Well does it work or is there no law and equity??? One page you can focus long enough.
Dec 24, 2018 20:51:58 #
This communique was sent and the green card is back. Now we see if I can move this court to do the job demanded. The document was filed into the correct court. So SCOTUS says. What the de facto does with it is there issue. I am the beneficiary of the Article III Court exactly as required. It is their responsibility.
To Angela D. Caesar clerk United States District and Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia at 333 Constitution Ave. NW Washington DC [20001]
From Ron Vrooman
Hello Angela,
A Deputy Clerk returned our paper filed into the one supreme Court with claimed original jurisdiction Article III. The letter was addressed with a green card. Your staff signed received on Nov, 26. It was not addressed to your court. Your court is not an Article III court. Yet, your staff opened it and did not forward it. Then they returned a document filed into a different court after receiving and voiding our document by stamps.
There are several due process violations involved in your staff’s actions. I will add your staff’s violations to the list and include you as a defendant. Incontrovertible evidence by your court. Your court enclosed a form that attempted to extort money, to file into your court, a wrong court and file on demand is how it works for people.
I have found your court lacking in the past and it is in violation of due process now.
I withhold honor, as that is earned not bestowed. I am not a member of the BAR nor am I a US citizen. I find the actions of your court contemptuous of The United States of America’s Constitution circa 1859 and Oregon’s Constitution circa 1859. And our unalienable Constitutionally guaranteed responsibilities of your court...
Our paper was Notice and Demand and your court failed miserably.
Due process violations:1) opened registered, return receipt requested, green card mail not addressed to your court; 2) did not forward properly addressed filing into one supreme Court with claimed original jurisdiction; 3) failure to provide notice to the proper court as lawfully directed; 4) our document was filed on demand as is proper for people accessing the one supreme court of Article III, you court attempted to extort a fee for justice; 5) mutilating a filed document.
This communiqué is not intended to mislead, defraud, deceive or threaten in any way and is submitted in “good faith and with clean hands.” I do lawful not legal and this is my best effort.
I close with Love, peace, harmony and a prayer. A US Marshal has determined my prayer is not a threat. He then re neged on his word, which is only good one time. "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
On Oregon within The United States of America unincorporated
Jurat
Today, I, a Public Notary, was visited by the living __________ known as, ________________________________________and he/she affirmed the foregoing Living Testimony in the Form of an Affidavit before me and for the purposes he/she has described; in Witness whereof I set my hand and seal this ___ day of November, 2018: _____________________________________________Notary; my commission expires: ___________________:
To Angela D. Caesar clerk United States District and Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia at 333 Constitution Ave. NW Washington DC [20001]
From Ron Vrooman
Hello Angela,
A Deputy Clerk returned our paper filed into the one supreme Court with claimed original jurisdiction Article III. The letter was addressed with a green card. Your staff signed received on Nov, 26. It was not addressed to your court. Your court is not an Article III court. Yet, your staff opened it and did not forward it. Then they returned a document filed into a different court after receiving and voiding our document by stamps.
There are several due process violations involved in your staff’s actions. I will add your staff’s violations to the list and include you as a defendant. Incontrovertible evidence by your court. Your court enclosed a form that attempted to extort money, to file into your court, a wrong court and file on demand is how it works for people.
I have found your court lacking in the past and it is in violation of due process now.
I withhold honor, as that is earned not bestowed. I am not a member of the BAR nor am I a US citizen. I find the actions of your court contemptuous of The United States of America’s Constitution circa 1859 and Oregon’s Constitution circa 1859. And our unalienable Constitutionally guaranteed responsibilities of your court...
Our paper was Notice and Demand and your court failed miserably.
Due process violations:1) opened registered, return receipt requested, green card mail not addressed to your court; 2) did not forward properly addressed filing into one supreme Court with claimed original jurisdiction; 3) failure to provide notice to the proper court as lawfully directed; 4) our document was filed on demand as is proper for people accessing the one supreme court of Article III, you court attempted to extort a fee for justice; 5) mutilating a filed document.
This communiqué is not intended to mislead, defraud, deceive or threaten in any way and is submitted in “good faith and with clean hands.” I do lawful not legal and this is my best effort.
I close with Love, peace, harmony and a prayer. A US Marshal has determined my prayer is not a threat. He then re neged on his word, which is only good one time. "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
On Oregon within The United States of America unincorporated
Jurat
Today, I, a Public Notary, was visited by the living __________ known as, ________________________________________and he/she affirmed the foregoing Living Testimony in the Form of an Affidavit before me and for the purposes he/she has described; in Witness whereof I set my hand and seal this ___ day of November, 2018: _____________________________________________Notary; my commission expires: ___________________:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.