance, or requirement of the council with sureties approved by the council, for the due performance of the duties of that person's office. The bond or security of the clerk shall be deposited with the city treasurer.

M.C.L.A. 85.16

MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED

CHAPTERS 81 TO 113. FOURTH CLASS CITIES

FOURTH CLASS CITY ACT

CHAPTER V. OFFICERS

VACANCIES IN OFFICE

Current through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,

28 to 58, and 61 to 100

85.16. Failure to file oath or bond

Sec. 16. If any person elected or appointed to office shall fail to take and file the oath of office, or shall fail to give the bond or security required for the due performance of the duties of his office, within the time herein limited therefor, the council may declare the office vacant, unless previous thereto he shall file the oath and give the requisite bond or security.

M.C.L.A. 168.467j

MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED

CHAPTER 168. MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW

MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW

CHAPTER XXIA. JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT

Current through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,

28 to 58, and 61 to 100

168.467j. Oath of office

Sec. 467j. Every person elected to the office of judge of the district court, before entering upon the duties of his office, shall take and subscribe to the oath as provided in section 1 of article 11 of the state constitution, and file the same with the secretary of state and a copy with each county clerk in his district.

TAKE SPECIAL NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING

M.C.L.A. 201.3

MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED

CHAPTER 201. VACANCIES IN OFFICE

RESIGNATIONS, VACANCIES, AND REMOVALS VACANCIES

Current through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,

28 to 58, and 61 to 100

201.3. Vacancies; creation

Sec. 3. Every office shall become vacant, on the happening of any of the following events, before the expiration of the term of such office:

1. The death of the incumbent;

2. His resignation;

3. His removal from office;

4. His ceasing to be an inhabitant of this state; or, if the office be local, of the district, county, township, city, or village, for which he shall have been appointed, or within which the duties of his office are required to be discharged;

5. His conviction of any infamous crime, or of any offense involving a violation of his oath of office;

6. The decision of a competent tribunal, declaring void his appointment, or,

THIS> 7. His refusal or neglect to take his oath of office, or to give, or renew any official bond, or to deposit such oath, or bond, in the manner and within the time prescribed by law.

Clearly your Honor one could easily and fairly come to the simple Lawful conclusion that if a PARTY, CANDIDATE, OR ELECTED, OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL truly desired to take an Official Office and actually hold that Official Office Lawfully he or she would certainly timely follow the Law and timely file within the (10) ten day requirement the appropriate OATH OF OFFICE AND OR SURETY BONDS and that failing that certainly the Record would be clear that he or she voluntarily vacated that Office for failure to timely file or post that OATH OF OFFICE AND OR SURETY BOND. It is about specific performance and clearly your Honor ALL OFFICE HOLDERS as a condition of employement are REQUIRED to file the appropriate OATH OF OFFICE and post the appropriate SURETY BONDS or they automatically VACATE THEIR OFFICE and having so vacated their OFFICE they would have no power or authority to speak or act as a REAL PARTY IN INTEREST WITH LAWFUL “ STANDING “ TO ACT OR SUE. THIS IS EXACTLY SUCH A CASE BEFORE YOU YOUR HONOR. Mr. PUT DEFACTO AGENTS OR OFFICER’S NAME HERE, ESQUIRE, (P-12345) did not timely file and or post the required OATH OF OFFICE OR SURETY BONDS to occupy the OFFICE HE CLAIMS TO SIT UPON and therefor voluntarily vacated said OFFICE AS ADVOCATE OR PROSECUTOR FOR THESE PLAINTIFF(S). That is clearly the LAW JUDGE and the Record is very clear on that matter. It follows by simple logic that Mr.PUT DEFACTO AGENT OR OFFICER’S NAME HERE, ESQUIRE, (P-12345) can NOT now act or bring this Plaintiff(s) PETITION OR COMPLAINT AS A MATTER OF LAW as he is NOT A SWORN or BONDED Lawful Office holder. His arguments are patently frivolous or spurious and totally without Lawful authority as a REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.

IT FOLLOWS FURTHER BY LOGICAL PROGRESSION THAT TO ISSUE A COMPLAINT OR ORDER WOULD BE A FRAUD ON THIS COURT AND THESE Alleged Defendant(s) , IN FACT AND LAW. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF MR. PUT DEFACTO AGENT OR OFFICER’S NAME HERE, (P-12345) , VOLUNTARILY VACATING HIS OFFICE BY ESTOPEL OF LACHES INCURRING, WHICH ARE attached hereto and made part of the Record.

So in fact and LAW MR. PUT DEFACTO AGENT OR OFFICER’S NAME HERE

(P-12345), , HAS NO JUST LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE This plaintiff's complaint or any ORDER OF THIS HONORABLE COURT. TO DO SO WOULD BE FRAUD. I claim the MR. PUT DEFACTO AGENT OR OFFICER’S NAME HERE, ESQUIRE, (P-12345) is a DEFACTO OFFICER, a fact and to claim otherwise is FRAUD. THE Alleged Defendant(s) further claim that Hon. JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM is also a DEFACTO ATTORNEY GENERAL , for they did NOT FILE their oath of office timely either within the (10) ten days as is prescribed by LAW and for Hon JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM OR ANY OF THESE DEFACTO OFFICERS to claim to be a Lawfully sitting OFFICERS is also FRAUD on the Record of this case. Appellant's further claim that the Appellee(s) have been in a virtual state of DEFAULT throughout this case and the Record is very clear to that fact and Appellee(s) are NOT ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER RELIEF OF THE COURT, ANY COURT!! FOR APPELLEE(S) TO CLAIM FURTHER RELIEF IS FRAUD FOR THEY ARE CLEARLY NOT ENTITLED TO FURTHER RELIEF AND CLEARLY KNOW THIS TO BE A FACT!! THE Alleged Defendant(s) further claim that there is over two dozen citations of violations of THE Alleged Defendant's Constitutional Rights and these DEFACTO OFFICERS have matter of fact ignored entirely all of those breaches of "DUTY" RES ipsi loquitur, with exclusive control and FRAUDULENTLY chosen to ignore all violations of the Appellant's Constitutional Rights both State and Federal in an OPEN COURT OF LAW which is FRAUD AND A FELONY. PLEASE SEE 18 U.S. CODE SECTIONS 2381,2382,2383,2384, AND 18 U.S. Code SECTION 1621 ALL SERIOUS FELONIES. Further that the fact that this PRO SE LITIGANT/APPELLANT ever got a fair and impartial opportunity to present her whole case in chief and REDRESS HER JUST GRIEVANCES IS AN ABSOLUTE LIE IN FACT AND TOTALLY A FRAUD and the responsibility for this travesty falls clearly on the responsibility of THIS HONORABLE COURT AND PUT DEFACTO AGENT OR OFFICER’S NAME HERE, ESQUIRE, (P-12345) DEFACTO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AND JENNIFER GRANHOLM DEFACTO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. THE WHOLE CASE FROM ITS VERY INCEPTION IS LACED WITH PERJURY, FRAUD, DECEPTION AND ABSOLUTE ABUSE OF PROCESS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PUT YOUR CHRISTIAN NAME HERE eg. John Edward, , Smith , the alleged Defendant(s) . IT IS ALL FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD!!!!! I OBJECT TO THAT!!

THE alleged Defendant(s) CLAIM FRAUD ON THE COURT'S PART AND ON PLAINTIFF(S) PART!! THAT THIS COURT EVEN CONSIDERING THE PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS TO ENTER PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED ORDER FOR COSTS AND FEES, FULLY KNOWING THE CLEAR RECORD IN THIS CASE, WHICH FILE IS CATALOGUED WITH ABUSE AFTER ABUSE, IS A GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE NOT TO MENTION FRAUD, PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!! IT IS ALL FRAUD, 100% FRAUD IN FACT!! NOW GO GET THEM AND DON’T QUIT UNTIL WE HAVE OUR FREE COUNTRY BACK WITH IT’S CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT BACK, GOT ME!!

NOW LOOK ON YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE OR ON THE ACTUAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST YOU. WHAT DO YOU SEE? IS YOUR NAME SPELLED IN ALL CAPITOL LETTERS? IF SO IS THAT REALLY YOU? HELL NO IT IS NOT YOU UNLESS YOU SAY IT IS YOU!!! YOU ONLY ANSWER IN COURT AND SAY THAT IS YOU BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ANY BETTER AND IN FACT YOU HAVE BEEN DEFRAUDED. LOOK UP THE WORD “ STRAW MAN OR STRAW WOMAN” It is an artifical Person or Defacto Person, or Corporation, or VESSEL, (name of a ship) and are YOU a ship or artificial Person or NOM DE GUERRE? HELL NO!! So could the Plaintiff(s) be talking about YOU? Hell no!! SO WHY DO YOU TELL THEM, “ you are that person named in this complaint”? DO NOT DO THAT!!! Tell them you spell your name Capito J small letter o, h, n, Capitol letter E small letter d, w, a, r, d comma comma ( for the house and family name) of Capitol S small letter m, ith and that is the ONLY WAY you accept for the spelling of your actual name and that you are a real live flesh and blood, real breathing natural human being person a Christian man or woman living on the LAND AT THE COMMON LAW and at no time are you a CORPORATION, ARTIFICE OR NOM DE GUERRE ( A WAR NAME ), AND YOU DENY VEHEMENTLY THAT YOU ARE A PARTY TO THIS ACTION AND THE PLAINTIFF(S) HAVE FAILED TO JOINDER A PROPER PARTY IN INTEREST TO THIS CASE AND THAT IS MICHIGAN COURT RULE 2.116 (C) (1),(2), (8), (9), (10) AND YOU SO motion the court for summary judgment because plaintiff(s) have failed to timely plead their case and properly NAME OR JO9INDER A PROPER PARTY IN INTEREST, which is a FATAL ERROR YOUR HONOR AND I MOTION THE COURT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR ALL GOOD AND JUST CAUSE BEING CLEARLY SHOWN AND BESIDES THIS YOUR HONOR IT IS FRAUD, 100% FRAUD!!! THE COURT HAS A DUTY NOT TO DO FRAUD YOUR HONOR!!

REAL PARTY IN INTEREST WITH STANDING TO SUE OR BE SUED

MCR 2.201

WEST'S MICHIGAN COURT RULES

CHAPTER 2. CIVIL PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER 2.200 PARTIES; JOINDER OF CLAIMS AND PARTIES;

VENUE; TRANSFER OF ACTIONS

Current with amendments received through 2-15-96

RULE 2.201 PARTIES PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT; CAPACITY

THIS>

(A) Designation of Parties. The party who commences a civil action is designated as plaintiff and the adverse party as defendant. In an appeal the relative position of the parties and their designations as plaintiff and defendant are the same, but they are also designated as appellant and appellee.

THIS>

(B) Real Party in Interest. An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, subject to the following provisions:

(1) A personal representative, guardian, conservator, trustee of an express trust, a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of another, or a person authorized by statute may sue in his or her own name without joining the party for whose benefit the action is brought.

(2) An action on the bond of a public officer required to give bond to the people of the state may be brought in the name of the person to whom the right on the bond accrues.

(3) An action on a bond, contract, or undertaking made with an officer of the state or of a governmental unit, including but not limited to a public, municipal, quasi-municipal, or governmental corporation, an unincorporated board, a public body, or a political subdivision, may be brought in the name of the state or the governmental unit for whose benefit the contract was made.

(4) An action to prevent illegal expenditure of state funds or to test the constitutionality of a statute relating to such an expenditure may be brought:

(a) in the name of a domestic nonprofit corporation organized for civic, protective, or improvement purposes; or

(b) in the names of at least 5 residents of Michigan who own property assessed for direct taxation by the county where they reside.

NOTE THIS>

(C) Capacity to Sue or Be Sued.

NOTE THIS>

(1) A natural person may sue or be sued in his or her own name.

(2) A person conducting a business under a name subject to certification under the assumed name statute may be sued in that name in an action arising out of the conduct of that business.

(3) A partnership, partnership association, or unincorporated voluntary association having a distinguishing name may sue or be sued in its partnership or association name, in the names of any of its members designated as such, or both.

THIS>

(4) A domestic or a foreign corporation may sue or be sued in its corporate name, unless a statute provides otherwise.

(5) Actions to which the state or a governmental unit (including but not limited to a public, municipal, quasi-municipal, or governmental corporation, an unincorporated board, a public body, or a political subdivision) is a party may be brought by or against the state or governmental unit in its own name, or in the name of an officer authorized to sue or be sued on its behalf. An officer of the state or governmental unit must be sued in the officer's official capacity to enforce the performance of an official duty. An officer who sues or is sued in his or her official capacity may be described as a party by official title and not by name, but the court may require the name to be added.

(D) Unknown Parties; Procedure.

(1) Persons who are or may be interested in the subject matter of an action, but whose names cannot be ascertained on diligent inquiry, may be made parties by being described as:

(a) unknown claimants;

(b) unknown owners; or

(c) unknown heirs, devisees, or assignees of a deceased person who may have been interested in the subject matter of the action.

If it cannot be ascertained on diligent inquiry whether a person who is or may be interested in the subject matter of the action is alive or dead, what disposition the person may have made of his or her interest, or where the person resides if alive, the person and everyone claiming under him or her may be made parties by naming the person and adding "or [his or her] unknown heirs, devisees, or assignees".

(2) The names and descriptions of the persons sought to be made parties, with a statement of the efforts made to identify and locate them, must be stated in the complaint and verified by oath or affirmation by the plaintiff or someone having knowledge of the facts in the plaintiff's behalf. The court may require a more specific description to be made by amendment.

(3) A publication giving notice to persons who cannot be personally served must include the description of unknown persons as set forth in the complaint or amended complaint.

(4) The publication and all later proceedings in the action are conducted as if the unknown parties were designated by their proper names. The judgment rendered determines the nature, validity, and extent of the rights of all parties.

(5) A person desiring to appear and show his or her interest in the subject matter of the action must proceed under MCR 2.209. Subject to that rule, the person may be made a party in his or her proper name.

(E) Minors and Incompetent Persons. This subrule does not apply to proceedings under chapter 5.

(1) Representation.

(a) If a minor or incompetent person has a conservator, actions may be brought and must be defended by the conservator on behalf of the minor or incompetent person.

(b) If a minor or incompetent person does not have a conservator to represent the person as plaintiff, the court shall appoint a competent and responsible person to appear as next friend on his or her behalf, and the next friend is responsible for the costs of the action.

(c) If the minor or incompetent person does not have a conservator to represent the person as defendant, the action may not proceed until the court appoints a guardian ad litem, who is not responsible for the costs of the action unless, by reason of personal misconduct, he or she is specifically charged costs by the court. It is unnecessary to appoint a representative for a minor accused of a civil infraction.

(2) Appointment of Representative.

(a) Appointment of a next friend or guardian ad litem shall be made by the court as follows:

(i) if the party is a minor 14 years of age or older, on the minor's nomination, accompanied by a written consent of the person to be appointed;

(ii) if the party is a minor under 14 years of age or an incompetent person, on the nomination of the party's next of kin or of another relative or friend the court deems suitable, accompanied by a written consent of the person to be appointed; or

(iii) if a nomination is not made or approved within 21 days after service of process, on motion of the court or of a party.

(b) The court may refuse to appoint a representative it deems unsuitable.

(c) The order appointing a person next friend or guardian ad litem must be promptly filed with the clerk of the court.

(3) Security.

(a) Except for costs and expenses awarded to the next friend or guardian ad litem or the represented party, a person appointed under this subrule may not receive money or property belonging to the minor or incompetent party or awarded to that party in the action, unless he or she gives security as the court directs.

(b) The court may require that the conservator representing a minor or incompetent party give security as the court directs before receiving the party's money or property.

NOW LET US GET REAL HERE! THAT IS NOT MY NAME ON THAT COMPLAINT AND I AM NOT THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST CONCERNING YOUR FRAUDULENT COMPLAINTS AND YOU HAVE FAILED TO PROPERLY JOINDER THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST HERE AND I MOTION THE COURT TO DISMISS THIS SPURIOUS COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT IS 100% FRAUD AND I FORMALLY OBJECT ON THE RECORD AND MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OR QUASHING THIS SPURIOUS COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD AND OTHER FAILURES TO COMPLY TO THE MICHIGAN COURT RULES. I WOULD KIND OF LIKE TO SUBMIT MY PROPOSED ORDER FOR MY COSTS, FEES, DISBURSEMENTS AND REAL AND PERSONAL DAMAGES TO INCLUDE PUNITIVE DAMAGES OR 3-X THREE TIMES DAMAGES FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS. THANK YOU YOUR HONOR MAY I SUBMIT MY PROPOSED ORDER.

NOW THEN WHAT DO YOU GOT TO SAY MR. DEFACTO AGENT ASSIGN, ACTOR, EMPLOYEE, COUNSELOR, OR OTHER ARTIFICE ?

YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS ABSOLUTE FRAUD OR ARE YOU READY TO GET REAL HONEST HERE!!!

LOOK FOR FUTURE ARTICLES TO AID AND ASSIST YOU IN YOU CONTINUED BATTLES WITH THESE SATANISTIC MINIONS WHO’S CLEAR INTENT IS TO ENSLAVE EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU OUT THERE IN T.V. LAND TO DANCE TO HIS TUNES. HOW ABOUT YOU CHANGE THE RECORD PLAYER AND TUNES TO YOUR TUNES AND PUT DOWN THESE ANARCHISTS WHOSE CLEAR INTENT IS THE OVERTHROW OF THE PEOPLE AND LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR THE SOVEREIGN STATE OF Michigan. WHAT SAY YOU?

John Q. Citizen at large.

RUFF vs. ISAAC

MI Court of Appeals

http://www.lweekly.com/sform.htmhttp://www.lweekly.com/sform.htm

The slip opinions posted here are the latest electronic versions available from the Michigan Court of Appeals. Updates are posted as received from the courts. Consult the advance sheets and bound volumes of the official reports for final revisions and proper pagination. Errata and requests for correction of Michigan Court of Appeals opinions should be submitted to: Deputy Reporter of Decisions, 800 Washington Square Building, Lansing, MI 48933; (517) 373-0714.

RUFF v. ISAAC

October 17, 1997

No. 192615

ROBERT RUFF and GEORGETTE RUFF, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Genesee Circuit Court

LC No. 95-039515 CH

ISAAC,

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: Doctoroff, P.J., and Kelly and Young, JJ. YOUNG, J.

This case involves a challenge to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax sale of real property owned by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs brought suit to quiet title following the sale and transfer of the property's title to defendant. Plaintiffs appeal as of right from the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). On appeal, plaintiffs assert that, because the IRS failed to adhere to federal statutorily-prescribed procedural notice provisions, plaintiffs have superior title to the property. We reverse and remand.

On January 31, 1995, the IRS seized real property (a residence) owned by plaintiffs due to their failure to pay income tax. Defendant submitted a bid on the property at a closed-bid sale conducted by the IRS. Defendant's was the highest bid; consequently, a certificate of sale was issued to him in May 1995. After waiting the 180-day redemption period required by 26 USC 6337, the IRS presented defendant with a deed for the property at issue on October 24, 1995. Plaintiffs did not attempt to redeem their property. M Instead, on September I!, 1995, plaintiffs filed a two-count complaint to quiet title, alleging (1) that defendant failed to exercise due diligence in determining whether the IRS complied with all statutory procedures required to divest plaintiffs of their interest in the property and consummate its sale to defendant, and (2) that, because of these procedural defects, defendant possessed no valid title to plaintiffs' property.IQ Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition which, following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Plaintiffs then filed the present appeal. On appeal, plaintiffs essentially argue that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) because genuine issues of material fact remained concerning whether the IRS complied with all necessary statutory notice procedures. We agree.

This Court reviews a motion for summary disposition de novo. Stehlik v Johnson (On Rehearing), 206 Mich App 83, 85- 520 NW2d 633 (1994). A motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(I 0) tests the factual basis underlying a plaintiff s claim. Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368, 374; 501 NW2d 155 (1993). MCR 2.116(C)(I 0) permits summary disposition when "[e]xcept as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law." Id. A court reviewing such a motion, therefore, must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and any other admissible evidence in favor of the party opposing the motion, granting that party the benefit of any reasonable doubt, and determine whether there is a genuine issue of disputed fact. Id.

We note initially that although plaintiffs' complaint to quiet title invoked the trial court's equity jurisdiction, Howard v Adle, 53 8 F Supp 504, 508 (ED Mich, 1982), the question of the validity of the tax deed at issue must be determined in accordance with federal law. Popp v Eberlein, 409 F2d 309, 311 (CA 6, 1969). State courts have Jurisdiction to decide such a question. Id. When a delinquent taxpayer contests a third-party purchaser's title to property acquired through a tax sale, the general rule is that "the burden of showing literal compliance with statutes governing the sale of land for taxes is upon the claimant under the tax sale." McAndrews v Belknap, 141 F2d 11 1, 115 (CA 6, 1944)- Johnson v Gartlan, 470 F2d 1104,1106 (CA 4, 1973). This rule was initially announced in Marx v Hanthorn, 148 US 172; 13 S Ct 508; 37 L Ed 4 1 0 (1 893), where the Supreme Court held: "[I]t is the rule, when not modified by statute, that the [burden] of proof is on the holder of a tax deed to maintain his title by affirmatively showing that the provisions of the law have been complied with." Id. at 180. This rule is consistent with the inarguable proposition that the tax sale purchaser cannot obtain a clear title if the government failed to perfect its right to sell one. Consequently, if a delinquent taxpayer presents a claim contesting the govermnenf s ability to pass a clear title because the government failed to follow statutorily-required procedural safeguards, the purchaser bears the burden of proving that his title is superior by demonstrating that such requirements were met.

Plaintiffs specifically raised four defects in the trial court concerning the govemment's perfection of its night to seize and sell their home. Plaintiffs argued below that the IRS failed to provide the required statutory notices of (1) tax deficiency, (2) intent to levy, (3) seizure, and (4) sale, each of which is required by federal law. See 26 USC 6212, 633 1, and 6335.IM We begin our analysis with a brief discussion of the relevant notice provisions.

Under 26 USC 633 1 (a) and (b) of the Internal Revenue Code, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to collect a delinquent tax by levy upon, and seizure of, all property and rights to property belonging to the taxpayer. Troy Industrial Catering Service v Michigan Dept of Treasury, 2 Bankr 521, 523 (ED Mich, 1980). Congress has also set forth procedures to which the IRS must adhere when proceeding with a tax sale. Upon determining that the taxpayer has failed to maintain his tax burden, the Secretary of the Treasuryw is authorized to send a letter notifying the taxpayer of the deficiency. 26 USC 6212. The IRS is then required to notify the taxpayer regarding the levy, seizure, and sale of the property. 26 USC 633 1; 26 USC 6335(a) and (b); see also Troy Industrial, supra at 523. Strict compliance with these provisions is required. Goodwin v United States, 935 F2d 1061, 1065 (CA 9, 199 1). We note that plaintiffs do not challenge the trial court's finding regarding the required notice of levy, and, therefore, the issue has been effectively abandoned. Froling v Carpenter, 203 Mich App 368, 373; 512 NW2d 6 (1994).

Notices of Seizure and Sale

Plaintiffs first argue that the IRS failed to provide them with notice of the seizure and sale of their property. Notice of seizure and sale of property based on taxpayer delinquency is governed by 26 USC 6335. The statute provides in relevant part:

(a) As soon as practicable after seizure of property, notice in writing shall be given by the secretary to the owner of the property ... or shall be left at his usual place of abode or business if he has such within the internal revenue district where the seizure is made. If' the owner cannot be readily located, or has no dwelling orplace of business within such district, the notice may be mailed to his last known address. Such notice shall specify the sum demanded and shall contain, in the case of personal property, an account of the property seized and, in the case of real property, a description with reasonable certainty of the property seized.

(b) The Secretary shall as soon as practicable after the seizure of the property give notice to the owner, in the manner prescribed in subsection (a), and shall cause a notification to be published in some newspaper published or generally circulated within the county wherein such seizure is made, or if there be no newspaper published or generally circulated in such county, shall post such notice at the post office nearest the place where the seizure is made, and in not less than two other public places. [26 USC 6335(a), (b) (Emphasis added).]

Plaintiffs' challenge to the notices of seizure and of sale in the instant case is based on the argument that the statute requires the government personally to serve them and that no personal service was effected in this case. We disagree. The language of the statute clearly provides that linotice in writing shall be given by the Secretary to the owner of the property ... or shall be left at his usualplace ofabode...... 26 USC 6335(a) (emphasis added). When a statute is unambiguous it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and 'udicial interpretation is therefore prohibited. Robinson v Shell Oil Co, _ US _; 117 S Ct 843; 136 L Ed 2d 808 (1997). Separate meanings should be given to clauses that are separated by the disjunctive term ivor'l unless the context of the statute dictates otherwise. Resolution Trust Corp v CedarMinn Building Limited Partnership, 956 F2d 1446, 1452 (CA 8, 1992).

In the present case, the uncontested evidence indicates that an IRS agent left the notice of seizure at plaintiffs'usual place of abode. This was an appropriate means of service under 26 USC 6335(a). Because the statute employs the term "or," Congress made clear that leaving notice at the taxpayer's abode is an acceptable alternative means of giving notice to the delinquent taxpayer.

While the notice of seizure was posted at plaintiffs' abode, the evidence establishes that the notice of sale was sent to plaintiffs by certified mail. This method is permitted under the language of 26 USC 6335(a): "If the owner cannot be readily located, or has no dwelling or place of business within such district, the notice may be mailed to his last known address." Because plaintiffs in this case could not be "readily located," mailing of the notice was sufficient. [5Compare Powelson v United States, 979 F 2d 141 (CA 9, 1992). In sum, therefore, we conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the IRS' service of the notices of seizure and sale was proper.

Notice of Deficiency

Plaintiffs also maintain that the IRS failed to deliver a notice of deficiency as required by 26 USC 6212. The statute provides:

(a) If the Secretary determines that there is a deficiency in respect of any tax imposed by subtitles A or B or chapter 41, 42, 43 or 44, be is authorized to send notice of such deficiency to the taxpayer by certified mail or re 'stered mail.

(b)(1) In the absence of notice to the Secretary under section 6903 of the existence of a fiduciary relationship, notice of a deficiency in respect of a tax imposed by subtitle A, chapter 12, chapter 4 1, chapter 42, chapter 43, or chapter 44, if mailed to the taxpayer at his last known address, shall be sufficient for purposes of subtitle A, chapter 12, chapter 4 1, chapter 42, chapter 43, chapter 44, and this chapter even if such taxpayer is deceased, or is under a legal disability, or, in the case of a corporation, has ten-ninated its existence.

The IRS must mail a notice of deficiency by certified or registered mail before it can make an assessment for delinquent taxes, which in turn is a prerequisite to the seizing and selling of the taxpayer's property. Wiley v United States, 20 F 3d 222, 224 (CA 6, 1994). However, all that is required is that the IRS mail the notice of deficiency either through certified or registered mail to the taxpayer's last known address; actual receipt is not necessary. Wiley, supra at 224.

Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint and argued at the motion for summary disposition that a notice of deficiency was never received. Plaintiffs also filed identical affidavits in the trial court averring: "Neither the Internal Revenue Service District Director nor his delegate have issued a Notice of Deficiency (90 day letter) to the affiant. " An IRS agent testified at the hearing as to the manner in which service was effected for all statutorily-required notices except the notice of deficiency. At the point that the agent was asked to explain how the notice of deficiency was served, if at all, an objection was interposed by an assistant United States attorney who appeared as the agent's "attorney" at the hearing. The trial court sustained the objection and no evidence was presented to establish whether the notice of deficiency was served on plaintiffs in any fashion.Ig Hence, an issue of material fact remained.

Accordingly, we conclude that, construing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs'favor, plaintiffs' affidavits, at a minimum, created a disputed issue of material fact regarding the govemment's compliance with the statutory notice requirements. This fact question and defendant's burden under federal law to establish the validity of his title by demonstrating statutory compliance precluded the trial court from granting defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10).

Defendant contends that, notwithstanding a failure of proofs on one of the statutory notice provisions, we may yet affirm the trial court's decision upon equitable grounds because: (1) plaintiffs' complaint to quite title invokes the equity jurisdiction of the court; and (2) plaintiffs' conduct was inequitable because they had actual notice of the events which led to the seizure and sale of their home, but failed to take any action to raise the procedural deficiencies they now allege until after defendant received title. See, e.g., Howard, supra at 508 (holding that even though the government had not strictly complied with the statutory requirements, the plaintiffs led to rel' were not entit lef because they failed to challenge that noncompliance in a prompt fashion). While defendant's appellate argument may have men't, M it was not considered by the trial court. Because defendant's argument depends upon a fact-sensitive predicate, we decline to address it for the first time on appeal. Zwolinski v Dept of Transportation, 205 Mich App 532, 539; 517 NW2d 852 (1994). Defendant is, of course, free to raise this issue before the trial court on remand.

Reversed and remanded. We do not retain j uri sdiction. /s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.

/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff

/s/ Michael J. Kelly

FOOTNOTES:

[11 There is no evidence in the record that plaintiffs attempted prior to the expiration of the redemption period or prior to commencing this action to quiet title to infonn the goverm-nent or defendant of the claimed procedural invalidity of the seizure or sale.

[21 Count I of plaintiffs'complaint alleged that defendant failed to exercise "due diligence" to assure that the IRS followed the statutorily-required notice procedures, and that this caused plaintiffs to suffer "emotional, physical, and monetary damages." Plaintiffs also make reference in their appellate brief to defendant's failure to use "due diligence." The trial court never addressed this aspect of plaintiffs'complaint. While this appears to be at first glance a claim sounding in negligence (and, in fact, defendant treated it as such below and on appeal), plaintiffs have since expressly denied that they were ever asserting such a claim. Therefore, we deem this claim abandoned.

PI It is important to note that, with respect to the notices of seizure and sale, plaintiffs claim deficiencies not based on plaintiffs failure to receive actual notice of each event, but because the government failed personally to serve plaintiffs with each notice as they contend the statutes require.

[41 When refem'ng to the Secretary of the Treasury, such designation includes, "any officer, employee, or agency of the Treasury Department duly authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury directly, or indirectly by one or more redelegations of authority, to perform the function mentioned or described in the context. " 26 USC 770 1 (a)(I 2)(A)(i).

[51 The IRS agent testified that he had attempted unsuccessfully personally to serve plaintiffs at their home ten times.

[61 In the trial court and on appeal defendant attempts to bridge this failure of proof by relying on the presumption of validity that attaches to a tax sale deed by virtue of 26 USC 6339. The presumption of validity was challenged by plaintiffs'affidavits in which they alleged the absence of service of the required notice of deficiency. Insofar as defendant, upon challenge to the presumption of validity of its deed, bore the burden of proof that the statutory notices were made, this failure of proof was fatal to defendant's motion for summary disposition under (C)(10).

[71 See n 1.

The Bankruptcy of The United States

United States Congressional Record March 17, 1993 Vol. #33, page H-1303 Speaker-Senator James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House: "Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise."

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent.

H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: "The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States?'

United States Congressional Record May 4, 1992, page H 2891, Senator and Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, Senator Henry Gonzalez (Texas) speaking on "NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL THIEVERY IN HIGH PLACES" "We are bankrupted. We are insolvent on every level of our national life, whether it is corporate, whether it is just plain you and I out there with the life of debt that we have all piled up, private debt, credit cards and what not or whether it is the government. We are insolvent. How long will it take before that nasty Mega-truth is conveyed?'

United States Congressional Record January 19, 1976, page 240 Marjorie S. Holt (Maryland): "Mr. Speaker, many of us recently received a letter from the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, inviting members of Congress to participate in a ceremonial signing of "A Declaration of INTERdependence" on January 30 in Congress Hall, adjacent to Independence Hall in Philadelphia.

A number of Members of Congress have been invited to sign this document, lending their prestige to its theme, but I want the record to show my strong opposition to this declaration. It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a "New World Order" that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this is an obscenity that defiles our Declaration of Independence, signed 200 years ago in Philadelphia. We fought a great Revolution for independence and individual liberty, but now it is proposed that we participate in a world socialist order. Are we a proud and free people, or are we a carcass to be picked by the jackals of the world, who want to destroy us? When one cuts through the high-flown rhetoric of this "Declaration of INTERdependence," one finds key phrases that tell the story. For example, it states that 'The economy of all nations is a seamless web, and that no one nation can any longer effectively maintain its processes of production and monetary systems without recognizing the necessity for collaborative regulation by international authorities.' How do you like the idea of "international authorities" controlling our production and our monetary system, Mr. Speaker? How could any American dedicated to our national independence and freedom tolerate such an idea? America should never subject her fate to decisions by such an assembly, unless we long for national suicide. Instead, let us have independence and freedom....If we surrender our independence to a "new world order"......,we will be betraying our historic ideals of freedom and self-government.

Freedom and self-government are not outdated. The fathers of our Republic fought a revolution for those ideals, which are as valid today as they ever were. Let us not betray freedom by embracing slave masters; let us not betray self-government with world government; let us celebrate Jefferson and Madison, not Marx and Lenin?

A dollar is a measure of weight defined by the Coinage Act of 1792 and 1900 which is still in force today. A "dollar" specifies a certain quantity, 24.8 grains of gold, or 371.25 grains of silver. In Black's Law Dictionary, sixth Edition, Dollar: "The money unit employed in the United States of the value of one hundred cents, or of any combination of coins totaling 100 cents?" Cent: "A coin of the United States, the least in value of those now minted. It is the hundredth part of a dollar?"

Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be "money" in America. Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or "currency." Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises, and are not "money." A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not "money?' The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money, -gold and silver coin.

It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any "money." Most Americans have not been paid any "money" for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now, do you understand why you are "bankrupt," along with the rest of the country?

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). When ever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs. Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) - a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.

There is a fundamental difference between "paying" and "discharging" a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. No contract in Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of "good & valuable consideration." Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice because they have so much wealth already.

Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.

The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a "Canon Law Trust" as their model, adding stock and naming it a "Joint Stock Trust." The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal "person" to duplicate a "Joint Stock Trust" in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. [1:9:3]

The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same. Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it.) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle.

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) "Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another.

This has been going on for over eighty years without the "informed knowledge" of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough. Now it's easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt. Why don't more people own their properties outright? Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less?

We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it.

America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country.

The Federal Reserve: An Astounding Exposure 1934

************************************************************************

All of the above was published in the Congressional Record March 17, 1993 Volume #33, Page H-1303 by Senator James Trafficant, Jr. It is hereby being republished in Secret to Reclaim Your Power on the Internet for your information and enlightenment. Since the total national debt is larger than the total supply of money substitutes and the personal income tax is used solely to pay only the interest on the national debt, paying off the principle and interest of the national debt is a legal impossibility. THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT IMPOSSIBILITIES. It is now possible to declare your personal independence by filing an affidavit with your state Secretary of State specially objecting to the forced use and benefit of receiving Federal Reserve Notes. This affidavit is a comprehensive removal of signature on all government applications that made you a statutory person and restores to you a pure common-law status where your worth is measured only in gold and silver coin and never in any negotiable instruments such as Federal Reserve Notes.

You can get this affidavit for $50.00. For more details click on FIGHT PACKAGES - Do 'the law does not permit impossibilities declaration affidavit' and your UCC-1 and become the holder in due course of your name in all capital letters

Secret to Reclaim Your Power

WHY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A BANKRUPT CORPORATION AND IN FACT AND LAW IS TECHNICALLY A CIVILLY DEAD ENTITY WITHOUT STANDING IN LAW TO SUE OR MAKE COMPLAINT AGAINST ANYONE!

A STONE FACT!! NOW YOU CHECK IT OUT !!!

MAKE REAL SURE NOW!!