Bombs Away! $725,781,907,128 Restitution for “We the People” of Connecticut

FROM THE DESK OF Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, American Man, Beneficiary in Equity-Executor.

COUNTERCLAIM: “FRAUD & SWINDLE”, “RAILROADING”, “RACKETEERING”, “SEIZURE”, “ENEMY”, “DOMESTIC TERRORISM”, “BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS”, “GENOCIDE” AND “TREASON” AS DEFINED BY LAW. DEMAND TRIAL BY JURY.

PREAMBLE
Connecticut’s Government is an ENEMY of the People of Connecticut and America. Money and power at any cost is what feeds this ENEMY. This Claim is to starve the ENEMY of what it desires most.

I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, demand the charges below be executed by the proper Authority of “We the People”, and demand Restitution for “We the People” of Connecticut in the amount of $725,781,907,128 (population 3,625,000 approx.).

Please Note: 1998 US Tobacco Settlement $206 Billion, Alex Jones $1.5 Billion (26 CT families).

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)

Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, (1803)

"The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law."

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. JARKESY, JR., 603 U. S. (June 27, 2024)

That is why the Constitution built “high walls and clear distinctions” to safeguard individual liberty.
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U. S. 211, 239 (1995). Ones that ensure even the least popular among us has an independent judge and a jury of his peers resolve his case under procedures designed to ensure a fair trial in a fair forum. In reaffirming all this today, the Court hardly leaves the SEC without ample powers and recourse. The agency is free to pursue all of its charges against Mr. Jarkesy. And it is free to pursue them exactly as it had always done until 2010: In a court, before a judge, and with a jury. With these observations, I am pleased to concur.

Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 143 S. Ct. 890 (2023) Nos. 21-86 and 21-1239 (April 14, 2023),

"Cases involving ... deprivations or transfers of life, liberty, or property constitute a core of cases that ... MUST be resolved by Article III courts—not executive adjudicators dressed up as courts".

United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 (1878)

“There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments”.

Justice Warren E. Burger, (1907-1995) Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1969-1986)
"... ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence, lack of training, misconduct and bad manners. Ineptness, bungling, malpractice, and bad ethics can be observed in court houses all over this country every day ... these incompetents have a seeming unawareness of the fundamental ethics of the profession. ... the harsh truth is that ... we may well be on our way to a society, overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts, and brigades of judges in numbers never before contemplated."