erique frst ltr to fowlkes feb 8

8/7/2019 Erique Frst ltr to Fowlkes Feb 8

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/erique-frst-ltr-to-fowlkes-feb-8 1/4



($2,000.00) dollar fine. Is that not correct?

9) In that Notice And Demand To Dismiss Case # 10 07107, STATE OF TENNESSEE V. ERIQUE RICHARDSON, it ispresumed Court was informed of frivolous claims initiated and pursued by former , Esquire William Lee Gibbons, et al. Is thatnot correct?

10) It is presumed that you know or should have known that all public officials, Officers of governmental bodies politic, in allbranches: Executive, Legislative, or Judicial, being of Oath of Office, bonded to fidelity, are under ministerial duty, Rock Island County v US ex rel. State Bank, 4 Wall 435, US v. Thomas, 15 Wall 337, US v Lee, 106 US 196, 1 S Ct 240,fiduciary/trustees, US v Carter, 217 US 286, 30 S. Ct 515

11) Please read U.S. Senate Report 94-204, which deals with Federal judicial intervention, due to corrupt State Courts andviolations of the Ku Kluk Klan Act. It is presumed that Public Law 94-381 is one valid Jurisdiction and course of Action;however, UCC is another. Therefore, this clause (11) would serve as Notice to any would be co-conspirators, who violate theConstitution of the United States. Is that not correct?

. “The implication of a trust is the implication of every duty proper toa trust.

12) It is presumed that you, John Fowlkes, individually and in your official capacity as Public Official in and for Shelby County,State of Tennessee, and the United States, de facto, having beforehand sworn solemn and binding Constitutional Oath of Officein regard to your Office duties and obligations, required by the Constitution of Tennessee and the Constitution for the UnitedStates of America, being under OFFICIAL BOND, do re-affirm herein, by way of this voluntary REAFFIRMATION of OATHOF OFFICE, in form of private Affidavit, for benefit of Claimant so that Claimant may feel secure and knowledgeable in that,you, Grantee, Trustee, Agent, in your fiduciary capacity, will not violate unalienable Rights of Claimant, nor will you, havingsuperior knowledge of the Law, opportunity, authority, power to prevent, knowingly allow other Government Officials toviolate Claimant's Rights and Protections. Is that not correct?

13) It is presumed that your failure to respond is an admission to your participation in a conspiracy to cause deprivation which is aviolation of Federal Law. Is that not correct?

14) Pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1981-1988, it is presumed pursuant to your OATH OF OFFICE mentioned herein; you willwith diligence endeavor to stop, prevent, or correct violations of Claimant's Rights and protections. Is that not correct?

15) Whoever is a fiduciary or in conscience chargeable as a fiduciary is expected to live up to them.” Buffum v. Peter BarcelouxCo. 289 US 227, 237; 77 L.Ed.1140, 1146, cited in Bruun v. Hansen, 103 F 2d. 685 (1939), wherein it further states, “Beingfiduciaries, the ordinary rules of evidence are reversed”; must obey the law, Butz v Economou, (US) 98 S Ct 2894, Davis vPassman (1979, US) 99 S Ct 2264. “The law will protect an individual who, in the prosecution of a right does everythingwhich the law requires him to do but fails to obtain his right by the misconduct or neglect of a public officer.” Lytle vArkansas, 9 Howe 314, 13 L Ed 153, Duluth & Iron Range Co. v Roy, 173 US 587, 19 S Ct 549, 43 L Ed 820, and “It is a

maxim of the law, admitting few if any exceptions, that every duty laid upon a public officer for the benefit of a private person isenforceable by judicial process”. Butterworth v US ex rel. Hoe, 112 US 50, 5 S Ct 25, 28 L Ed 656,

16) It is presumed that your efforts with co-conspirators to bankrupt me and deny me Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness arepersonal Acts without Authority, initiated by your co-conspirators, and it is further presumed that your participation in theseActs to degrade my public image, my freedom, good name and public financial stature are Acts of criminal sabotage. Is that notcorrect?

and it is presumed that youare aware that it is criminal to conceal criminal acts, and fraud to conceal fraud, therefore it is presumed that you will refuse tobe Party to crime or concealment, thereof, which would result in actions under tort feasor to aforesaid Article I, Section 10,Clause 1, U.S. Constitution of 1787, amended 1791. Is that not correct?

17) It is presumed that you agree that “peonage and involuntary servitude”, the principle of violation of Thirteenth Amendmentprohibition of imprisonment for debt is well settled in Clyatt n US, 197 US 207 (1905), Pressy v Ferguson, 163 US 537, 542,

therefore keep in mind the term “whoever” as used in Fact of Law Title 18 USC 1581,“Whoever

18) Since the term ‘whoever’ denies immunity to even the highest office in government, barring none. It is presumed that Whoeverholds someone in peonage, or is in conspiracy, covin, confederation, collusion, combination, aids or abets in the act, in anyway, is nonetheless liable for penalty. Is that not correct?

holds or returns any personto a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage,shall be fined not more than $5,000.00 or imprisoned not more than five years. Is that not correct?

19) Notice to principle is notice to agent. Notice to agent is notice to principle, therefore it is presumed that the term ‘whoever’applies to ‘you’, having ministerial obligation to act yet fails to do so, as now referenced in , Notice And Demand To Dismiss,Notice and Declaration of Revocation Of Power of Attorney Notice and Declaration Of Fraud Notice To Cease and DesistClaim, hand delivered to Agent Kevin Key, Shelby County, Criminal Court Clerk, 201 Poplar Avenue, 4

th Floor, Memphis,Tennessee 38103. Is that not correct?



20) It is presumed by this Public Notice and Declaration, the world is now informed. Since the term ‘whoever’ denies immunity toeven the highest office in government, barring none. Whoever holds someone in peonage, or is in a conspiracy, covin,confederation, collusion, combination, aids and or abets in the act, in any way, is nonetheless liable for penalty. Is that notcorrect?

21) It is presumed that you are aware that “A ministerial officer is liable for an injury done, where his acts are clearly against law.” Tracy v Swartwout, 10 Pet. 80, 9 L Ed 354, “ or where he acts willfully, maliciously, and unjustly, in a case within hisjurisdiction.” Kendall v Stokes, 3 How 789, 11 L Ed 833, “may be liable in tort for misfeasances, which are violations of public laws or official duties.” Garland v Davis, 4 Howe 131, 11 L Ed 907, “and action will lie against him; and a verdict for nominal damages should be rendered unless special damage is alleged and proved .” Boyden v Burke, 14 How 575, 14 L Ed

548, and “When the law requires a ministerial act to be done by a public officer, and he neglects or refuses to do such act, he isliable in damages to the party injured . Mistake or honest intentions will not excuse him.” South v Maryland, 18 How 396, 15 LEd 433, Amy v Barkholder (Amy v The Supervisors) 11 Wall 136, 20 L Ed 101, “For breach of public duty an officer ispunishable by indictment .” South v Maryland, 18 How 396, 15 L Ed 433

22) It is presumed that you are aware that your having prior knowledge, authority, power, opportunity to prevent or aid inpreventing injury, damage, to Claimant,

, “The judicially fashioned doctrine of officialimmunity of judicial, legislative, or executive officers does not reach so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by anAct of Congress.” Is that not correct?

Title 42 USCS Section 1986, as applies to public officials, Officers, by the existenceof an agreement between 2 or more persons, acting in a private conspiracy, McNalley v Pulitzer Pub. Co. (1976) 532 F 2d 69,

429 US 855, 50 L Ed 2d 131, for deprivation of substantive Rights, Dickerson v City Bank & Trust (1983) 575 F Supp 872,regardless of source, Gillespie v Civiletti (1980) 629 F2d 637, 30 FR Serv 2d 407, to conspire, through said conspiracy, toimpede or hinder, or obstruct or defeat the due course of justice in a State or Territory, with the purposeful intent to deny theequal protection of the law, under color of State law or authority, or other, Griffin v Breckinridge (1971) 403 US 88, 29 L Ed

2d 338, 91 S Ct 1790, depriving Claimant of having or exercising a Right, Federal Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice Act (Title42 USCS Section 1985(2)), by invidiously, discriminatory, class based animus, Rowe v Tennessee (1977) 431 f Supp 1257,for political motivations, Grimes v Smith (1985) 776 F2d 1359, Cameron v Brock (1973) 473 F2d 608, by ostensiblygovernment actions, Gemini Enterprises v WFMY (1979) 470 F Supp 559, deprivation of due process, even by federalofficials, Williams v Wright (1976) 432 F Supp 732, Founding Church of Scientology v Director, FBI (1978) 459 F Supp

748, 98 L Ed 2d 150, 108 S Ct 199, Moriani v Hunter (1978) 462 F Supp 353, Kenyatta v Moore (1985) 623 F Supp 224,even attorneys, Stevens v Rifkin (1984) 608 F Supp 710, even District Attorneys, Rouselle v Perez (1968) 293 F Supp 298, ,places upon the perpetrators the badges of fraud, prior knowledge, superior knowledge of the law, will of intent, perjury of Oathof Office, constructive treason, bad faith, breach of fiduciary/trustee responsibility, whereupon “Being fiduciaries, the ordinaryrules of evidence are reversed,” Bruun v Hansen, (1939) 103 F 2d 685., further being advised, as in Ex Parte Young, 209 US

123 (1908)

23) It is presumed that your failure to respond to this Notice of Fault is your acquiescing and agreement to pay for damagesinflicted against my NAME and life, value, which at present, is worth twenty million U.S. Gold Eagle one ounce Coins orpayment in equal value of pre-1933 US silver Dollars. Is that not correct?

, “The attempt of a State Officer to enforce an unconstitutional statute is a proceeding without authority of and doesnot affect, the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity, and is an illegal act, and the officer is stripped of his officialcharacter and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to its

officer immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.” Is that not correct?

24) It is presumed that such judgments and liens against conspiratorial parties will be sought through the Commercial Process andall properties, accounts, stocks, bonds and wages of said Party are subject to Judgment and Liens. Is that not correct?

25) It is presumed that you will fail to respond to this request as you have disregarded past Notice and you are now found at fault,in fault, and default will enter. This is presumed to be sufficient lawful Notice. Is that not correct?

26) By Your default, failure to respond within time allowed, reply, object to, this Public Notice and Declaration, it is presumed that

you are deemed willing, knowing, approving, informed, consenting to be sued or levied by Claimant, giving rise toestoppel, 3J. Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence Section 805, p.192, Restatement 2d of Torts Section 894(1)(1979), Wilber

National Bank v US 294 US 120, 124-125 (1935), due to misconduct by Government Officials, contractors, sub-contractors,agents, assigns, Heckler v Community Health Services, 467 US 51, at 59, 60, Federal Crop Ins., supra.

27) It is presumed Mr. Fowlkes that you agree, without exception, with all aspects of this Affidavit without rebut and if youdisagree with anything in this Notice, then refute or rebut that with which you disagree, in writing, with particularity, within ten(10) days upon receipt of this Notice of Fault, and support your disagreement with fact, evidence and law based onConstitutional Law or Case Law. If you answer, then it is presumed that your answer is in whole, and your inability or refusalto respond, refute or rebut this Notice, shall be presumed to be your tacit admission and agreement with presumptions, herein.Is that not correct?

Is that not correct?

However, your failure to respond or pay this debt in full, as stipulated, is your agreement with and admission to the fact thateverything in this Notice is true, correct, legal, lawful, and your irrevocable admission attesting to this, binding without exceptionupon you, without your protest, objection, or that of those who may represent you; and shall be Stare Decisis, in any subsequen



administrative or judicial proceeding.

Acknowledged, executed, with explicit reservation of rights, and certified that this Notice of Fault to be true and correct to best oknowledge under penalty of perjury pursuant to Laws of the United States of America, 28 USC 1746(1), except as to matters statedto be on information and belief, and as to those, believes those to be true, this Twenty-third Day of Third Month, A.D.Two-thousand Eleven.

Teste meipso,Seal

Erique: Richardson sue potestis esse.

Erique; RichardsonNon-resident/ non-domesticFirst Class , U.S. Delivery

c/o 3682 Belleau StreetMemphis

Tennessee state

Certified Number 70100290000251033298

Before me, in Shelby County, Tennessee, this Twenty-third Day of the Third Month, Anno Domini, in Year of Our King, A.D.

Two Thousand Eleven, Erique: Richardson, who is known by me or did positively identify self to me, did acknowledge and

execute, and certify per 28 USC Section 1746(1) under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that

this Notice of Fault is true and correct.

______________________________________ _____________________

Notary Public My Commission Expires

Notary Stamp

erique frst ltr to fowlkes feb 8

Documents