miscarrage of justice - scanned retina · 2018. 6. 13. · dick marple adventures in criminal...

www-scannedretina.com Dick Marple adventures in criminal impersonation - Make believe - simulated

All rights, reserved without recourse. - 1 of 25 - [email protected] - 714-964-4056

Miscarrage of Justice

On Jun 12, 2018, at 1:28 PM, Dick Marple <[email protected]> wrote:

Scroll down for David's reply

From: Dick Marple <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 10:57 PM

To: David Tulis

Subject: Re: FIJA Link to our interview

David...

The attachment is my first effort which was Tabled" .

This has many stare decisis supporting the Right to Travel.

You may find my four video's of interest after I was arrested, twice,

for Driving w/o a license and found NOT Guilty in the Kangaroo court

but then she finds me guilty of "driving after suspension" ?

You tell me how I can be guilty of such a charge when a license did not exist.

Keep up the good work and stay in touch.

New Folder-1

Dick Marple

mailto:[email protected]



From: David Tulis <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 9:35 PM

To: Dick Marple

Subject: FIJA Link to our interview

Dear Dick, you are having fun in making the case for liberty.

Thank you for the terrific interview, putting the driving-travel issue into context.

Here is the link. Original file incorporated into an expanded document.

NOTHING COUNTS LAWFULLY—WITHOUT YOUR FREE-WILL CONSENT!

NoogaRadio 92.7 FM

www.facebook.com

mailto:[email protected]

https://scannedretina.com/2018/06/12/nothing-counts-lawfully-without-your-free-will-consent/

https://www.facebook.com/noogaradio/videos/1729199027147286/

http://www.facebook.com/



The right to travel in Tennessee. Dick Marple tells about reform efforts in New

Hampshire, cites power of corporations in running commercial government, deleting

constitutionally guaranteed rights of...

David

Facebook Link:

https://www.facebook.com/noogaradio/videos/1729199027147286/



--

David Tulis

Noogaradio 92.7 FM 95.3 HD4

Your CBS Radio affiliate

& Nooganomics.com

(423) 316-2680 c

NOTHING COUNTS LAWFULLY—WITHOUT YOUR FREE-

WILL CONSENT

NOTHING COUNTS LAWFULLY—WITHOUT YOUR FREE-WILL CONSENT!

05-08-17-one of the people: A suggestion to hold a05-08-17-one of the people: A suggestion to hold a national referendum is proposed.

In Response to Vrooman – National ReferendumIn Response to Vrooman – National Referendum

Untitled

http://nooganomics.com/

https://scannedretina.com/2018/06/12/nothing-counts-lawfully-without-your-free-will-consent/

https://scannedretina.com/2017/05/08/05-08-17-one-of-the-people-a-suggestion-to-hold-a-national-referendum-is-proposed/

https://scannedretina.com/2018/05/02/in-response-to-vrooman-national-referendum/



HB 598-FN-L Wednesday February 1, 2017, TRANSPORTATIONHB 598-FN-L Wednesday February 1, 2017, TRANSPORTATION, Room 203, L.O.B.

2:30 P.M.The following four pages of Stare Decisis, all support and confirm the courts

determination of the fact that the AUTOMOBILE is defined and classified by RSA 382-A:9-109 as “consumer goods”, not used for commercial purposes or to make a gain or profit by using the public ways (See 108 N.H. 386 attached), further, the MOTOR VEHICLE is defined



and classified as a self-propelled conveyance that uses the public way for profit and/or gain and such commercial use falls within the jurisdiction of the state to regulates and tax such use. It is the distinction in the classification difference between the AUTOMOBILE and the MOTOR VEHICLE that HB 598-FN-L is bringing forth, since there is a duty for the state to disclose these facts to the public before inviting them to enter into a contract of compelled performance and thus, forfeit their RIGHT to TRAVEL for a taxable PRIVILEDGE. The court has expressed; “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights”, Sherer v. Cullen; 481 F.2d 946 (1973) Submitted pursuant to the peoples “RIGHT to KNOW” by Prime Sponsor, Representative Richard Marple, Merrimack #24

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways



with other vehicles in common use.”Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile

has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is



different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven

vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”

Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”



Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –

(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,

Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S. Ct. 128, 45 L. Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.

Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusa 43 Kan 671, 23 P 1075, 8 LRA 772 l to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.” Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”

Swift v City of Topeka 43 Kan 671, 23 P 1075, 8 LRA 772,Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile on Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary,4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.

Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.



Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;

Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’

U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –\EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –(Interstate commerce re: bringing a pauper into the state)

TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –

GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –

SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look all citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased or typos may exist. Kindly share as we are admonished; “Our people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” Hosea 4:6

108 N.H. 386 (1967)NATIONAL SHAWMUT BANK

v.VICTOR L. JONES.

No. 5644.Supreme Court of New Hampshire.Argued November 7, 1967.Decided December 29, 1967.*387 Perkins, Holland & Donovan and William Beckett (Mr. Beckett orally), for the

plaintiff.*388 William W. Treat and Robert G. Tetler (Mr. Tetler orally), for the defendant.GRIMES, J.Since Wever purchased for personal, family or household purposes, the Dart is

classified as consumer goods. RSA 382-A:9-109. The plaintiff's security interest was perfected by filing the financing statement with the town clerk of Hampton where Wever resided (RSA 382-A:9-401 (1) (a), and continues when the collateral is sold without its consent as was the case here unless Article 9 provides otherwise. RSA 382-A:9-306 (2). In the case of buyers of goods, Article 9-307 (1) does provide otherwise in certain instances, as follows:

"A buyer in ordinary course of business (subsection (9) of Section 1-201) other than a person buying farm products from a person engaged in farming operations takes free of a security interest created by his seller even though the security interest is perfected and even



though the buyer knows of its existence."Since defendant purchased in good faith without knowledge that the sale to him was in

violation of the security interest of another and bought in the ordinary course from a person in the business of selling automobiles, he was a "buyer in ordinary course of business." RSA 382-A:1-201 (9). However, Article 9-307 (1) permits him to take free only of "a security interest created by his seller." The security interest of the plaintiff was not created by Hanson-Rock, Inc., the defendant's seller, but by Wentworth Motor Co., Inc. Defendant, therefore, does not take free of the plaintiff's security interest under this section. Neither does he take free of the security interest by reason of the provisions of Article 9-307 (2) relating to consumer goods even if he purchased for his own personal, family or household purposes (a fact not agreed upon) because "prior to the purchase, the secured party. . . filed a financing statement. . . ." These are the only two provisions of Article 9 under which a buyer of goods can claim to take free of a security interest where a sale, exchange or other disposition of the collateral was without the consent of the secured party. The defendant does not benefit from either one. Article 9-306 (2) gives the court no leeway to create any other exceptions to its dictates and no custom, usage or agreement has been brought to our attention which would permit us to do so. RSA 382-A:1-102 (2). See Lincoln Bank & Trust Co. v. Queenan, 344 S.W.2d 383 (Ky. 1961).

*389 Defendant contends that RSA 382-A:2-403 (1) provides an escape from plaintiff's security interest when it provides ". . . a person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value . . . ."

The contention has two answers. Article 9-306 (2) provides for the continuance of the security interest "except when this Article otherwise provides" thereby limiting any exceptions to those contained in Article 9; and Article 2-403 (4) itself provides that the rights of "lien creditors are governed by the Articles on Secured Transactions (Article 9) . . . ." See also, Article 2-402 which provides "(3) Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to impair the rights of creditors of the seller (a) under the provisions of the Article on Secured Transactions (Article 9) . . . ." It is clear, therefore, that a security interest in the case of a sale without consent was to be impaired only as provided in Article 9 and is unaffected by Article 2-402.

Our answer to question 1 is in the affirmative and to question 2 is in the negative.Remanded.All concurred.

Your Right to Travel Freely – State V MarpleYour Right to Travel Freely – State V MarplePosted onMay 7, 2017

By Judge Anna Von ReitzI don’t usually do this, but today, I am passing on the fruit of someone else’s hard work—

at his request. Foryears now, New Hampshire Representative Marple has been leading the fight to preserve basic freedomsguaranteed to the people of his state for generations— the right to travel freely, the right to keep and bear arms—- all those basic rights that we have taken too



much for granted. He is currently doing battle in the court system, as he has done battle in the chambers of the state legislature. It is a fight we allneed to be aware of andin whatever ways we can— need to support.

.When more elected members of the Territorial and Municipal Governments stand up and

stop being led aroundby the nose–when they clearly realize as Representative Marple has, what is truly at stake— the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and peaceful resolution of the current situation expands exponentially. These links will bring you up to date fast. I am also in receipt of a copy of the most recent pleadings which I am attaching (see below) as they contain an absolute gold mine of information and support for those working on right to travel and similar basic rights issues.

Please share these links regarding NH Rep Marple’s court appearance with anyone concerned.

1_ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQROaeLCStU2_ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crP4b11BFlo3_ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTg0k5Z931s4_ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTg0k5Z931s

Most recent pleadings: Here in Word document http://annavonreitz.com/righttotravel.doc

This is one of the two now in the Article III district court mandated by FRCP 55. Please share with those

interested....Dick.Concord Court NH CIRCUIT COURT – Reference: State v. A MARPLE Case Number

429-2014CR-00153 AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH – IN COMMERCEU.S. v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, (7th Cir. 1981) “Indeed, no more than that is necessary to make

the prima facie case.”Id at 536.Addressed to the below named Libellees in their official and individual personal

capacities as Trustees of the people, to whom a Fiduciary relationship is contracted by OATH and for whom they must promptly act.

Libellees listed in this document admit to the truth and guilt of having been NOTICED that Affiant had formally accepted Libellees Oaths of Office and Constitutions as by-laws, as offers to contract, creating said binding contract, under Oath, to provide protection of Constitutional Secured Rights on behalf of Affiants Hon. M. Kristin Spath, Magistrate

Theresa A. McCafferty, Clerk of Court6th Circuit – District Division – Concord 32 Clinton Street Concord, NH 03301Now comes the Affiant, A. Richard: Marple, Sui Juris, an Article 30 Part II “Inhabitant“

who is a Life Member of the VFW and is in his 86th year and who has firsthand knowledge of all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTg0k5Z931s



of the facts enumerated within this Affidavit. Affiant places forth his Commercial Liability and makes his common law claim for damages, compounding now, in excess of one million silver dollars for the injuries that he has suffered over the past three years as a result of corporate public servant employees maintaining silence to written Affidavits and other communication. The courts have found such SILENCE to be FRAUD, when there is a duty to speak, and be accountable, as required by Article Eight of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights. Other unlawful acts perpetrated by corporate employees acting under “color of law” are all enumerated in the ignored Affidavits now on file at the Secretary of State office. Affiant makes demand for prosecution and enforcement of law upon all the guilty public servants named and un named co-conspirators in this Affidavit and those Affidavits filed with the Secretary of State and in the exhibits attached. It is a FACT that failure to do so will be an “Obstruction of Justice”. The following stare decisis apply; Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21 : “US Supreme Court held that state officials acting by ”color of law” may be held personally liable for the injuries or torts they cause and that official or sovereign immunity may not be asserted.”, Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 US 232 (1974), 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974),

“When a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or

representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The Statehas no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.”; Warnock v Pecos County, Texas, 116 F. 3d 776 – No.96-50869 Summary Calendar. July 3, 1997. It is stipulated that all exhibits attached are to be understood as being incorporated herein as if written verbatim within this affidavit.

INTRODUCTIONThis Affidavit is filed pursuant 18 USC 4 and by the authority of Article 14, New

Hampshire Bill of Rights,Article 32 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights is the authority for the instructions and

Information demanded by this Affiant which is in the nature of Claim, 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985(3) , 42 USC 1988 (a) (b). and nature of Quo Warranto; Ames v. Kansas, 111 U.S. 449; Libellees are encouraged to study this AFFIDAVIT thoroughly and carefully before making any counter Affidavit This is a lawful NOTICE. It informs you. It means what it says, and says what it means. NOTICE , vicarious liability, a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, imposes liability on one person for a tortious act committed by another for which all libellees are at risk. A number of contexts expressed in this instrument in which joint and several liabilities arise and SILENCE to such is FRAUD.

This Affidavit is an offer and agreement with instructions for the libellees to perform their duty, obey their

Oaths of Office and enforce the laws of this state. The wrong doers must be prosecuted. Specifically, corporate employees named in all the Affidavits of Truth on file at the Secretary of State office. The following FACTS are itemized point for point. In the pure Maxims of Laws of Commerce, the eternal and unchanging principles are;

1-A WORKMAN IS WORTHY OF HIS HIRE. Exodus 20:15; Lev. 19:13; Mat. 10:10; Luke 10

′′7; II Tim. 2:6. Legal maxim: “It is against equity for freemen not to have the free



disposal of their own property.”2.-ALL ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. “Equality before the law” Exodus 21:23-25;

Lev. 24: 17-21; Deut. 1;17,19:21; Mat. 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25. “No one is above The Law”.

3- IN COMMERCE TRUTH IS SOVEREIGN. (Exodus 20:16; Ps. 117:2; John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8 ). Truth Rules, Your Word is your Bond.

4- TRUTH IS EXPRESSED BY FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT. (Lev. 5:4- 5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev. 19:11-13: Num. 30:2; Mat. 5:33; James 5: 12)

5- AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS TRUTH IN COMMERCE. (12 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15;) Affidavit is the highest form of truth. Legal Maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”

6- AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE. (Heb. 6:16 17 Nihil Dicit

7- IN COMMERCE FOR ANY MATTER TO BE RESOLVED MUST BE EXPRESSED. (Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:6; Eph.

6:19-21). Legal Maxim: “He who fails to assert his rights has none.)8- HE WHO LEAVES THE BATTLEFIELD FIRST LOSES BY DEFAULT. Mat. 10:22;

Legal Maxim: “He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it”.9- SACRIFICE IS THE MEASURE OF CREDIBILITY (NO WILLINGNESS TO

SACRIFICE = NO LIABILITY,RESPONSIBILITY, AUTHORITY OR MEASURE OF CONVICTION). (Acts 7, life/death of Stephen), Legal Maxim: “He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit” .which were against him/her. Such a person is said to purge himself/herself when s/he removes the suspicions which were against him/her. For example, if a person faces contempt for not attending court as a witness, s/he

may purge himself/herself of the contempt by swearing to a fact which is an ample excuse.” A purgatory oath allows defendants to obtain an acquittal by swearing to their own innocence. [United States v. Gecas, 120 F.3d 1419, 1438 (11th Cir. Fla. 1997), This instrument removes this Affiant from the jurisdiction of all municipal corporate states and all statutory schemes of “presumed jurisdiction” enacted for the commercial enterprises operated by the municipal corporate states for profit, Such action being contrary and repugnant to the supreme organic law as well as Article 8, and 14 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights. Affiant states his firsthand knowledge of the facts herein contained and hereby deposes this sworn affidavit as a prima facie case pursuant to the District Court of Pennsylvania, 395 F. .Supp. 1107, etal. Judicial NOTICE is given to the proceedings enumerated in Article 6 and 4, Section 1 and 2, constitution for the united States of America. General Motors Corporation v. Blevins, 144 F. Supp. 381 (D.Colo.1956). The Oath Purgatory executed is currently upon the record in this matter, by the authority of and pursuant to 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, entitled “Rights of an American Citizen in foreign States”. The Right of Expatriation, “Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, that any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision, of any officers of government which denies., restricts , impairs or questions the rights of expatriation , is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government”.“This statute is clear in the prohibition expressed as is the Estoppel by Oath. That is the form of judicial estoppels within the class of estoppels arising from sworn statements made in the course of judicial proceedings generally in the form



of litigation. New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001 It is the bar of a party to deny in subsequent litigation that which he has previously stated on oath in a former litigation, in a pleading, deposition, or oral testimony.” See all Affidavits on file with Secretary of State.

Further Authority to exit “corporate jurisdiction” is enumerated in Title 8, Section 1481(A)(2) which expresses.” taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or...” Thus this Affiant has established his political and civil status of being a Freeborn American Sovereign, using the Remedy and Recourse provided by Statutes. See Colten v. Kentucky (1972) 407 U.S. 104, 122, 92 S. Ct. 1953 states; “The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents.” Julliard v Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, (1884), states, “There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: all else is withheld.” Perry v United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935), states “The Congress cannot revoke the Sovereign power of the people to override itself as thus declared.” McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405, states “In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution. “Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356 @370 “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people,

by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.” Further, the case of CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C 338, 2 SE 70, is specific regarding “Consent”; “every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” The 6th Circuit court Concord does not have standing to determine Affiants political or civil status. “Freedom from dictation, constraint, or control in matters affecting the conscience, ...not inconsistent with the peace and good order of society and the general welfare See Frazee’s Case, 63 Mich,396, 30 N.W. 72, 6 Am .St. Rep. 310; State v. White, 64 N.H. 48, 5 A. 828. Affiant is a sojourner in the Republic of New Hampshire, a Part II, Article 30 “Inhabitant”. See, Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 @ 74 reads; “The individual [sovereign] may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights”. Affiant relies upon all Courts stare decisis, as defined in Buchanan v. Litchfield, 102 U.S. 279 and the following citations, including all those shown in all recorded and filed un-rebutted Affidavits and Nihil Dicit judgments. The doctrine of estoppels has tolled. Estoppels by silence arise when a party is under a duty to speak but fails to do so. Estoppels by silence are also known as estoppels by standing or estoppels by inaction. Estoppel by silence arises from an obligation. Article 8 N.H. Hampshire Bill of Rights



requires “accountability” by all who have subscribed to an OATH. The doctrine of estoppels by silence also is an intention to mislead or at least a willingness that others should be deceived. “To constitute an estoppel by silence, there must not only be an opportunity, but an obligation to speak, and the purchase must have been in reliance upon the conduct of the party sought to be estopped”. Wiser v. Lawler, 189 U.S. 260 (U.S. 1903) All Affidavits relative to the action alleged are on file with the Secretary of State and are to be incorporated herein, word for word, as if recited within these four corners . Due diligence by the court agents and employees, requires all un-rebutted Affidavits to be placed within the record as evidence in establishing the fact that it is the Executive branch, and NOT the court that is making the accusations, hence it is the Executive branch of government that has the burden of showing how it can claim personal jurisdiction without violating the 13th amendment. This is true because the political status of one can only be determined by the voluntary act of each sovereign, based on their own individual choice. The prohibition for involuntary servitude is set forth and clearly established in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The evidence now on record shows that the un-rebutted Affidavits of FACTS expressed, are preeminent in that they establish the fact that the 6th Circuit

Concord cannot act on an action that has been predetermined by Nihil Dicit judgments on record at the

Secretary of State, hence, No Personal or subject matter Jurisdiction can be asserted.The matters alleged RSA 263:12 and RSA 263:64, have previously been determined by

the SILENCE of libellees; estoppel has tolled, and judgment rendered by such silence. All Affidavits are filed with the corporate principals Secretary of State; FAULT (See RSA 382-A: 1-201(b)(17) . “Notice to Principle is Notice to Agent; Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle”. Secretary of State is the “principle” for the corporate executive branch that must produce evidence that it has obtained personal and subject matter jurisdiction over this Affiant. Further, it is a fact that the Affiant has been a victim of FRAUD (See Nudd v. Burrows, 91 US 416,”Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. It affects fatally even the most solemn judgments and decrees”. And Bankrupt Act, sect. 35; 1 Story’s Eq., sect. 252; Freeman on Judgments, sect. 486. also see United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61. It is a FACTY that this Affiant, complied with 18 USC 4, and placed upon the record on July 18, 2016, the conspiracy and felony committed by the Magistrate of the Candia Court and delivered copy of documentary evidence, now on file, of his violation of 18 USC 2071 It is a fact that the Affiant is NOT the accused corporate fiction, the artificial person, the “ens legis”, shown upon the corporate presentments in all capital letters, pursuant to the Government Style Manual. The fiction created by the corporation is NOT the man, this Affiant. All corporate Presentments have shown the accused as A. MARPLE which is semantic deceit. Affiant has never consented to any waiver of rights or given power of attorney to anyone. It is a fact that the Affiant is not a “Person” as defined in RSA 21:9 and is therefore excluded from the statutes cited in Case 429-2014CR-00153. It is a MAXIM of LAW that statutory construction follow the principle ...” expressio unius est exclusio alterius: the express mention of one or more things of a particular class may be regarded as impliedly excluding all others.” Further, it is not alleged that the Affiant was Involved in a “Commercial use of the highways”. Accordingly the following stare decisis will prevail and is to be scrupulously followed by all public servants who are employed, by the corporation providing governmental services and who have subscribed to the required “OATH of OFFICE” and understand the penalty of RSA 92:2. and risk of 18 USC 241 & 242. Instructions



given are by authority and pursuant to Article 32 N. H. Bill of Rights.“All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at-

Large... It is wellestablished that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent

acting in theGovernment’s behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority,” Bollow v. Federal

Reserve Bank ofSan Francisco, 650 F.2d. 1093 (9th Cir. 1981] ” ‘in common usage, the term ‘person’

does not include the sovereign people, and statutes employing the (word person) are normally construed to exclude the sovereign people.’ Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L. Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)” Will v. Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S. Ct. 2304 b) “The sovereign people are not a person in a legal sense”. In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S .v. Fox, 94

U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192. “Under basic rules of construction, statutory laws enacted by legislative bodies cannot impair rights given under a constitution. 194 B.R. at 925. ” In re Young, 235 B.R. 666 (Bankr .M.D.Fla., 1999) “A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of that provision of the Constitution, which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured in other States by this provision such as grants of corporate existence and powers. States may exclude a foreign corporation entirely or they may exact such security for the performance of its contracts with their citizens as, in their judgment, will best promote the public interest.” [Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall (U.S.) 168; 19 L. Ed 357 (1868) U.S. Supreme Court, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793) “at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects.... and have none to govern but themselves”

U.S. Supreme Court, Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 7 How. 1 1 (1849) “No one, we believe, has ever doubted the proposition that, according to the institutions of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure.”.U.S. Supreme Court, Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979) ” In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.” MERRITT v. HUNTER, United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit, 170 F.2d 739, November 5, 1948.“It is only when failure to observe this safeguard amounts to denial of due process, that the court is deprived of jurisdiction.” Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437 (1992)”Whenever it appears ... that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action “Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411 (1969 ) “In usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”

United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 312 U. S. 604 (1941); accord, United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 330 U. S. 275 (1947” Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) Security Trust Co. v. Black River National Bank, 187 U.S. 211 (2002; “The act of 1875, in placing upon the trial court the duty of enforcing the statutory limitations as to jurisdiction by dismissing or remanding the cause at any time when the lack of jurisdiction appears,



applies to both actions at law and suits in equity.” Mc Nutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936) Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization Et. Al., 307 U.S. 496 (59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939) United States v.

New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 98 S.Ct. 36454 L.Ed. 2d 376 (1977) Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization Et. Al., 441 U.S. 600, 99 S.Ct. 1905, 60 L.Ed. 2d 508 (1979) Cannon v. University Chicago Et. Al., 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1979) Patsy v. Board Regents State Florida, 457 U.S. 496, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982) Merrill Lynch v. Curran Et Al., 456 U.S. 353, 102 S.Ct. 1825, 72 L.Ed.2d 182, 50 U.S.L.W. 4457 (1982) Insurance Corporation Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492, 50 U.S.L.W. 4553 (1982) Matt T. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company America, 128 L.Ed.2d 391, 62 U.S.L.W. 4313 (1994) Elliot v. Piersol, 26 US 328 @ Page 340 “But if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal, in opposition to them. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people.*946 The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.” City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944(1922) “Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US , 505 F2d 1026. “There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US , 474 F2d 215. “The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert , 469 F2d 416. “Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New York , 37 F Supp 150. “A universal principle as old as the law is that proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” Norwood v. Renfield , 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini , 49 P. 732. “Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio” In Re Application of Wyatt , 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt , 118 P2d 846. “Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon , 187 P 27. “A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles , 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S. Ct. 1409. “A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an



excess of jurisdiction.” Wuest v. Wuest , 127 P2d 934, 937. “Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” Merritt v. Hunter , C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739. “the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest.” Monroe v. Pape , DC, Ill. 1963 , 221 F. Supp 685. “An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject

matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void.” Doolan v. Carr , 125 US 618; City v Pearson , 181 Cal. 640. “Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract.” Schomig v. Kaiser , 189 Cal 596. “When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially”. Thompson v. Smith , 154 SE 583. “A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational.” ASIS v. US , 568 F2d 284. “Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities.” Burns v. Sup. Ct. , SF, 140 Cal. 1. “The elementary doctrine that the constitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute.” Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 1051.. Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.”The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).”Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910. “Defense of lack of

jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985) “Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389. ” Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732. “Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void, ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846. “Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v.



Dillon, 187 P 27;. “Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739. “The right to travel on the public highways is a constitutional right.” Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787. “The right to travel is part of the liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process law under the 5th Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta.” Kent vs. Dules, 357 US 116 (1958). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” – Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co.184 US 540 “The claim & exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller vs. U.S., F486, 489 Pennsylvania v. Coxe, 4 U.S. 170, 192, “Stare decisis , is a maxim to be held forever sacred, on questions of property.”; Cook v. Moffat, 46 U.S. 295, 309, “So far ... as the present case is concerned, the court do not think it necessary or prudent to depart from the safe maxim of stare decisis .” Bienville Water Supply Co. v. City of Mobile, 186 U.S. 212, 217,“We may, on the principle of stare decisis , rightfully examine and consider the decision in the former case as affecting the consideration of this.”.

This affidavit complies with all known rules of evidence Rule 301 FRCP & Rule 36 FRCP. It is understood to be accurate with known FACTS and stare decisis as unconditionally proved. There is an express stipulation that silence and failure to rebut, point for point, for all issues and stare decisis expressed herein within 15 days from the date “stamped received” by the Secretary of State Office for recording; will be understood as a confession and acceptance, as well as tacit acquiescence of all FACTS herein enumerated. Such Silence will, by ignoring this Affidavit, be understood as a confession of the truths enumerated and acceptance of all facts enumerated herein, including nonfeasance. The doctrine of estoppels will automatically toll and prevail, pursuant to; Carmen v. Bowen, 64 A.932 (1906) “Government officers and agents are required to affirmatively prove whatever authority they claim. In the absence of proof, they may be held personally accountable for loss, injury and damages”. Ryder v United States, 115 S. Ct. 2031, 132 L.Ed.2d 136, 515 U.S. 177, “Failure to contest an assertion ... is considered evidence of acquiescence”. US Supreme Court Mitchell v. United States – No. 97-7541 (Dec. 9, 1998) ;“For purposes of this subdivision an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response is to be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond ” 85 Cunningham v. Hamilton County No. 98-727, 527 U.S. 198 All rights Reserved. None waived. “Without Prejudice UCC 1-103, UCC 1-308.

A.Richard: Marple, Sui Juris11 Dartmouth StreetHooksett, New Hampshire Republic December 1, 2016

Share this: Twitter Facebook 8 GoogleThis entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.



Untitled

Untitled



Untitled

miscarrage of justice - scanned retina · 2018. 6. 13. · dick marple adventures in criminal...

Documents