S t a t e o f K a n s a s ) j p y ) s s D a t e : 1 2 d a y o f F e b r u a r y County of Leavenworth )

Transcription

1 S t a t e o f K a n s a s ) j p y ) s s D a t e : 1 2 d a y o f F e b r u a r y County of Leavenworth ) Randall David Due, SPC Authorized Representative for RANDALL DAVID DUE ORGANIZATION 179 Green St. E. Pelham,GA31779 > UCC-1 Secured Party Creditor FILED IN OFFICE OF MITCHELL COUNTY GEORGIA, 2014 OCT 23 PM 2:26, ADAYNA B. BROOME, CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT TO: U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Eric H. Holder Jr., et al UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D.C FALSE IMPRISONMENT RE: CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE REQUEST FOR 'PROOF OF CLAIM' RE:CASEN0.8:CR344 CERTIFICATION I, Affiant, Randall David Due, SPC, Public Minister, certify under my own commercial liability, that the following is true, correct, materially complete, and not misleading to the best of my knowledge and belief. AFFIDAVIT OF MATERIAL FACTS Parties: The U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA AND ITS JUDICIAL OFFICERS, et al/ the U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE/the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al/ and each involved PRISON FACILITIES Board of Directors, officers and employees including 100 HWY TERRACE, LEAVENWORTH, KS. Event: FALSE IMPRISONMENT When: Begining on the 7th day of March, 2013 through the present. Where: Currently in 100 Hwy Terrace, Leavenworth, KS. Surety: The Fidelity/Surety Bonds or equivalent of the aforesaid parties -andeach individual parties personal assests -andthe assets of their CORPORATE Employer(s). As is my right of Due Process of Law, I, Randall David Due, demand that the aforesaid parties "Show Just Cause," to support lawful incarceration of the undersigned SPC by bringing forth the requested 'PROOF(S)) OF CLAIM' in order ro provide 'FULL DISCLOSURE* to establish and prove that the aforesaid parties are not engaged in Fraud of Process in and on the court. Pg 1 of 7

2 Dear U.S. Attorney General, et al and/or Authorized Representative(s) > In regards to the above 'Citation/Case,' I want to resolve this matter to the best of my ability as soon as possible, I find it prudently necessary to exhaust by due diligence my administrative remedy as it relates to THE COURT'S, et al its JUDICIAL OFFICER'S/ THE U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE, et al/ THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al/ THE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al, and the PRISON FACILITIES, et al its staff and Board of Directors including 100 HWY TERRACE, LEAVENWORTH, KS to force the undersigned. Randall David Due, Secured Party Creditor, Authorized Representative of RAND ALL DAVID DUEOORIGANIZATION, into an unconsionable contract to act as "SURETY" without my expressly written consent, which has left me somewhat confused. > I realize that my past experience is urging me to argue every point, but now realize that I want to conditionally accept for value the unconsionable contract offer predicated upon 'proof of claim,' that it is "NOT" an unconscionable contract. > I can only do so conditioned upon such verifiable 'proof of claim,' given under penalty of perjury, and as such, the necessary Proof(s) of Claim are exculpatory and sought on behalf of the de facto CORPORATE PLAINTIFF'S ex rel agents and enumerated below so that the alleged debtor may justly ascertain liability in the interest of the de facto plaintiff, the court, and the public interests, to perform accordingly touching upon the performance of the law relative to the process of law to which the debtor is presumed entitled, regarding a fair and impartial hearing/trial by jury of qualified and fuly informed jurors within the due course of law as it appertains to this proceeding or any other related matter, hereto, according to the following to wit: DEMAND TO BRING FORTH PROOF OF CLAIM 1) PROOF OF CLAIM that there are clauses in the state/state or Federal Constitution(s) that subject a citizen to statutory jurisdiction. 2) PROOF OF CLAIM that the word "person" when used in legal terminology is not perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. 3) PROOF OF CLAIM of'any' contract (implied or otherwise) that binds the undersigned to the jurisdiction of the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" wherein the undersigned is a signatory. 4) PROOF OF CLAIM that 'FULL DISCLOSURE' of all material facts relevant to the entire contract (Federal Constitution) as to nexus and application upon the undersigned along with disclosure of the contract defining the construction, purpose, etc., as well as documentation where agent(s) are defined and empowered to act within the Constitution/contract upon the undersigned. 5) PROOF OF CLAIM that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Constitution/Contract/Charter (by and through your Office or any prosecutor) authorized the representing or prosecuting of any claims against the undersigned. 6) PROOF OF CLAIM of the contrary that "All that government does and provides legitimately is in the pursuit of its duty to provide protection for private rights, which duty is a debt owed to its creator, WE THE PEOPLE, (Wynhammer v. People, NY 378)... and the private disenfranchised individual; which debt and duty is never extinguished nor discharged, and is perpetual. No matter what the government/state provides for us in manner of convenience and safety, the disenfranchised Pg2of7

3 individual owes nothing to the government." See: Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S. 43) 7) PROOF OF CLAIM that under the Negotiable Instrument Law, 'Commercial Paper,' but not limited to Bills of Exchange are not 'money' (currency) in respect to the National Emergency and the uniform Commercial Code and are not to be accepted to discharge debt. 8) PROOF OF CLAIM that any fine, fee, tax, debt, judgment or claim coming from outside or inside 'the' state/state, public or private, cannot be discharged in the same manner, via commercial paper, i.e., Bill of Exchange. 9) PROOF OF CLAIM that the undersigned cannot accept for value any public or private presentment/invoice for fine, fee, tax, debt or judgment and discharge the same with a Bill of Exchange or other commercial paper as necessary to carry on commerce. 10) PROOF OF CLAIM that there exists within the State/STATE and/or the united States/UNITED STATES an Executive Agency that regulates the general Public. 11) PROOF OF CLAIM that the State/STATE and/or the united States/UNITED STATES has the 'Constitutional Legislative Authority to legislate over and upon the private rights of the sovereign people of the States, (for reference see: Hale v. Hinkle, 201 u.s. pg. 74 (1905). 12) PROOF OF CLAIM that the undersigned is a 'refugee' under international law and is captured property of the State. 13) PROOF OF CLAIM that the undersigned is 'liable' quasi-ex contractu for any benefits forced and compelled upon him/orher. 14) PROOF OF CLAIM specificaly defining all elements that would cause a commercial lien to be false. 15) PROOF OF CLAIM specifically defining all elements of how the commercial liens, as the subject matter in Case No. 8:12 CR 344, are false. 16) PROOF OF CLAIM specifically defining how a "NOTICE" of lien, that provides a 90-day grace period to controvert/contest, is in fact a commercial lien prior to Default Judgment (Nihil Dicit) of the 90-day grace period to controvert/contest. 17) PROOF OF CLAIM specifically defining how the lien debtor(s) refusal and/or failure to controvert/contest the charges within the very gracious grace period of 90-days does not result in a Default Judgment (Nihil Dicit), which then transforms the "NOTICE" of lien into an actual negotiable instrument/commercial lien, now governed by Title 15 Securities Laws. 18) PROOF OF CLAIM that on the 10th day of April 2013 that Thomas D. Thalken, et al and Joseph F. Bataillon, et al did not conspire to violate my First Amendment Right to petition the government for redress of greivances in their creating of a conditional release that made it a crime for me to merely exercise my right to petition the government for redress of greivances to file petititions into public records and/or court records. 19) PROOF OF CLAIM that Thomas D. Thalken, et al and Joseph F. Bataillon, et al did not conspire to violate my First Amendment Right of Freedom of Association, in their creating of a Pg3of7

4 States of America. -Oath of office -Article VI clause 3- > The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. 29) PROOF OF CLAIM that an Oath is not an agreement, therefore a Contract. Black's Law Dictionary 9th Ed. definition: > contract: An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law. > A contract is a promise, or a set of promises, for breach of which the law gives remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty. 30) PROOF OF CLAIM that a Public Servants violation of any private individual person's Natural Rights and/or Civil Rights is not a Breach of their Oath/Contract to support the Constitution for the united States of America pursuant to 18 USC 241, 242 and 1621-Perjury-. 31) PROOF OF CLAIM that upon violation of any private individual's rights and subsequent Breach of their Oath/Contract, that this does not give the injured party probable just cause to use Non-judicial Commercial Law/Contract Law to file a Constitutional Criminal Complaint with ledgered damages and follow up "NOTICE" of Commercial Lien against the Public Servant prosecutable and given Fair Market Street Value pursuant to 18 USC 241 ($10,000 per count) -and- 242($ 1,000 per count) for damages to be assesed as well as damages for false imprisonment pursuant to Trezevant v. City of Tampa; Cite as 741 F. 2D 336 (1984). 32) PROOF OF CLAIM that an injured private individual does not have lawful authority to obtain Remedy/Relief without resort to tribunal, meaning that a private individual may utilize Non judicial Commercial Law/Contract Law to obtain Remedy/Relief in the nature of commercial liens. 33) PROOF OF CLAIM how the aforesaid and following actions of the Judicial officers, et al has not engaged the court in and on Fraud. 34) PROOF OF CLAIM how that the Plaintiff, et al, the court, et al, all of it's Judicial officers,et al involved in any way with prosecution of Case No. 8:12 CR 344, the U.S. Attorney General, et al the U.S. Marshal Service, et al each Jail and/or Prison facility, Board of Directiors, Warden and staff et al, which has aided and abetted in the aggravation of False Imprisonment based upon the aforesaid Fraud in and on the court are not Commercially Liable. 35) PROOF OF CLAIM that the refusal and/or failure to answer/controvert/contest these requests for Proof of Claim on your part and/or the part of your Authorized Representative to provide the requested Full Disclosure is not Fraud, predicated upon violation of Due Process of Law. 36) PROOF OF CLAIM that the aforesaid Fraud does not provide the undersigned with probable just cause pursuant to 18 USC 241 and 242, to then exercise my right to obtain Remedy/Relief using Non-judicial Commercial Law/Contract Law to file Constitutional Criminal Complaints with follow up Oath Consensual Public Commercial Liens. 37) PROOF OF CLAIM that the government's use of 18 USC 1521 in Case No. 8:12 CR 344 to imprison me without having produced "ANY" proof from the Plaintiff and/or the government Pg5of7

5 witnesses that the commercial liens in question were false has not engaged the court and its judicial officers in and on "FRAUD" perpetrated by the government's prosecuting attorneys. 38) PROOF OF CLAIM that the name appearing on the charging instrument, in capital letters; RANDALL DAVID DUE, is not a corporate fiction, but is the name of the Private Man in his private capacity. 39) PROOF OF CLAIM that the guilty verdict in Case No. 8:12 CR 344 should not be Quashed, the case dismissed "with prejudice" for the aforesaid "FRAUD" in and on the court and that the undersigned be immediately released into the custody of the Sheridan County, Nebraska Common Law Grand Jury. 40) PROOF OF CLAIM that all Public officials are not required to be bonded or equivalent to guarantee faithful performance of duties/obligations to indemnify any private individual upon Breach of the Public official/s Oath/Contract to support the Constitution for the united States of America via violation of the private individual's Natural Rights/Civil Rights. CONCLUSION/REMEDY/RELIEF A) Please understand that while I want to resolve this matter as soon as possible, I can only do so upon your 'official' response by providing Proof of Claim in the nature of 'Full Disclosure' of what constitutes lawful support for the court and your subsequent actions to lawfully incarcerate the undersigned, given the aforesaid "FRAUD,"which the court has become engaged in and on. B) I realize my need to exhaust my admistrative remedy/process, where-upon I now request the above 'proofs of claim' that you are relying upon to support the court's and your 'Claim of Action' as implied by your contract order with the U.S. Marshall Service to incarcerate the undersigned.. C) Per your failure of due diligence or acceptance to bring forth 'proof of claim,' you will be found in formal acceptance and will have admitted a damage and injury to this private man and will have stipulated to the facts that the private man herein is not subject to the court's judgment pursuant to the charges/claims of Title 18 USC 1521, which the Plaintiff has based it's claims upon, that the undersigned can discharge the judgment and the monetary accounting penalty in behalf of the alledged person/debtor named in the charging instrument. D) Therefore, not being noticed of an agreement between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA/T/ THE U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE/ THE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL and the undersigned Secured Party as to what constitutes a Lawful Contract to use me as 'SURETY' for the alledged defendant RANDALL DAVID DUE, ORGANIZATION, I, Randall David Due must conclude that I have been injured and am entitled to Fair Compensation for violation of my Natural Rights and Civil Rights. E) You are requested to send 'Proofs of Claim' to the undersigned as addressed below by process service to verify that you have responded. F) The undersigned herein respectively requires the U.S. Attorney General, et al and/or his/her Authorized Representative to reply within thirty days (3 0-days) after receipt of this Affidavit and provide the requested PROOF OF CLAIM(S). Failure or refusal to do so shall be construed as Deliberately Evasionary of Due Process of Law and Default Judgment (Nihil Dicit). Pg6of7

6 conditional release making it a crime to communicate with my co-defendant, Donna Kozak. 20) PROOF OF CLAIM that Thomas D. Thalken, et al and Joseph F. Bataillon, et al did not conspire to violate my and Donna Kozak's right of "Obligation of Contracts" as guaranteed in Article 1, 10, clause 1 of the Constitution for the united States of America, in their creating of a conditional release depriving me of communication with my co-defendant, Donna Kozak, whom had granted me "Absolute" Power of Attorney to assist her in protection of her Civil Rights. 21) PROOF OF CLAIM that in their creating of a conditional release Thomas D. Thalken, et al and Joseph F. Bataillon, et al did not commit perjury for turning our exercise of our First Amendment Rights into a crime. 22) PROOF OF CLAIM how that on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of Sept 2014 Robert T. Dawson's financial Conflict of Interest pursuant to the Constitutional Criminal Complaint and follow up "NOTICE" of Public Consensual Commercial Lien filed against him prior to trial does not disqualify him to sit as acting judge over the trial by jury, in Case No. 8:12 CR 344 and how his refusal to recuse himself for the case is not a direct violation of my Rights of Due Process of Law. 23) PROOF OF CLAIM that the trial judge's bias, prejudice, conflict of interest and subsequent refusal to recuse himself has not deprived the undersigned of his rights of Due Process of Law and does not manifest necessity for Quashing the unconstitional guilty verdit and disnissing the case with prejudice USC 455, 18 USC 208 and 216, and the judicial code of conduct. 24) PROOF OF CLAIM how that the Criminal Indictment for Rackeeteering by the Common Law Grand Jury of Sheridan County, Nebraska, Case No. 06/17/2014/CLGJ/RDD/SCNE, against Robert T. Dawson, et al does not demand a declaration of mistrial in Case no. 8:12 CR 344. Indictment of trial judge who was presiding over criminal trial constituted manifest necessity for declaration of mistrial. United States v Jaramillo (1984, CA9 Nev) 745 F.2d 1245, cert den (1985) 471 US 1066, 85 L Ed 2d 499, 105 S Ct ) PROOF OF CLAIM that the aforesaid Judicial officers, et al's actions of Breach of their Oath/Contract to support the Constitution for the United States of America is not fraud. 26) PROOF OF CLAIM that the aforesaid Judicial officers, et al's actions is not perjury based upon Breach of their Oath/Contract to support the Constitution for the United States of America. 27) PROOF OF CLAIM that Judicial officers required Oath to support the Constitution for the united States of America is not an agreement and/or not a contract. -5 USCS > Oath of office-- An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: "I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." This section does not affect other oaths required by law. 28) PROOF OF CLAIM that all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and several States, are not bound by Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution for the united Pg4of7

7 G) General acquiesence as a non-response shall be taken as an acceptance to provide 'proof of claim,' and forthwith shall constitute agreement by the U.S. Attorney General and/or Authorized Representative that the undersigned/secured Party can exercise the remedy provided by Congress via HJR-192, to discharge debt(s) 'dollar for dollar' with a draft, time draft, Bill of Exchange, or Accepted for Value and Returned for Discharge as necessary and that the undersigned/s exclusive remedy, if necessary, is Tort, to be governed by the terms of the Notice of Claim presented by Claimaint appertaining to the matters relative hereto, or otherwise. NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT; NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL Affiant(s) exercise the right to amend this and/or any other document if necessary, in order that the truth to be more fully and certainly ascertained and justly determined. Affiant, Randall David Due, SPC, in the flesh and blood, does not consent to be an accessory party to Fraud (18 USC 2, 3, and 4) and/or violation of my certain un-a-iien-able Rights endowed by my Creator and secured by the Constitution for the united States of America, the Bill of Rights, and by our solidiers who swear an Oath to defend this Nation and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Further more, I reserve All of my Rights in relationship to any further action concerning this case. Notice is hereby given. Fraud vitiates all Contracts and is grounds for reversal of all Legal Faults. Respectfully Without Prejudice ALL RIGHTS RESERVED AFFIRMED BY: Randall David Due, Secured Party Creditor, Authorized Representative Attorney-in-Fact in behalf of RANDALL DAVID DUE, ORGANIZATION, Ens legis Randall David Due, SPC Authorized Representative for RANDALL DAVID DUE ORGANIZATION 179 Green St. E., Pelham, GA Right Thumb Print CC: U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE Attn: SUPERVISORY MARSHAL 11 South 18lh Plaza, Suite B06, Omaha, Nebraska Attn: Isaac Johnston, et al, d/b/a Warden CCA 100 hwy Terrace, Leavenworth, Kansas Sheridan County, Nebraska Common Law Grand Jury rd Trail, Alliance, Nebraska Pg7of7

8