bill brockbader - opposition & response

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 OPPOSITION: RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE & MOTION TO STRIKE

william newel brockbrader II, in propria persona, NOT pro se in care of GARY RANEY SHERIFF ADA COUNTY JAIL 7200 BARRISTER DR BOISE ID 83704

In the district court of the United States for Idaho WILLIAM BROCKBRADER, Defendant, william newel brockbrader II, Counter plaintiff, real party in interest, tertius interveniens. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Counter defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Penal Case No. 1:12-cr-00156-BLW

OPPOSITION:

RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S

RESPONSE & MOTION TO STRIKE

THE MOTION TO STRIKE

COMES NOW, I, william newel brockbrader II, living soul, in propria persona, NOT pro se,

Counter plaintiff, Grantor/Beneficiary, Principal, Secured Party, third-party Plaintiff, with clean

hands before this Honorable Court, and enters OPPOSITION: RESPONSE TO

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE & MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO STRIKE, hereinafter

“OPPOSITION.” This courtwork is not presented to harass, cause unnecessary delay, needlessly

increase the cost of litigation or for any other improper purpose, or to extend, modify or reverse

existing law or to establish new law. See F.R.C.P. Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Until now, I have refrained from “motioning” or “moving” this Honorable Court; and, at this

time, it is my wish that this Honorable Court will be moved by its own Conscience, sua sponte

and rectum rogare to recognize my claims and grant the relief I have demanded, as a “belligerent

claimant; the settlement and closure of this “case” and to be released from my unlawful

incarceration/imprisonment. Indeed this courtwork bears a redundant title; and, although it is

right and proper, its denomination clearly illustrates the absurd level to which federal litigation

may arise.

Substance of Opposition

Proceeding to the substance of this OPPOSITION, I must address the alleged

GOVERNMENT’S so-called “RESPONSE AND MOTION TO STRIKE,” hereinafter,

“RESPONSE” to my previous courtwork. Frankly, it is an insult to my intelligence and to the

intelligence of this Honorable Court. Is this the best the alleged United States Attorney,

hereinafter “USA” can do? Is he the best and brightest that the Department of Justice, hereinafter

“DOJ” can muster? If so, it is sad indeed. Let us examine this line of thinking further:

Question: Pursuant to what court rule did the USA, file his motion? It was not cited in his paper.

In fact, no such rule providing for the filing of a “MOTION TO STRIKE” can be found

anywhere in the “FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,” aka Fed.R.Cr.Proc.

Here is what appeared when I searched for such a rule:

“Your search yielded no results”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/search/frcrmp/%22motion%20to%20strike%22?nocache=1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


However, there is such a rule in the “FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,” aka

F.R.C.P. – Rule 12 (f) – although the USA does not cite it. Perhaps that is because it would

reveal the fallacy and fraud, as well as the fraud upon the Court, of his RESPONSE, as

hereinafter more fully appears.

The fact remains that without a rule providing for it, his MOTION TO STRIKE is not allowed.

Nonetheless, he tries to cajole me into consulting with an attorney, to whose representation I

reject, who would merely participate and perpetrate the fraud. He then admonishes, warns and, in

fact, threatens me with a “request for sanctions” for using civil rules in an alleged criminal

“action,” when all the evidence points to the obvious fact that no true criminal action has ever

been commenced before this Court; however, the USA does refer to said sanctions that are

provided for by the F.R.C.P., thus doing exactly the same thing, citing a civil rule, about which

he has warned me!

If this Court would do that which is “equitable in the premises,” it would either consider the

F.R.C.P. in this penal case, since federal “criminal” penal cases are rife with F.R.C.P. citations;

or, in the alternative, under the doctrine of equal protection and equal liability under the law, the

Court should admonish and impose sanctions on the USA for attempting to invoke F.R.C.P.s in a

so-called criminal case, and unlike the USA, I do request it. However, it is undisputed that if

Federal courts were to adhere only to the Fed.R.Cr.Proc. in its so-called “criminal cases,” there is

much of “the business of the court” that could never get done.

The USA then disparages me by claiming that I have used “pseudo legal references” when they

come right from law books, law dictionaries and case law; and, he attempts to discredit, condemn

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


and “criminalize” me before this Court as an adherent to the “constitutional/patriot/common law

movements.” That is the hybrid/pseudo legal term that has been applied by the tyrannical and

“usurpatious” GOVERNMENT to label anyone who wishes to bring the Truth, the Law, and

Justice into the courtroom. This triad consists of the very things that attorneys, particularly

GOVERNMENT attorneys, do NOT want in their Courts; and, they do there best to exclude

them, when they are the very things that litigants seek, desire and expect when they come into

Court.

Did not the USA, the judge himself, and the other “officers of the Court” subscribe an Oath to

“support and defend” and “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution, as did I, upon

entering military service for my country? Should we not then be “adherents” to it upon our

Sacred Honor? Does that not make us all “Constitutionalists?” Actually, the correct term is

“constitutionist,” so perhaps the USA could get his legal terms straight.

“CONSTITUTIONIST. n. One who adheres to the constitution of the country.”

--American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828. Shall we adhere to it or not? Shall we be adherents to it without being vilified or even criticized

for it? And since when has “patriot” been a “bad word?” Is the USA saying that patriots are

actually criminals and treasonous traitors? That question is, of course, rhetorical. When I fought

for my country, was I not a patriot? Weren’t the original “American patriots” those who pledged

their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor for the cause of Freedom, Liberty and

Independence? Haven’t they been admired, celebrated, exalted and thanked in American History

books and by all proud Americans since then? Is the word “patriot” now reserved only for

missiles and for unconstitutional Acts of Congress, disgracefully enacted by its members, out of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


an unfounded fear, based on lies, without the Act having been read by them as is required by the

law of our land as embodied in the Jefferson Manual; or used as a label in vain attempts to

discredit and condemn anyone who opposes or even disagrees with the policies of their

Government?

Perhaps before the USA starts spewing forth terms of art such as “common law,” berating its

“adherents” and denouncing the “common law movement,” he should take a look at the website

of the United States Department of Justice, the banner of which reads,

“The common law is the will of Mankind issuing from the Life of the People.”

--http://www.justice.gov/

Do those words have any meaning or are they just lip service to the common law, and therefore,

to the imprescriptible concepts and principles of Law and Justice? Considering this declaration,

are not the USA and the rest of his colleagues guilty of the same thing as he claims I am: being a

member of the common law movement? Welcome to the club.

I am surprised that the USA neglected to also accuse me of being a “sovereign citizen” or of

being a part of the “sovereign citizen movement.” How did he miss that one? The fact is that I

am NOT a “sovereign citizen,” nor would I ever claim to be one. I know that a so-called

“sovereign citizen” is a paradox that would be subject to scrutiny. It is undisputed that a “citizen”

is a “subject or slave,” and there can be no such thing as a “sovereign subject” or a “sovereign

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


slave;” however, I am a “sovereign,” with “individual” and “popular” sovereignty; in capita

sovereign body authority, as is my birthright.

In capita. To the heads; by heads or polls. Persons succeed to an inheritance in capita

when they individually take equal shares. –Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd ed.

POLL. A head. Hence poll tax is the name of a tax imposed upon the people at so much a

head. 2. To poll a jury is to require that each juror shall himself declare what is his

verdict. This may be done at the instance of either party, at any time before the verdict is

recorded. 3 Cowen, R. 23. See 18 John. R. 188. See Deed Poll.

--From A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States.

By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

And, are not all Americans “sovereigns without subjects?” John Jay, Chief Justice of the United

States Supreme Court seems to think so.

The USA asks for some case cites. Here’s one:

“[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the

sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African

slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens

of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”

--John Jay, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419.

I hereby assert, with pride, and yes, with patriotism, the claim to my in capita sovereign body

authority. Is this not our birthright earned by the blood of patriots who subsequently “ordained

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


and established” the Organic “Constitution for the United States of America,” to which me and

the so-called “officers of the court” have taken a solemn, corporal oath to support and defend?

Why should I be chastised for that?

Rejection of Submission to Legal Fictions

Moreover, all that has been submitted and admitted into this Court are the agreed-upon

prevarications, many, outright lies, and some that have been “deemed” or “considered” by this

Court, are referred to in legal parlance as “legal fictions.”

Ironically, legal fictions are “real,” and they are abominations to the Law, the Truth and to

Justice. To wit,

“Legal fiction. a rule assuming as true something that is clearly false. A fiction is often

used to get around the provisions of constitutions and legal codes that legislators are

hesitant to change or to encumber with specific limitations.” --Encyclopedia Britannica

“[A]n assertion that is accepted as true for legal purposes, even though it may be untrue

or unproven.” –Oxford Dictionaries. “The world’s most trusted dictionaries.”

--http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/legal%2Bfiction?q=legal+fiction

“[S]omething assumed in law to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that

assumption.” Fields v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 818 P.2d 658 (1991).

--West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.

“A falsehood that a court requires be assumed true, for the court's convenience.”

--http://www.plexoft.com/SBF/L01.html#legal-fiction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


In light of all this, absent the “real” Law and the “real” Truth, there can be no path to Justice.

Rejection and Refusal to Submit to Private Law

Indeed, the only “Law” that has been applied in this Court is the private, corporate law of the

“UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,” a private company, a corporation, to which I have been

subjected, collusively, and by threat, duress and coercion, vi et armis.

And, the real Truth is that the USA, and even the judge of this Court (as his Oath of Office and

APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS provide) are mere “employees of the Government of the United

States.”

The ramifications of this are considerable and dispositive since the entity known as the

“Government of the United States” is a private company, a corporation, as is the “UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA.”

Perhaps the USA will also find all of this “bewildering.” I certainly do. And so should the

“public” whose “Trust” is at stake here. After a close examination of the “Corporate Family

Tree” and an identification of the “Global Ultimate Parent” company, do we not discover that the

“Government” spoken of herein is both the Plaintiff in the “case at bar” against me, as well as

the employer of the USA, the DOJ, and the presiding judge? Another long but rhetorical

question: of course it is.

This is more than the “appearance of impropriety,” which would certainly raise some doubts as

well as some eyebrows, it is a fatal defect; an inherent conflict of interest that precludes a “fair

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


hearing” as required by “the due process of the law,” and that invalidates all of the prior

proceedings against me; they are, in fact and in law, void ab intitio. What does that mean? It

means that all the rulings, judgments and orders of this Court are VOID and relief from them is

MANDATORY. To wit,

“Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the

subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.”

--Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4); Article the fifth of the Bill of Rights. See Klugh v.

U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892.

“When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not

discretionary matter, but is mandatory.” --Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307.

“The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal.”

--Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116.

The USA asks for some case cites. Here’s another, as an offer of proof:

“The United States of America will be admitted to be a corporation. The instances given

to illustrate the position taken by the plaintiffs in error, are those of a corporation which

has acted, not by its corporate name, or of a corporation that has expired, neither of which

is supposed to be the fact in this case. A bond given to the people of the United States

would, undoubtedly, be void at common law, and perhaps a bank whose charter had

expired might no longer be capable of sustaining an action; but “The United States of

America” is the true name of that grand corporation which the American people have

formed, and the charter will, I trust, long remain in full force and vigour.”

--John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States, in William Dixon et al. v. The United

States. May Term 1811.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


The above facts are indisputable, irrefutable, and incontrovertible; and there’s that pesky

common law again. Furthermore, Chief Justice Marshall also specifically refers to the distinction

between a “corporate name” and a “true name.” This distinction relates directly to the facts of

this case and supports my claim of “collusive joinder” as hereinafter more fully appears.

Proof of Corporate Descension and Lack of Jurisdiction

I would like to thank the USA for citing the DUNS numbers from my courtwork in his

RESPONSE, and for not denying their authenticity, thereby confirming their validity as well.

Their significance cannot be denied. Here is another one issued to his employer, and to the

judge’s employer, the “company” known as the “Government of the United States” also known

by the “alias,” the “U S Government,” as mentioned above. The information below is excerpted

from the Dun and Bradstreet “company profile:”

Company Name: Government of the United States

Also known as: U S Government

D-U-N-S® Number: 16-190-6193

Line of Business: United States Federal Government

© Dun & Bradstreet. All rights reserved.

A “Company?” “Line of Business?” These are clearly commercial terms applied to companies

and corporations NOT to governmental entities. The company profile report also bears the

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code and the North American Industry Classification

System (NAICS) Code of the above-named “company.” The Government is an “Industry.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


With regard to the above undisputed facts, the Clearfield Doctrine is stare decisis, and here is

some more case law for the USA to chew on:

“ . . . the government descended to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on

the character of a mere private citizen . . . For the purposes of suit, such corporations and

individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate from government.”

--Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S. 318 U.S. 363 (1943); Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank, 9

Wheat. 22 U.S. 904, U.S. v. Erie RR Co., 106 U.S. 327.

“When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens

as any private firm or corporation.” --U.S. v. Burr. 309 U.S. 22; See 22 U.S.C.A. 286e.

Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank of Georgia. 6 L. Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et.

Seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103.

“Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the

characteristics of a mere private citizen. This entity cannot compel performance upon its

corporate statute or rules unless it, like any other corporation or person is the holder-in-

due course of some contract or commercial agreement between it and the party upon

whom the payment and performance are made and thereby, willing to produce said

documents and place the same evidence before trying to enforce its demands called

statutes. For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities

entirely separate from government . . . The government, by becoming a corporator, lays

down its sovereignty… exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the

charter.” --Bank of US v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904, 6 L. Ed. 24.

The recognition and application of the Clearfield Doctrine, the supreme law of the land, is

mandatory and the presumption that the entities involved in the prosecution against me are in any

way “governmental entities” has been completely and permanently rebutted, renounced and

purged. Said entities are mere private corporations operating for profit, lacking any authority to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


operate in a governmental capacity; and, they have no immunity, but they are subject to suit as

any other private person would be; furthermore, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the

other entities involved are not registered with the Idaho Secretary of State to transact business in

the state of Idaho; yet they lease and maintain offices therein and they do in fact transact

business in the state of Idaho on a daily basis.

Writ of Praecipe Defined

The legal term and the courtwork entitled “Praecipe,” as it has been utilized by me, is not what

the USA has falsely interpreted it as, but merely,

“a written request for an action . . . from a party to a clerk of a court or sometimes to a

judge.”

“When addressed to a clerk, a praecipe is usually a request for some action that does not

require immediate judicial review.”

http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/praecipe.html

Perhaps the USA should be required to take some remedial legal research classes. My Praecipe

was addressed to the Clerk; and indeed, the Clerk did, in fact, respond correctly to the Praecipe

and file the forms I submitted, thereby completing the Deposit of the Patron. Now the lawful

process they represent must be honored by the Court and the case/account/trust/contract must be

settled and closed, the lien on the SURETY must be released, the proceedings must be

terminated and reversed, and I must be released from incarceration without further delay.

While I am on the subject, the USA refers to my language as “cryptic and bewildering.” This is a

typical ploy of USA’s and of attorneys in general and is used to criticize pleadings that strike to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


close to the Truth and to rebuke their authors without having to do too much work to formulate a

reasonable response. If the USA finds my language to be cryptic and bewildering perhaps, as

many falsely labeled pro se litigants are instructed, perhaps he should hire an attorney to explain

it to him. He is deemed to know the law at a higher standard than I am, but apparently, from the

inapt content of his RESPONSE, he is deficient in this regard, no offense intended, as I would

not wish for this substantial OPPOSITION to descend to an ad hominem.

Nevertheless, the USA persists in the false and repeatedly rebutted presumption that I am the

“Defendant” WILLIAM BROCKBRADER. I am not. He then goes on to say that the

“defendant,” attempting to collusively join me, the living soul, with the fiction WILLIAM

BROCKBRADER, the named “Defendant,” was convicted following a “jury trial,” admitting

that was not convicted in a “trial by jury” as required by Article the sixth of the Bill of Rights.

These are not the same thing. He also says that I was “represented” further admitting that the so-

called trial was a military tribunal, since the term “represented” does not appear anywhere in

Article the sixth of the Bill of Rights, but it does appear in 10 USC § 838 - Art. 38(b)(1), which

provides,

“The accused has the right to be represented in his defense before a general or special

court-martial or at an investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32) as provided

in this subsection.”

Source: Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 50

These references to “representation” are contained in 10 USC Chapter 47 - UNIFORM CODE

OF MILITARY JUSTICE. Last time I checked I have been “discharged” from military service

and I do not, and did not ever consent to being subjected to proceedings in a military tribunal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


This is further proof that the proceedings against me were, in fact and in law, “sham

proceedings” and that they are null and void ab initio.

Defense of Mandatory Judicial Notice and Miller Act Bonds

If the USA, in section C(3) of his RESPONSE declares that my Mandatory Judicial Notice (ECF

166) and the accompanying forms are out of place within the context of the so-called criminal

case, perhaps he can explain the use of the phrase “PENAL SUM OF BOND” that appears on the

GSA Forms I filed. Here is the legal definition of “penal:”

“Of or pertaining to punishment, to penalties, or to crimes and offenses; pertaining to

criminal jurisprudence: as: (a) Enacting or threatening punishment; as, a penal statue;

the penal code. (b) Incurring punishment; subject to a penalty; as, a penal act of offense.

(c) Inflicted as punishment; used as a means of punishment; as, a penal colony or

settlement. Adamantine chains and penal fire." Milton. Penal code (Law), a code of laws

concerning crimes and offenses and their punishment. --Webster's Revised Unabridged

Dictionary (1913 + 1828) [emphasis added].

I hope this clarifies the situation for the ill-informed USA. The “PENAL SUM” sections on the

GSA forms were intentionally left blank until the amounts can be determined by the full forensic

accounting I have requested in my counterclaim; or, in the alternative, perhaps the now-

enlightened USA would be willing to assist me and the Court in this matter and fill in the

amounts of the bonds that were issued prior to the judgment in the “case/account/trust/contract”

that was created by the USA before the Court. I am also interested in discovering the “CUSIP”

number(s) associated with the case/account/trust/contract. Perhaps the USA can provide that to

me and to the Court as well.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


The U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION defines “CUSIP Number:”

“CUSIP stands for Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures.” --http://www.sec.gov/answers/cusip.htm

Such “cases” have been found in the database of “Fidelity Investments” and have been shown,

by the actual case numbers, to be associated with said “CUSIP” numbers, to be “bundled” into

mutual funds, annuities and/or other securities and sold on the open market.

All crimes are commercial and have a commercial value to them and all criminal prosecution is

for the purpose for raising revenue for the United States.

RESEARCH RESULTS OF FEDERAL CASE BUNDLED

INTO SECURITIES ON FIDELITY INVESTMENTS

1. ENTER CASE NUMBER: http://activequote.fidelity.com/mmnet/SymLookup.phtml

FEDERAL CASE # -- 2:04-cr-20067-001-JWL

(MUTUAL FUND BY FUND NUMBER)

Quotes:

Symbol Lookup

Please enter search criteria for the stock, mutual fund, index, or annuity

you want to lookup:

Search for: Mutual Fund by: Fund Number CASE #: 2:04-cr-20067-001-JWL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Search Value: CASE NUMB Search Reset

Click symbol for detailed quote:

NAME SYMBOL CUSIP FUND

NUMBER

SUN LIFE CAP APPR 002 00002 ANNUITY25

This information is provided for information purposes only and should not be used or

construed as an indicator of future performance, an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to

buy, or a recommendation for any security. Fidelity can not guarantee the suitability or

potential value of any particular investment.

2. SEARCH FOR THE ANNUITY:

SUN LIFE CAP APPR 002 (ANNUITY BY TRADING SYMBOL)

Quotes >

Symbol Lookup:

Please enter search criteria for the stock, mutual fund, index, or annuity you want

to lookup:

Search for: Annuity by: Trading Symbol SUN LIFE CAP APPR 002

Search Value: ANNUITY NA Search Reset

Click symbol for detailed quote:

NAME SYMBOL CUSIP # FUND

SUNOCO, INC. SUN 86764P109

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


This information is provided for information purposes only and should not be used

or construed as an indicator of future performance, an offer to sell, a solicitation of

an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any security. Fidelity can not guarantee

the suitability or potential value of any particular investment.

RESULTS: ANNUITY IS HELD BY SUNOCO, INC.

3. LOOK UP SUNOCO STOCK QUOTE CHART

Delayed Stock Quote Login for Real-Time Quotes

SUNOCO, INC. (SUN) As of: 11/18/2008, 4:07pm

Last Trade [tick] 38.0300[nc] Volume 0

Net Change 0.0000 52 Week High 73.6800 on 01/02/2008

Net Change % 0.00% 52 Week Low 21.3000 on 10/10/2008

Bid N/A Ex. Dividend Date

Bid Size N/A Dividend Pay Date

Ask N/A Dividend Rate

Ask Size N/A P/E Ratio 7.8412

Bid Exchange N/A Yield 3.28497%

Ask Exchange N/A Split Factor 2.00

Last Trade

Exchange NYSE EPS +4.8500

Open 0.00 Currency USD

Day High 0.00 Primary Exchange NYSE

Day Low 0.00 SUN Stock Research

(SUN)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Prev Close Price 38.0300

Prev Close Date 11/18/2008

Quotes are at least 15 minutes and are reflected as Quotes are displayed by Date/Time

in Eastern time.

Quotes are available for stocks, mutual funds, Fidelity's Select Portfolios®, indices,

options, bonds and annuities. A maximum of 10 symbols may be entered separated

by spaces or commas per request. Please enter any additional symbols in a separate request.

http://www.fidelity.com

©Copyright 1998-2008 FMR LLC.

All rights reserved.

Terms of Use.

Another Federal case, number 6:05-cr-10056-MLB, was found to be linked to the CUSIP

number “316127109” that was in turn directly related to the “FIDELITY ADVISOR

DIVERSIFIED STOCK O, SYMBOL FDESX, FUND NUMBER 6.” When this information

was reported to the Court, and the proper forms were filed in the same manner as I have done,

the proceedings were “terminated,” the lien on the “SURETY” was released, the

“Defendant/defendant’s” supervised release was terminated, and the living soul who was

uhnknowingly made to act as the representative for the SURETY was set free. This is not some

speculative hypothecation or some “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument.” It is a fact

and the same result must occur in this case. The above-mentioned stock fund is still being traded

on the market and its progress can be tracked here:

http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/FDESX/f?t=FDESX

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


And here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=FDESX - among many other places.

With regard to the “nature and cause” of the proceedings, the USA refers to a “property dispute”

as if to say it is not applicable; however, it is undisputed that the instant “in rem” case is a

property dispute. The property, the thing, the res is the “named Defendant,” WILLIAM

BROCKBRADER. This corporate name clearly denotes an “artificial person.” That “person” is

not me. I am not the named Defendant and I do not consent or submit to, but do in fact reject that

false presumption. The other property, thing, and res is the Trust established by the “creation” of

this case; however, it is no longer in dispute pursuant to my previous, related courtwork.

I am now the Grantor/Settlor and Beneficiary of said Trust. My conditional offer of acceptance

of $250,000.00 was a bona fide settlement offer, tendered by me in good faith to the USA. In the

alternative, if the settlement should be refused, I requested a full forensic accounting of the

investment funds, and refund, restitution and reimbursement thereof, pursuant to my

counterclaim, and in accordance with the principles of Contribution and Indemnification; and,

such amount which will no doubt be much more than $250,000.00; furthermore, if relief is not

forthcoming, I would have no other choice but to seek further remedy in the Courts, specifically,

in the United States Court of Federal Claims, “the People’s Court,” or perhaps before some

international tribunal, for relief in an amount that may far exceed even the counterclaim.

And yet, despite all this, without any due consideration or acceptance, and without any adequate

explanation, the USA, in his RESPONSE, declares my perfectly valid claims to be “wholly

insubstantial, unsupported and frivolous.” Clearly he does not understand or refuses to accept the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


true nature of the “proceedings,” of the surrounding circumstances, or of the application of the

Miller Act to them.

This is a Civil Action NOT Criminal

He then persists in trying to convince me and the Court of the distinction between a “civil” case

or “action,” and, as he describes it, a “criminal case.” A criminal “case” is not a “criminal

action” as is required by Law. The USA’s presumption is rebuttable and unfounded. In fact and

in law, there are NO criminal actions, only CIVIL ACTIONS -- civil actions to which criminal

penalties, monetary and otherwise, are attached. Here are nine words that settle the matter:

“There is one form of action—the civil action.”

--F.R.C.P. Rule 2

This rule is explicit. To further prove that there are no criminal “actions” in any of today’s

Courts, we need only consult the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Rule 1. Scope; Definitions

(a) Scope.

(1) In General. These rules govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in

the United States district courts, the United States courts of appeals, and the

Supreme Court of the United States. [emphasis added].

--Fed.R.Cr.Proc Rule 1.

A “proceeding” is NOT an “action.” Why does the above rule not say “criminal actions?”

Because F.R.C.P. Rule 2 explicitly declares that “there is one form of action—the civil action.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Who can argue with that?

Legislative Court NOT a Constitutional Court

It is well-settled that a “constitutional court” is a court that is created, constituted or established

by the National Constitution NOT by “Act of Congress,” which would make it a mere

“legislative court.” The “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT” is a legislative court,

undeniably established by Act of Congress, by the Legislature, and it is NOT and cannot be a

“constitutional court” in the manner that a “district court of the United States” may be. This is

not a mere semantic distinction; it is linguistically and legally substantial and dispositive.

Notice of the Law

See June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 907, codified at 28 USC § 451 – Definitions:

As used in this title:

The term “court of the United States” includes the Supreme Court of the United States,

courts of appeals, district courts constituted by chapter 5 of this title, including the Court

of International Trade and any court created by Act of Congress the judges of which are

entitled to hold office during good behavior.

The terms “district court” and “district court of the United States” mean the courts

constituted by chapter 5 of this title. [Proving that these courts are legislative. Emphasis

added.]

The term “judge of the United States” includes judges of the courts of appeals, district

courts, Court of International Trade and any court created by Act of Congress, the judges

of which are entitled to hold office during good behavior.

The terms “district” and “judicial district” means the districts enumerated in Chapter 5 of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


this title. [emphasis added].

The definition of the term “capitonym” should be mentioned here:

“A capitonym is a word that changes its meaning (and sometimes pronunciation) when it

is capitalized, and usually applies to capitalization due to proper nouns or eponyms. It is a

portmanteau of the word capital with the suffix -onym.”

Capitalization alters the meaning of terms; especially proper nouns such as titles of Courts, etc.;

and, it is undisputed, capitonymic distinctions notwithstanding, as stated above, that the “district

courts were “constituted” (a term perhaps of obfuscation but which nonetheless means

“established” and/or “created”) by “Act of Congress” and NOT by the constitution.

28 USC § 132. Creation and composition of district courts

(a) There shall be in each judicial district a district court which shall be a court of record

known as the United States District Court for the district. [emphasis added].

--http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/132

The false and rebuttable presumption that these courts are actually “courts of record” is another

matter; and, if they do not proceed in the course of the common law, which they do not, then

they are not, by definition, “courts of record.” To wit, a court of record is a court,

“Proceeding according to the course of common law.” --Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App.

220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also,

Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.,

425, 426]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


It is undisputed that the fictional UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT is proceeding, not

according to the course of the common law, as required for a true court of record, but according

to the course of statutory law, although there is no authority for such a “course,” and there do not

seem to be any specific applicable rules governing a “statutory jurisdiction.” If there are, I would

like to see them; nevertheless, it is clear that the “district courts” have been converted into

“District Courts,” as above, or as “DISTRICT COURTS” as below:

“28 USC Chapter 5 - DISTRICT COURTS”

--http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-I/chapter-5

The legislative “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO”

(not the constitutional “district court of the United States,” as I have captioned above, and as I

have done so throughout my courtwork, without any question, dispute or opposition), is

denominated, enumerated and codified at 28 USC § 92 – Idaho.

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/92

Moreover, it is undisputed that,

“These various provisions do not in terms describe the same courts. In congressional

usage the phrase “district courts of the United States,” without further qualification,

traditionally has included the district courts established by Congress in the states under

Article III of the Constitution, which are “constitutional” courts, and has not included the

territorial courts created under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, which are “legislative”

courts. Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 85 U.S. 648, 21 L.Ed. 966 (1873).

--Source: Pub. L. 93–595, § 1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1947, codified at Title 28, Appendix,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


§1101(a).

Definitions and case law in support of the above statement of adjudicative facts:

Article I court - a specialized court that is quasi-judicial and quasi-administrative in

nature, created by Congress as an extension of its legislative power under Article I of the

Constitution rather than as an organ of the judicial branch of government under Article

III. Examples include the Tax Court, bankruptcy courts, and territorial courts. Also

called legislative court.

Article III court (Also called constitutional court). [emphasis added].

--Random House Webster’s Law Dictionary

In the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, UCLA Law Professor Emeritus Kenneth L.

Karst writes:

“In essence a legislative court is merely an administrative agency with an elegant name.

While Congress surely has the power to transfer portions of the business of the federal

judiciary to legislative courts, a wholesale transfer of that business would work a

fundamental change in the status of our independent judiciary and would seem vulnerable

to constitutional attack.” --From the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution,

MacMillan Publishing Co. (1986), volume 3, page 1144.

More applicable case law as requested by the USA.

Legislative Courts: The Canter Case – concerning the distinction between constitutional

courts and legislative courts

American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. (26 U.S.) 511 (1828)

Said Chief Justice Marshall for the Court: “These courts, then, are not constitutional

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general

government, can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it.

“The jurisdiction with which they are invested, is not a part of that judicial power which

is defined in the 3rd article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress.”

Canter postulated a simple proposition: “Constitutional courts exercise the judicial power

described in Art. III of the Constitution; legislative courts do not and cannot.”

It is undisputable, irrefutable and incontrovertible, as declared by the supreme law of the land,

supra, that the “district,” “District” and/or “DISTRICT COURTS” of the UNITED STATES,

undeniably created, established, and constituted by Act of Congress, are legislative courts as

defined in Canter. The consequences of this fact are substantial and dispositive and they raise the

issue, not of conspiracy, but of a clear violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, the very

definition of a despotic government according to Thomas Jefferson, and a blatant fraud upon the

people of the states united.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his “Notes On The State of Virginia” written in 1781-

1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the

Declaration of Independence, saying:

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . .” (Emphasis

Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia

Legislature, under the so-called “Constitution”--in reality a mere Act of that body:

“All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative

body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic

government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of

hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice.”

--Thomas Jefferson, “Notes On The State of Virginia.”

No Judicial Power No Jurisdiction

Notwithstanding the settled issue of judicial infirmity, let us move to the issue of lack of

jurisdiction with regard to the Canter case, and to the legal phrase “shall be vested” as it is used

in Article III, section 1 of the National Constitution:

“Shall Be Vested.” --The distinction between judicial power and jurisdiction is

especially pertinent to the meaning of the words ''shall be vested'' in Sec. 1. Whereas all

the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court and the inferior

federal courts created by Congress, neither has ever been vested with all the

jurisdiction which could be granted and, Justice Story to the contrary, 133 the

Constitution has not been read to mandate Congress to confer the entire jurisdiction it

might. 134 Thus, except for the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which flows

directly from the Constitution, two prerequisites to jurisdiction must be present: first, the

Constitution must have given the courts the capacity to receive it, 135 and, second, an act

of Congress must have conferred it. 136 The fact that federal courts are of limited

jurisdiction means that litigants in them must affirmatively establish that jurisdiction

exists and may not confer nonexistent jurisdiction by consent or conduct. 137 [emphasis

added].

[Footnote 133] Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 328 -331 (1816). See

also 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: 1833),

1584-1590.

[Footnote 134] See, e.g., Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8, 10 (1799)

(Justice Chase). A recent, sophisticated attempt to resurrect the core of Justice Story's

argument is Amar, A Neo-Federalist View of Article III: Separating the Two Tiers of

Federal Jurisdiction, 65 B. U. L. Rev. 205 (1985); and see Symposium: Article III and the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Judiciary Act of 1789, 138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1499 (1990) (with articles by Amar, Meltzer,

and Redish). Briefly, the matter is discussed more fully infra, Professor Amar argues, in

part, from the text of Article III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, that the use of the word “all” in each of

federal question, admiralty, and public ambassador subclauses means that Congress must

confer the entire judicial power to cases involving those issues, whereas it has more

discretion in the other six categories.

[Footnote 135] Which was, of course, the point of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cr.)

137 (1803), once the power of the Court to hold legislation unconstitutional was

established.

[Footnote 136] The Mayor v. Cooper, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 247, 252 (1868); Cary v. Curtis,

44 U.S. (3 How.) 236 (1845); Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 441 (1850); United States

v. Hudson & Goodwin, 11 U.S. (7 Cr.) 32, 33 (1812); Kline v. Burke Construction Co.,

260 U.S. 226 (1922). It should be noted, however, that some judges have expressed the

opinion that Congress’ authority is limited to some degree by the Constitution, such as by

the due process clause, so that a limitation on jurisdiction which denied a litigant access

to any remedy might be unconstitutional. Cf. Eisentrager v. Forrestal, 174 F. 2d 961,

965-966 (D.C.Cir. 1949), revd. on other grounds sub nom, Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339

U.S. 763 (1950); Battaglia v. General Motors Corp., 169 F.2d 254, 257 (2d Cir.), cert.

den., 335 U.S. 887 (1948); Petersen v. Clark, 285 F. Supp. 700. 703 n. 5 (D.N.D. Calif.

1968); Murray v. Vaughn, 300 F. Supp. 688. 694- 695 (D.R.I. 1969). The Supreme Court

has had no occasion to consider the question.

Footnote 137] Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8 (1799); Bingham v.

Cabot, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 382 (1798); Jackson v. Ashton, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 148 (1834);

Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237 (1934).

--http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/02.html

The lack of jurisdiction of this Court, from the inception of these proceedings, is undeniable and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


indefensible.

Inherent Conflict of Interest

The presiding judge has taken an oath and sworn an affidavit not to strike against the

Government of the United States, presumably an alias for the Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA. He has taken a “loyalty oath” to the Plaintiff; therefore, he would have no

alternative but to “strike” against me and my courtwork, and to grant, without any hesitation or

reason, without any findings of fact or conclusions of law, the MOTION TO STRIKE filed by

his fellow BAR association club member, the USA. This is the ultimate expression of “bias and

prejudice” against me and for the Plaintiff which further invalidates all of the “proceedings”

against me.

Excerpt from the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, Standard Form 61, of B. LYNN WINMILL:

B. I am not participating in any strike against the Government of the United States or any

agency thereof, and I will not so participate while an employee of the Government of the

United States or any agency thereof.

The above excerpt from the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS proves several things:

1. The presiding judge is allegedly “appointed” and not “elected” as required by Law in the

republican form of government to which we were guaranteed.

2. The presiding judge is an “employee” of a private organization, the “Government of the

United States” and NOT an “officer” of a governmental entity.

3. As such, he is, as his APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS state, a “UNITED STATES

DISTRICT JUDGE” and NOT a “judge of the United States” as denominated in the Law.

4. He is an administrative clerk of a “department or agency” of the United States,

specifically, UNITED STATES COURTS, as clearly shown on his APPOINTMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


AFFIDAVITS. See Karst, supra.

Statement of the Law with regard to number 3 above:

28 USC § 451 – Definitions

“The term “judge of the United States” includes judges of the courts of appeals, district

courts, Court of International Trade and any court created by Act of Congress, the judges

of which are entitled to hold office during good behavior.”

Source: June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 907.

The “district courts” as denominated above are NOT identical to the “DISTRICT COURTS” as

termed in the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS and in the captions of the feigned issue penal case

against me; and, furthermore, the “UNITED STATES COURTS,” the alleged “department or

agency” shown on the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS are not identical to the “courts of the

United States” as denominated in the above Law Source, which provides,

“The term “court of the United States” includes the Supreme Court of the United States,

courts of appeals, district courts constituted by chapter 5 of this title, including the Court

of International Trade and any court created by Act of Congress the judges of which are

entitled to hold office during good behavior.”


Let us examine the concept of the phrase “good behavior” mentioned above. The meaning and

signification of the use, in both citations above, of the phrase “entitled to hold office during good

behavior” is fatal to any attempted rebuttal of the above-mentioned facts. Article III judges, true

constitutional judicial officers, hold office FOR LIFE, not merely “during good behavior” which

represents “a limited time.” To wit,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


“As the only judicial power vested in Congress is to create courts whose judges shall hold

their offices during good behavior, it necessarily follows that, if Congress authorizes the

creation of courts and the appointment of judges for a limited time, it must act

independently of the Constitution and upon territory which is not part of the United States

within the meaning of the Constitution.” -- Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

This also tells us that it is undisputable, irrefutable and incontrovertible that the courts and/or the

COURTS described above were established, created, constituted and authorized by Congress and

that Congress can only create legislative courts and appoint judges who serve for “a limited

time,” and that this power to act is OUTSIDE the Constitution AND OUTSIDE the United

States! As to the ramifications of these facts, see the Canter case, supra.

Statement of the Law with regard to number 4 above:

“The term “agency” includes any department, independent establishment, commission,

administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States or any corporation in

which the United States has a proprietary interest, unless the context shows that such

term was intended to be used in a more limited sense.


It is undisputable, irrefutable and incontrovertible that the phrase “Department or agency” as

shown on the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS refers specifically to the definition of the term

“agency” above, and in no way refers to a judicial “Branch” of a government, but in all

probability, as the above Law states, to a corporation in which the United States has a proprietary

interest.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Moreover, and the salaries of Article III judges are not subject to diminution. Does the presiding

JUDGE pay Federal income taxes or is his paycheck reduced in any other way before he receives

it? If so, his salary is “diminished” and this is further proof that he is NOT an Article III judge.

“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall . . . receive for their Services

a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

--Article III, section 1, Constitution for the United States of America.

Relief Demanded

As far as the relief which the USA cannot seem to apperceive, it is simple: Release me from my

unlawful incarceration and terminate the proceedings against me.

No Victim and No Crime

Fed.R.Cr.Proc. Rule 1. Scope; Definitions

(12) “Victim” means a “crime victim” as defined in 18 U.S.C. §3771 (e).

18 USC § 3771 - Crime victims’ rights

(e) Definitions.— For the purposes of this chapter, the term “crime victim” means a

person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal

offense or an offense in the District of Columbia. [emphasis added].

So who is the “person” who was directly and proximately harmed, and how, as a result of my

alleged commission of a “Federal” offense? The alleged Plaintiff the UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA? I think not. Artificial persons who do not exist cannot be “harmed” or “injured.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


They cannot be threatened with or suffer an actual direct injury in fact. Only living souls, living

beings, can have Rights that can be violated.

Moreover, let us examine the meaning and signification of the term “or” as used and emphasized

in the definition above. It may be counterintuitive, but it is undisputed that the term “or,” as well

as being used as a “disjunctive,” also functions, as it does above, as a “rephrasing statement” to

accomplish the same unifying purpose as the term “and:”

“Or. 3. rephrasing statement: used to introduce a rephrasing synonym or correction of a

statement just made. fetal oxygen deprivation, or hypoxia; German measles, or rubella.”

--Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary.

The term “Or” as defined in 18 USC § 3771 above, is used to “explain,” so that an “offense in

the District of Columbia” functions to “explain” the meaning of “a Federal offense.” To wit,

“Or. Conjunction. Used to show that a word or phrase means the same as, or explains or

limits or corrects, another word or phrase: Rosalind, or Roz to her friends, took the

initiative.” –Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.

--http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/or_3

“Or” is also used to introduce a synonymous phrase. “Or” is used for

“introducing a synonymous word or phrase; botany, or the science of plants.”

--Webster’s New World College Dictionary.

“Or” is also used,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


“to indicate similar things or alternative ways of referring to such things. example: stars

or suns ; monarchs or kings.” –Wordsmyth Advanced Dictionary.

This usage goes back as far as the American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster,

1828:

“Or is often used to express an alternative of terms, definitions or explanations of the

same thing in different words. Thus we say, a thing is a square, or a figure under four

equal sides and angles.”

Another example from Webster's 1913:

“Or may be used to join as alternatives terms expressing unlike things or ideas (as, is the

orange sour or sweet?), or different terms expressing the same thing or idea; as, this is a

sphere, or globe.”

“Or” is,

“used to connect alternative terms for the same thing:” the Hawaiian, or Sandwich,

Islands.

It is indisputable, irrefutable, and incontrovertible that a Federal offense is an offense in the

District of Columbia, and that is all it is. This makes perfect sense and is supported by the fact

that the term “Federal” clearly refers to the “United States,” and, that the United States is located

in the District of Columbia:

U.C.C. - ARTICLE 9 - SECURED TRANSACTIONS

Part 1. General Provisions

(h) [Location of United States.]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


The United States is located in the District of Columbia.

--http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/article9.htm

Therefore, any so-called Federal offense, such as the one which I allegedly committed, and of

which I was allegedly convicted, must have occurred in the District of Columbia or the

conviction was invalid and was the result of a malicious and fraudulent prosecution, since the

USA is deemed to know the Law. There was never any evidence or even an allegation of this

introduced in the feigned issue alleged penal criminal case against me. It would appear on the

face of the pleadings that the Court lacked all jurisdiction, personal, subject matter and territorial

jurisdiction, since the alleged offense of which I was accused took place, not in the District of

Columbia, or in any federal territory, but in the “state of Idaho.” The “state of Idaho” is NOT the

District of Columbia, it is not “in the District of Columbia,” and it is not a “State of the United

States” as defined below:

31 USC § 103. United States

In this title, “United States,” when used in a geographic sense, means the States of the

United States and the District of Columbia. [emphasis added].

Source: Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 877.

The “United States,” as defined above means BOTH the States of the United States and the

District of Columbia, not “either/or.” If it were meant to be “one or the other,” Congress would

have used the term “or” as a disjunctive. It did not; it used the conjunctive, joining term “and;”

therefore, the careful and correct use of the term “and” in the code above is exclusively

conjunctive. It follows, logically, that the term “States of the United States” is combined and

joined with “the District of Columbia” and that they are inextricably linked together. The States

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


of the United States are also construed to mean, and are part and parcel of, the District of

Columbia, and that the “Government of the United States,” ipso facto, is the “Government of the

District of Columbia.”

Not a Resident of or Subject to the Jurisdiction of

The District of Columbia or of the United States

I have, and I continue to purge the false presumption that I am “a citizen of the District of

Columbia” residing in one of the “States of the United States;” therefore, I am not, nor was I ever

“subject to its jurisdiction,” as contemplated by the Fourteenth Amendment or by any other

similar Federal authority. In other words, I am NOT, nor have I ever been a “citizen of the

United States” which is defined in case law as “a citizen of the federal government.” My

“character” is as a sovereign, by unconditional, unalienable, inherent, natural, paramount,

imprescriptible Right; and I do not claim the “status” of “citizenship,” which is a mere privilege,

with preconditions attached thereto, granted and/or revoked at will by the federal government.

To wit,

“A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government.” --Kitchens v.

Steele, 112 F.Supp 383 [D.C.Mo. 1953].

“Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any

preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper.” --In re Thanner,

D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375,

143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71;

In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp.

181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602,

31 Neb. 682.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


See also, The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, formally An Act to provide a

Government for the District of Columbia.

Further authority:

4 USC § 72 - Public offices; at seat of Government

All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of

Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.

Source: July 30, 1947, ch. 389, 61 Stat. 643.

Here is one of the ways that the offices of the Federal government can be exercised outside of the

District of Columbia “as otherwise expressly provided by law:”

Idaho Constitution

ARTICLE IV

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

SECTION 16. GRANTS AND PERMISSIONS. All grants and permissions shall be in the name

and by the authority of the state of Idaho, sealed with the great seal of the state, signed by the

governor, and countersigned by the secretary of state.

If the Government of the United States, aka the Federal government, the United States

government, and/or the Government of the District of Columbia, including, but not limited to,

their agencies, instrumentalities, and/or corporate subsidiaries, the DOJ, the USA’s, the

DISTRICT COURTS, or any other Federal agency or instrumentality, is exercising an office

attached to the seat of government outside of the District of Columbia and in the state of Idaho,

produce the grant and permission in the name and by the authority of the state of Idaho, sealed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


with the great seal of the state, signed by the governor, and countersigned by the secretary of

state; otherwise, they are in violation of 61 Stat. 643, and of Article IV, section 16 of the Idaho

Constitution. Their existence as a corporate entity, foreign to the state of Idaho and subject to

Article IV, section 16 of the Idaho Constitution is fully supported by Law. To wit,

“The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.”

--In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y 479, affirmed U.S. v. Perkins, 16 S.Ct.

1073, 163, U.S. 625, 41. L.Ed. 287. 19 C.J.S. § 883, CORPORATIONS, XVIII,

FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.

In the alternative, the only other possibility would be to admit that the geographical boundaries

of the District of Columbia now extend beyond the “ten miles square,” all the way to the “state

of Idaho” and beyond (into the “State of Idaho” or “STATE OF IDAHO,” both of which are

“States of the United States,” also referred to as “Buck States” pursuant to the “Buck Act”),

in which case, the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, ipso facto, abolished the “states”

and created, established and constituted the instrumentalities and corporate subsidiaries now

known as “States of the United States.”

Not Prosecution for the Commission of a Crime – Persecution for Contempt of a Statute It appears, on the face of the pleadings of the alleged Plaintiff, a fictional Plaintiff in error, and in

light of the undisputable facts herein, that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is prosecuting

me in its “full corporate, private, proprietary commercial capacity” under private law, not for the

commission of a “crime,” but, arguendo, persecuting me for a “contempt CONSTITUTING a

crime” pursuant to private law 18 USC § 402, which provides,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


18 USC § 402. Contempts constituting crimes

“Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process,

order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of

the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the

act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under

any statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was

committed, shall be prosecuted for such contempt as provided in section 3691 of this title

and shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment, or both.” [emphasis

added].

Not surprisingly, the above code goes on to say,

“For purposes of this section, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the

District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United

States.”


Section 3691 cited above provides,

“Whenever a contempt charged shall consist in willful disobedience of any lawful writ,

process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States by

doing or omitting any act or thing in violation thereof, and the act or thing done or

omitted also constitutes a criminal offense under any Act of Congress, or under the

laws of any state in which it was done or omitted, the accused, upon demand therefor,

shall be entitled to trial by a jury, which shall conform as near as may be to the practice

in other criminal cases.”

This “disclaimer” follows:

This section shall not apply to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so

near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempts committed in

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any

suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States.


Therefore, the prosecution of contempts constituting crimes (and the right of the accused, upon

demand, to be entitled to true “trial by jury,” NOT to a jury trial or a court martial, and other

such related prosecutions unknown to the Law), apply ONLY “to acts or things done or omitted

that constitute a criminal offense under any Act of Congress, or under the laws of any state in

which it was done or omitted!” The “commission of a crime” has been reduced to a mere

“contempt of a Statute.”

A Jury Trial is NOT Trial by Jury

Further authority for the entitlement to “trial by jury” (not “a jury trial” or a “court martial”) as

protected, guaranteed, and secured by Article the sixth of the Bill of Rights:

See The Federalist Papers No. 83, The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by Jury, authored

by Alexander Hamilton. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed83.htm

And, 28 USC § 1861. Declaration of policy

It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts

entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random

from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court

convenes. It is further the policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the

opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of

the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that

purpose. [emphasis added].

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Source: June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 951. The USA clearly states that I was convicted following “a jury trial.” Not one single word of

Article the sixth of the Bill of Rights, or of 28 USC § 1861 above, or of the Federalist Papers can

be altered or changed without changing the meaning thereof; nor can it be changed by any other

method than by a lawful amendment to the constitution and by Congress, respectively. I was

entitled to “trial by jury” and it was denied and replaced with “a jury trial” and a “court martial”

in which I was “represented.” Furthermore, I did not enjoy the right to the assistance of counsel

of choice as protected, guaranteed, and secured by Article the sixth of the Bill of Rights. See also

U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 05–352 (2006).

Rejection of Submission to a Non-Constitutional Government

Clearly, there must be two separate Governments operating simultaneously, one within the

requirements and restrictions of the National Constitution, and one without. This does not seem

plausible but it was the considered and learned opinion of Justice Harlan, in Downes v. Bidwell,

182 U.S. 244 (1901):

“Although from the foundation of the government this court has held steadily to the view

that the government of the United States was one of enumerated powers, and that no one

of its branches, nor all of its branches combined, could constitutionally exercise powers

not granted, or which were not necessarily implied from those expressly granted (Martin

v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 326, 331, 4 L. ed. 102, 104) we are now informed that Congress

possesses powers outside of the Constitution . . . In my opinion, Congress has no

existence and can exercise no authority outside of the Constitution . . . This nation is

under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only

source of the powers which our government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


any time or at any place. Monarchical and despotic governments, unrestrained by written

constitutions, may do with newly acquired territories what this government may not do

consistently with our fundamental law. To say otherwise is to concede that Congress

may, by action taken outside of the Constitution, engraft upon our republican institutions

a colonial system such as exists under monarchical governments. Surely such a result was

never contemplated by the fathers of the Constitution. If that instrument had contained a

word suggesting the possibility of a result of that character it would never have been

adopted by the people of the United States . . . The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it

found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or

practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with

all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of

that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to

exercise.”

These words of profound wisdom may sound archaic, arcane, cryptic and bewildering to some,

including, perhaps, the USA, but truer words were never spoken. Perhaps the USA would also

accuse Justice Harlan of being an adherent to the constitutionalist/patriot/common law

movement and I wonder how Justice Harlan would respond. I do not submit or consent to being

subjected to an unconstitutional or non-constitutional form of government.

No Proper Delegation of Authority

Proper delegations of authority are also in question with regard to the alleged officers of the

DISTRICT COURT who participated in the malicious prosecution (in reality a political

persecution) against me. The USA, in a footnote number 3 of his RESPONSE, presumptively

declares that “Wendy Olson is the United States Attorney [USA] for the District of Idaho.” That

presumption is rebuttable. FOIA requests for APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS, Senate

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Confirmations, Oaths of Office, and other credentials have been and are being made to prove or

disprove the proper delegation of authority to the said alleged officers, including, but not limited

to, Wendy Olson. Those that have been received so far indicate that none of the alleged officers

have the required, proper, constitutional delegation of authority to have lawfully initiated and

maintained the proceedings against me.

At this time, I have acquired the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS of Eric H. Holder, Jr., alleged

“Attorney General.” It is a public record that can be accessed here:

http://www.justice.gov/oip/docs/ag-holder-appt-affidavit.pdf

Unfortunately, it does not bear the valid OMB number as required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act; therefore, it is void and of no force and effect. Eric H. Holder, Jr. does not have the proper

delegation of authority required by Law; it does not confer or vest any office or authority in Eric

H. Holder, Jr.; he is NOT the lawful Attorney General. Consequently, none of the other

subordinate USA’s have any delegation of authority, since he is not competent to give it; this

includes WENDY OLSON and all of the other USA’s whose names appear on the USA’s

RESPONSE and on any other of the Plaintiff’s pleadings in this “case.”

Furthermore, the “Bureau or Division” listed on the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS is termed

as the “Office of the AG.” What is that? Whatever it is, it is improper, unacceptable and

unlawful. If a thing cannot be shown to have been done for a “legal” purpose, then it can only be

said to have been done for an “illegal” purpose.

“Office of the AG” is not a “Bureau or Division” of the “Department of Justice” as the

APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS falsely claim. Here are the “Divisions of the Department of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Justice:”

Divisions

• Antitrust Division

• Civil Division

• Civil Rights Division

• Criminal Division

• Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD)

• Justice Management Division (JMD)

• National Security Division (NSD)

• Tax Division

• War Division (defunct)

“Office of the AG” is not listed.

Nor is the “Office of the AG” listed among the “Bureaus” of the United States:

Bureaus

Census Bureau - CENSUS

Bureau of Consular Affairs

Bureua of Economic Analysis - BEA

Citizenship and Immigration Services (Bureau of) - BCIS

Engraving and Printing, Bureau of (BEP)

Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI)

International Broadcasting Bureau - IBB

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Bureau of National Affairs - BNA

Federal Bureau of Prisons - BOP

Bureau of Reclamation - BOR

Bureau of Transportation Statistics – BTS

http://www.officialusa.com/stateguides/government/bureaus.html

Moreover, the OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, is NOT identical to the so-called

“Office of the AG” as termed on the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS; and, in fact and in law,

the abbreviation “AG” is meaningless and is not defined; however, even if “AG” did, arguendo,

by some machination of the law, “stand for” the “Attorney General,” the “OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL” is listed as an “agency” of the Department of Justice, but not as a

“Bureau or Division” as stated on the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.

See http://www.justice.gov/agencies/index-org.html

It is undisputable, irrefutable and incontrovertible that the so-called “Office of the AG,”

allegedly “occupied” by Eric H. Holder, does not exist as either an agency, department, bureau

or division of the UNITED STATES or as a “Bureau or Division” of the “Department of Justice”

as falsely stated on Eric H. Holder’s alleged APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS. In fact and in law,

the “Office of the AG” does not even exist, period. And if “AG” does mean “Attorney General,”

the “OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL” is an “agency” NOT a “Bureau or Division”

as Eric H. Holder’s APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS falsely claim. Each of the above-described

terms is “mutually exclusive” and specifically defined, each with particular duties and

responsibilities, and one cannot be substituted for another. It is apparent that the UNITED

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


STATES has some serious organizational problems; problems that may, in fact, arise to a fraud

on the American people.

Citation of Foreign Law

The USA, despite his disclaimer that it has no “precedential value,” cites the opinion of a

Canadian judge and cites Canadian case law. Couldn’t he find a similar opinion of a “Judge of

the United States” or have found and cited U.S. case law? Perhaps the Court could grant me

some time to research some foreign law for myself; perhaps Egyptian, Afghani or Libyan law.

After all, since it is the policy of the United States to “share” democracy with the world, are

these countries not now members in good standing of the family of Democratic Nations as is

Canada? Or is the invocation of the foreign Canadian authority, mentioned even in such a casual

and off hand manner, recognition by the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of the existence of

the dreaded “North American Union,” that diabolical, conspiratorial, political organization of the

Global One World Government, so feared by the multitude of adherents to the

constitutionalist/patriot/common law movement for its singular evil purpose: to strip the United

States of its national sovereignty and the Civil Liberties of Americans along with it? Is the USA

a secret member of this cabal?

The “district court” is NOT Identical to the “DISTRICT COURT”

The USA Invokes the Wrong Forum

Despite my continued objections, and my lawful submissions to, and invocations of, the “district

court of the United States for Idaho” the USA persists in submitting his paperwork to the

“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO.” My courtwork, so

captioned, has been accepted by the Clerk of the Court and has not been refused for impropriety;

therefore, it must be correct. Why is it not being recognized and acted upon?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Not a Person – Not my “true name” – Collusive Joinder – Lack of Jurisdiction

Moreover, it is undisputed that I am not a “person” as contemplated by statutes. Yet, despite my

continued objections, the USA persists in the “collusive joinder” of me, as a living soul, with an

artificial person, the named Defendant, denominated in a CORPORATE NAME, a name that is

NOT my true name, and a name which I have repeatedly renounced, repudiated and disavowed,

thereby depriving the Court of any sliver of jurisdiction it may have had.

Furthermore, I retain my right to my choice of law; and, I am not subject to the private rules,

private statutes and private corporate case law cited by the USA; he is.

More Private Companies – Federal Prison Industries, Inc. et al.

With reference to the private companies mentioned herein, I wish to add the “Federal Prison

Industries, Inc., also traded as UNICOR,” not a government prison system, but the private for-

profit corporation wherein I have been threatened with further unlawful incarceration. To wit,

18 USC § 4121 - Federal Prison Industries

“Federal Prison Industries,” a government corporation of the District of Columbia.

If “Federal Prison Industries, Inc., also traded as UNICOR,” is a corporation of the District of

Columbia, by what lawful authority, as required by 4 USC § 72, does it exercise its offices

outside the District of Columbia? Furthermore, a corporation is required by law to use the suffix

“Inc.” at all times, and yet, it is conspicuously absent from the above U.S. Private Law Code. It

is also interesting that the suffix is used below, and that functions of the Federal Prison

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Industries, Inc. are not “vested” in the United States Attorney General:

28 USC § 509. Functions of the Attorney General

All functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies

and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General except the

functions—

(1) vested by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 in administrative law judges employed

by the Department of Justice;

(2) of the Federal Prison Industries, Inc.; and

(3) of the Board of Directors and officers of the Federal Prison Industries, Inc.

[emphasis added].

Among these private companies we also find this listing on Dun and Bradstreet:

“The Bureau of Prisons; Also Traded as Unicor Federal Prison Industries, Inc.” These private companies have physical addresses of their corporate locations, where they

transact or “do” business, in every “State of the United States,” and the address of the (corporate)

“Headquarters” of the “Bureau of Prisons,” ostensibly a government “Bureau” of the United

States, but, in reality, an “agency” of the “Department of Justice,” is identical with (corporate)

“Headquarters” of “Federal Prison Industries, Inc.” Moreover, the “Department of Justice” is

listed on “MANTA,” a national “business entity” database that acquires their information from

Dun and Bradstreet, and the “Department of Justice” is also known as, traded as, and doing

business as, the “Federal Bureau of Prisons.”

The DOJ listing also states that,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


United States Department Of Justice in Washington, DC is a private company categorized under

Prison, Government. Our records show it was established in and incorporated in District of

Columbia. The listing also says that William Breake is the “Branch Manager,”

and,

United States Department Of Justice Business Information

United States Department Of Justice also does business as Federal Bureau Of Prisons.

http://www.manta.com/c/mm0b2fj/united-states-department-of-justice

[emphasis added].

The DOJ/Federal Bureau of Prisons/Federal Prison Industries, Inc./UNICOR are also linked to

the “Government of the District of Columbia.” Their listing on “MANTA” says,

Government Of District Of Columbia in Washington, DC is a private company categorized

under Prison, Government. Our records show it was established in and incorporated in District of

Columbia which also does business as “Department of Corrections.” It also says that Hal

Williams is the “Director,”

and,

Government Of District Of Columbia Business Information

Government Of District Of Columbia also does business as Department Of Corrections.

http://www.manta.com/c/mm8wn63/government-of-district-of-columbia

What a convoluted corporate family tree! Now add the Department of Corrections to the list.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


There is no conspiracy here, but there is blatant “corporatism.” And what is being “traded?”

Could it be “human capital?”

Private Attorneys and Their Private Clubs

I now address the subject of the private attorneys, some of whom are masquerading as agents of

the government, and all of whom are complicit in this criminal corporatism. They are all mere

members of their private clubs, the Idaho State Bar, which has its own corporate alter ego, the

IDAHO LAW FOUNDATION, INC., and the Washington State Bar, mere “associations,” and

they bear membership numbers from the same, respectively. So, if their “State” Bar numbers

(evidence of admission to practice before a particular court), authorize the members to practice

before a Federal court, the “States” are actually only federal “DISTRICTS” and this is further

proof that the “States” are actually “Federal” corporate subsidiaries and instrumentalities of the

“United States.”

As an offer of proof, the heading of the USA’s RESPONSE provides,

WENDY J. OLSON, IDAHO STATE BAR NO. 7634

JAMES M. PETERS, WASHINGTON STATE BAR NO. 7295

CASEY HEMMER, IDAHO STATE BAR NO. 7724

Unauthorized Practice of Law

Do these attorneys have licenses to practice law? If so, I would like to see them. A certificate of

admission to practice before a particular court is NOT a license to practice law or to otherwise

engage in the legal profession; yet all I have ever seen an attorney produce is a “Certificate of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Good Standing” in the BAR association, a private club. That is not a “license” either. These

attorneys are practicing law without a license, also known as “the unauthorized practice of law.”

Until this presumption is rebutted with competent evidence to the contrary, it stands as the truth.

With regard to the fact that the Idaho State Bar is a mere private corporation, see In re C. H.

EDWARDS, No. 4980a, SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, 45 Idaho 676; 266 P. 665; March 3,

1928, Decided;

“The Idaho State Bar and the board of commissioners thereof organized by these acts

constitute only an administrative arm of the supreme court exercising certain

quasijudicial functions but possessing no judicial power, that power, by the express terms

of the act, being reserved in its constitutional repository, the supreme court of Idaho. This

arm is in no sense of the word a corporation. ( In re Bruen, supra; In re Mills, supra; In

re Ward, supra; McVicar v. State Board of Law Examiners, supra; In re Chapelle, supra;

chap. 211, 1923 Sess. Laws, sec. 8; In re Winthrop, 135 Wash. 135, 237 P. 3.)

“The court will ‘look behind the name to the thing named. Its character, its relations, and

its functions determine its position, and not the mere title under which it passes’.”

Fletcher’s Cyc. of Corporations, sec. 231.)

“Where the powers given are in such language as to make a corporation in effect, it will

be so declared, although not actually expressed to be so by the Legislature. Whether an

aggregate of individuals is a corporation is to be determined by the faculties and powers

conferred on it, rather than by the name or description given to it. . . . Express words are

not necessary to create a corporation; the principle obtains that a corporation may be

created by implication.” (1 Thompson on Corporations, 3d ed., secs. 172, 173.)

“It is, indeed, a principle of law which has been often acted on, that where rights,

privileges, and powers are granted by law to an association of persons, by a collective

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


name, and there is no mode by which such rights can be enjoyed, or such powers

exercised, without acting in a corporate capacity, such associations are, by implication, a

corporation so far as to enable them to exercise the rights and powers granted.” (Angell &

Ames on Corporations, 9th ed., sec. 78.)

Also see N.D. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. E. G. GALLET, State Auditor of the State of Idaho,

Defendant. [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL], SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, 39 Idaho 382;

228 P. 1068; July 3, 1924, Decided;

As Judge Budge said in Jackson v. Gallet, above, with reference to the existence of the Idaho

state bar and its commission as a private corporation and not an administrative board or

commission of the state,

“Now, it will not do to say that the Idaho state bar and the state of Idaho are synonymous

terms. In other words, the Idaho state bar or its commission cannot be construed to be an

administrative board of the state and may not function as an administrative board or

commission of the state. The language of the act will warrant no such interpretation.

There is therefore no merit in the contention that the Idaho state bar is an administrative

board of the state of Idaho.

If the legislature intended only that an administrative board of the state was to be created,

it certainly did not say so. On the contrary, it used language which clearly and

unequivocally negatives that idea. The Idaho state bar could not have been more

effectively incorporated and organized had the legislature specifically, instead of

incorporating its board of directors, incorporated the Idaho state bar itself. The most

charitable view we can give to the act in view of the language used, so far as the creation

of an administrative board of the state is concerned, is that if such a board is created then

by the same act creating it the Idaho state bar, a private corporation, is most effectively

incorporated and organized by special act, which is prohibited by art. 3, sec. 19 of the

constitution. There is nothing to prevent the legislature providing by general law for the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


voluntary incorporation of the Idaho state bar but the state cannot force its bounty on

private persons by incorporating them without their consent and against their will. (State

v. Cosgrove, 36 Idaho 278, 210 P. 393; Spotswood v. Morris, 12 Idaho 360, 85 P. 1094, 6

L. R. A., N. S., 665.) This act does that very thing.

In conclusion, there seems to be no good reason for the selection between lawyers as a

class and members of any other calling as a class and the enactment of special legislation

essentially conferring upon lawyers as a class corporate powers and independent action to

the exclusion of control by general legislative enactment. To uphold legislation of the

character before us would make possible the incorporation and independent action of the

members of any other class, calling or occupation, and instead of a representative

democracy we would have independent action by incorporated individuals composed of

different callings, occupations or conditions answerable to themselves, governed by

boards and commissions until we would become a government made up of classes

amenable to only such by-laws, rules or regulations that in their judgment would be

conducive to their best interests. These various classes so incorporated under provisions

similar to the one involved would pay into the treasury fees and disburse the same in their

own discretion and independently of legislative control. If this law can be sustained upon

the theory that it is not unconstitutional for the various reasons herein suggested, then no

reason exists why like legislation cannot be enacted for the benefit of bricklayers,

agriculturists, bankers or any other profession or calling and all members of such classes,

by legislative enactment, may be compelled to accept membership in such corporations in

order to practice their profession or follow the calling of their choice.

We are not to be understood as being out of sympathy with the high purpose sought to be

attained under the provisions of this act, but such purpose, however praiseworthy, cannot

be accomplished by an act in direct violation of the plain provisions of the constitution.”

Reiteration of Demand for Relief and Redress

Let us pause and take stock of where we are. I once again reiterate my expression for the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


recognition of and response to the lawful process I have employed, for the termination and

reversal of all proceedings against me, for the vacation of the sentencing hearing, and for my

immediate release from my false imprisonment.

Respectfully submitted.

_______________________________________________

william newel brockbrader II, Grantor/Beneficiary

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ________________________________ day

of the ______________________ month, A.D. twenty-thirteen, a true, correct and complete copy

of the OPPOSITION: RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE & MOTION TO

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


STRIKE was sent postage pre-paid by the method indicated below to the following individual at

the following address:

WENDY J OLSON USA

WASHINGTON GROUP PLAZA

800 PARK BOULEVARD SUITE 600

BOISE ID 83712-9903

________________________________________________ william newel brockbrader II

££ First Class Mail ££ Certified Mail ££ Registered Mail ££ Overnight Mail ££ E-Mail ££ Hand Delivered ££ FAX ££ Other __________________

______________________

Government Of The UnitedStates Select Tag

D-U-N-S® Number: 16-190-6193Company Name: Government Of The United

StatesAlso Known As: U S Government

Mail Address: The U S CapitolWashington, DC, USA20515-0001View Map

County: District Of ColumbiaMSA: Washington-Arlington-

Alexandria

Country PhoneCode: 1

Phone: 202-224-3121Web Address: www.firstgov.gov

Location Type: HeadquartersSubsidiary Status: Non SubsidiaryPlant/Facility Size: 1,600 Sq FtOwns/Rents: OwnsForeign Trade: Import/ExportYear Established: 1787Ownership: PublicAccountant: David M Walker Comptroller

GePrescreen Score: Low Risk

Corporate Family Tree for this Company

Employee Count:(All Sites)

2,717,080

Employment:(Individual Site)

Current Year: 3

1 of 2 3/26/13 7:15 AM

Executives: Barack H Obama - PresidentMr Joseph R Biden - Vice President

Add Decision Maker

ExecutiveBiographies:

Barack H Obama YEAR OF BIRTH: 1961 GRADUATED FROM COLUMBIAUNIVERSITY AND HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. 1992-2004 TAUGHTCONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, AND PRACTICED AS A CIVIL RIGHTSATTORNEY IN CHICAGO BEFORE SERVING THREE TERMS IN THEILLINOIS SENATE FROM 1997 TO 2004. UNITED STATES SENATOR FROMILLINOIS FROM JANUARY 3, 2005 UNTIL HIS RESIGNATION ONNOVEMBER 16, 2008, FOLLOWING HIS ELECTION TO THE PRESIDENCY.HE WAS ELECTED 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON NOV 4,2008 AND SWORN IN ON JAN 20, 2009.

Mr Joseph R Biden YEAR OF BIRTH: 1942 GRADUATED IN 1965 FROM THEUNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE IN NEWARK WITH A BACHELOR OF ARTS.RECEIVED HIS JURIS DOCTOR FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY COLLEGEOF LAW IN 1968. ADMITTED TO THE DELAWARE BAR IN 1969. BECAMEAN ATTORNEY IN 1969, AND WAS ELECTED TO A COUNTY COUNCIL IN1970. BIDEN WAS FIRST ELECTED TO THE SENATE IN 1972 AND BECAMETHE SIXTH-YOUNGEST SENATOR IN U.S. HISTORY. HE WASRE-ELECTED TO THE SENATE IN 1978, 1984, 1990, 1996, 2002, AND 2008,AND WAS THE FOURTH MOST SENIOR SENATOR AT THE TIME OF HISRESIGNATION. HE RESIGNED ON JANUARY 15, 2009, FOLLOWING HISELECTION TO THE VICE PRESIDENCY AND WAS SWORN IN ONJANUARY 20. 2009.

SIC Code(s): 91990401 - General government, Federal government (Primary)

Line of Business: United States Federal Government

NAICS Code(s): 921190 - Other General Government Support (Primary)

Notes:Add Note

The Prescreen Score herein is furnished in confidence for your exclusive use for legitimate businesspurposes and shall not be reproduced. Neither Harris InfoSource, D&B, nor their sources or distributors,warrant such information nor shall they be liable for your use or reliance upon it.

© Dun & Bradstreet. All rights reserved.

Company Profile

2 of 2 3/26/13 7:15 AM

bill brockbader - opposition & response

Documents