HOW TO SUE FOR DAMAGES AND GET A CASE DISMISSED ADMINISTRATIVELY

HOW TO SUE FOR DAMAGES AND GET A CASE DISMISSED ADMINISTRATIVELY

BOOK: The Solution An Instruction Manual for Sovereignty and Freedom
https://www.amazon.com/Solution-Instruction-Manual-Sovereignty-Freedom/dp/B089LYGZC2/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+solution+paperback+ronald+farnham+instruction+manual&qid=1592937496&s=books&sr=1-1

Thank you for helping to restore the Constitutional-Republic one county at a time. In this video we discuss how to get a case dismissed via the administrative process by using a presumptive-letter and notifying oath takers of their obligations. For help with your case contact us at our registration link here: form.jotform.com/72196346394162

Anytime living-men and living-women have a problem with government of the US CORP or some agency of government, bankers included, we first notify our opponent in writing of our grievances, complaints, charges, and claims by means of a presumptive-letter. The presumptive-letter is entirely unique that we’ve been using for 60 years. We structure the letter in lawful and legal form as to presumptive paragraphs with one in the beginning and end so there's no confusion about what we mean, our intent, objective, charges, and claims made in that Letter.

The first paragraph contains information unique in the annals of law because we're notifying our opponent that he has an obligation to respond to our claims and grievances and we say, “This is lawful-notification to you and requires your rebuttal. If you disagree with any of the charges and claims made in this letter you are required to respond in writing after you have received this but within 30 days of your receipt and if you fail to do so then you admit to and agree with all charges and claims we make in this letter fully binding upon you in any court without your protest, objection, or that of those who represent you.” - meaning that entity’s attorneys. This is unique language; words have meaning in the law. We’re saying to our opponent: ONE, if you disagree with anything then rebut it; TWO, if you don't rebut it then you admit to it; THREE, you admit to it fully binding upon you in any court; FOUR: without your protest objection or that of those who represent you. We deem the presumptive-letter an honorable and truthful way to resolve any issue before that issue goes further to any administrative-hearing, board, court, or grievance committee. In that letter we deal only in truth, fact, law, and evidence. If we cannot support a statement in truth, fact, law and evidence then we do not make that claim.

We must deal in truth from the beginning; we don't delete from or add to the truth or invent stories or make claims we can't support. We keep it exactly as it happened because we're based in true fact and evidence and dealing specifically with an unlawful, unconstitutional, or illegal-action that our opponent committed and the charges and claims we make are specific to those actions; we get into the who, what, when, where, how, and why as strictly and directly to the point as we can.

Our presumptive-letter is no more than two pages; less is better. The principle is we're based in truth, fact, law, evidence and can support our claim in that letter since we're so based. The question becomes; can our opponent who is an officer of the law and has taken an oath to the Constitution or who might be a corporate executive? Corporate-executives indirectly have an obligation to the Constitution because their corporations are creatures of the state, created by state-license to do business by the state. Therefore, indirectly they have constitutional-obligations. When an entity like that receives this type of letter based on this type of language if he is smart then he won’t respond. How can he possibly respond to and rebut claims we’ve made that are based in truth, fact, law and evidence? That's the hook; yes, he could rebut it but doesn't because they can’t truthfully-rebut what we have said and support that rebuttal with truth, fact, law, and evidence. If they respond at all they respond off-point to create a distraction because our enemy is the government of the United States of America, or Florida, or Colorado, or any government where you are; corporate-America and the bankers are the enemy: The system sees you as simply a slave, a cog in an economic slavery machine that’s been operating a long time; they’re your enemy and you must be firm about understanding that. Be advised: we don't give legal or lawful advice.

The opponent will read what we wrote and say, “I've never seen anything like this before.” The usual letter that goes to any type of public officer or corporation is quickly discarded in their wastebasket. But a letter that comes in like this is of a different ilk, type, character, position, and invokes liability within the mind of the reader so he cannot respond truthfully and rebut our charges based in truth, fact, law and evidence. If he responds at all he’ll respond with the usual distraction to take you off point immediately; you're talking apples he's going to answer kangaroos and respond in some other type of language unspecific to your point. The other type of distraction is for him to invent charges and attribute them to you as if you made them and then argue against those charges you never made. They do this all the time in every court in America including the Supreme Court of the United States of America. This is their favorite ploy; it’s law school 101 to never address the issue - distract to take the idiot off point so the idiot won't know where to go. It’s done in law school, courts, everywhere, locally, administratively; it's how they do things and how they and the system, courts, and lawyers presume you: as idiots - if you're dealing with the law or court then you're incompetent, if you hire an attorney you're incompetent; so they treat you as an incompetent.

We must be much smarter than that. When we get no response to our presumptive-letter or we get a response but it's not specific to the charge, we give them 30 days to respond. If no response comes after 30 days then we wait 10 more days. We always give a 2nd chance for anyone to make resurrection or remand and if that doesn't happen then 40 days after the time limit has expired we go to step two where we write an affidavit that contains the following three positions:

ONE - “Mister So and So, on such-and-such a date I sent you a letter notifying you of my grievances in which I made claims and charges against you. That letter specified that you were required to rebut everything in that letter with which you disagree, and it gave you fair warning as to what would happen if you did not rebut.”

TWO – “Some of the charges to which you admit pursuant to the lawful notification contained in that letter include but are not limited to the following.” if we made 15 charges against our opponent in the presumptive-letter we reiterate five in the affidavit. When we use the phrase, “including but not limited to”, that means that the charges we specify in the affidavit are not the only charges with which we're dealing. In legal parlance we never used the word including and then specify what we're including because that inclusion limits us to what we state. Therefore, we always state, “including but not limited to the following.”

THREE - because the idea is to immediately resolve the issue before it goes further to a tribunal or court system, we always give our opponents a second chance; so in position-three we say, “If you choose to disagree or if you choose to rebut anything contained in this affidavit then do so by means of your own affidavit supporting a rebuttal with truth, fact, law, and evidence with your notarized-affidavit sworn under the pains of penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America and Hawaii or Minnesota, or wherever we are.

In 60 years of doing tens of thousands of affidavits we have had no rebuttals; we go back to the central position. Why? Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Lawyers represent the top corporate executives. Why can’t they not rebut our affidavit with their own? How can anyone rebut our affidavit and support their rebuttal with truth, fact, law, and evidence when the charges we made are based in truth, fact, law, and evidence and it's impossible to rebut them? They simply do not rebut that position. Once the 30 days we give to rebut expires, we wait another 10 days. If no rebuttal comes then we record the affidavit; this is important because we build and make our case with every step in our progression so when we get to the final position our opponent has nothing and we hold all the cards and aces. We record the affidavit and sometimes the presumptive-letter but it's not necessary to record the presumptive-letter; most important is to record the affidavit on the public-record, not with the court as court hasn't commenced yet, but on the public record with your local County Clerk Recorder - some places call it a Bureau of Conveyance. Most recorders have, “miscellaneous-files.” When we record a public document with a county the clerk may say, “Where do you want to record it?” We say, “Anywhere that's convenient with you and if you have a miscellaneous file then that's fine.”

We record that document on the public record because we're invoking Federal and State Rules-of-Evidence, which are important when you go to court. Some rules we invoke federally & locally are 201, 902, and 301 by which the affidavit is considered self-authenticating because it's never been rebutted and therefore stands as truth before the court and can no longer be rebutted; the time for rebuttal is over. When we or anyone goes to court against an enemy it’s because there's a controversy between two parties, the defendant and the plaintiff. If we go to court and our affidavit is considered truth before the court and it's self-authenticating then it stands on its own and it is unrebuttable at that point; in that affidavit we have stated the position that our opponent admits to all our charges, without exception. By the opponent’s failure to rebut with his own affidavit he's accepted that premise, he's accepted the fact that he's admitting to all our claims and charges. If that's the case, then where's the controversy for the court to hear? There is none. We apply these methods to build the cage before we ever get there. We teach people to use the Constitution and speak for themselves.

When we record the affidavit, we make a copy of the face of that recording and send it to our opponent as a notification, so he realizes we're fully prepared to go to court. If we hear nothing from our opponent and we're defendants in the action, then we wait for our opponent to make the next move. It’s up to him whether he's going to pursue this further or whether he's not going to pursue this further. If we're plaintiffs in the action then we wait 30 days; if we receive no further notification from the opponent then we send a FORMAL NOTICE OF SUIT to our opponent and that's our last constitutional/administrative approach to resolve the issue. If the opponent doesn't budge at that point, then we put our complaint together, file suit and move ahead. 80% of our controversies have been resolved through the affidavit before we have to go further. When we go to court we win the other 20%. Our streamlined process provides an excellent chance to resolve controversy. When we're forced into court the controversy is a criminal- or civil-action that’s governed by Federal- & State rules of Criminal-Procedure or Federal & State-Rules of Civil-Procedure and we must know the rules if we're going to play the game. In court the game is played pursuant to their rules. We might have all the constitutional positions in the world that support us but if we don't know and abide by the rules then the court can throw out our constitutional positions.

All States rules of criminal procedures require the prosecuting-attorney to do certain things; if an arrest is made then the system is required to do certain procedures spelled out in the rules. Those arrested must be read the Miranda rights, which rarely happens and because Miranda is a major case and if one has not been read the Miranda rights and realizes that then one can move to quickly dismiss on that basis alone. Many know nothing about Miranda and don't use them. Some victims of police-racketeering tell us that during a police stop the victim said, “You didn't read me my rights.” The policy enforcer, a.k.a. police officer replied, “I don't have to read you your rights unless I’m going to interrogate you.” We asked if the cop asked them questions during the stop. The victim replied, “Yes.” We said, “Isn't that an interrogation? If a policeman makes that statement, then say you're already interrogating me and you haven't read me my rights and I’m going to nullify this whole action.” Cops seek ways to circumvent reading people Miranda-rights that must be read to you pursuant to the case Miranda versus Arizona that’s a landmark-case. Murderers have been released because police didn't apprise them of their right to remain silent before questioning them. That's why it’s such a big case; beware that police look for ways of circumventing that, don't fall for it.

Procedure also requires the one who's arrested must be brought before a magistrate within a certain period of time; that rarely happens. Again, know the rules and under what system we're operating. If we don't know the rules of that system then we don't know our rights and in America if one does not know, demand, claim, and exercise their rights then one doesn't have any. Those arrested must know the rules; Rule two of Criminal Procedure requires the prosecuting-attorney to verify the charges by means of his own oath. This rarely happens and therefore the prosecuting attorney is not following procedural-rules.

When we go to court in a Criminal Procedure the first position is Arraignment. When we exercise constitutional rights & demands the possibility of winning the case by dismissal is good and a win in the system. We know the procedures to use in arraignments and arguments and challenges that we use in agreements. We’ve been to court many times; we don't like to go to court as much as we have because the court is a racketeering operation; judges and lawyers are corrupt; your lawyer is corrupt regardless of how well you know him, he is evil & sold his integrity to the system and doesn't represent you; he may be nice and in some cases he could represent you and he could actually win a victory for you and there are some lawyers like that and they’re the exception; we’re talking about the Society of lawyers who are prostitutes of the highest order and they collude in a wicked, evil-system that is using you as money things, that's all it is. To clarify, we only tell people what we’d do if we were in their situation; everything we discuss here is things we or our people have done.

At arraignment the first thing the judge wants to do is to get us to enter a plea right away. Second, he wants us to strike a plea bargain; serve 90 days, two years, whatever it is or get us to pay money. Either way the system makes money from us; if we go to jail the system makes money off us because jails are privatized and one of the highest profit items in America. The world population is seven billion and American’s-population is 330 million. America has an incarceration program by which 27 percent of the population is in jail or prison. Most prisoners are not true criminals; some are guilty of crimes against themself by drug use but they're not criminals in the normal sense. Many accused of so-called criminal-charges are innocent; they’ve been railroaded; it's horrendous and scandalous what's happening and is the system’s way of disenfranchising the majority, removing them from productivity off the voting rolls.

At arraignment, that's the position of the judge and system - they want to nail us fast. First the judge will say to the prosecutor, “Is the state ready to proceed?” “Yes, your honor.” Then the judge will say, “Mr. Defendant, are you ready to proceed?” They usually say, “Yes.” We never say, “Yes.” We never answer questions in court; we challenge the question. But people will say, “Yes.” And then the judge will ask, “How do you plead?” And the guy will say, “Not guilty.” Or “Guilty.” When that happens with us we make a little rhyme out of it. We say, “We make no plea because this court has no jurisdiction over me.” The judge will reply, “What are you talking about? Of course I have jurisdiction.” And we reply, “This Court has no jurisdiction over me, sir.” It's never “Your-Honor”; it's always “sir”, no titles of nobility in America; “and as a matter of fact I have filed a challenge of jurisdiction with this Court.” - which we always do, that's the first order of business, we file a challenge of jurisdiction with this court and “in that challenge of jurisdiction we demand that the prosecuting attorney, whoever he is, certify on the public record that this court has proper jurisdiction.” That's a judicial, legal, and lawful impossibility because the only court that Americans are constitutionally ordained to be tried in are constitutionally dedicated article-three courts. There are no article three courts in existence in America including the Supreme Court of the United States of America; they're all fraud, corporate, and operate under Article-one legislative-courts or article-four territorial-courts. How can one have a legislative- or territorial- or corporate-court that is judicial in nature? Those are three impossibilities because those courts serve their own interests and systems; they don't serve the Constitution or the rights of the people.

In our demand we require the opponent's-attorney certify on the public-record that this is an article three court; he cannot and therefore doesn't. Then we say, “We have filed this challenge-document with the court that requires the opposing attorney to certify that this court is a proper article three court, constitutionally-ordained as such; not constitutionally-defective and prove this on the public record; he has failed to do so. Therefore, this Court has not evidenced any proof of jurisdiction by and through the prosecuting-attorney. Therefore, we move for immediate dismissal of all charges with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.” That's what we do on arraignment. We also do other things on arraignment; we can combine the other two positions. Under Federal Criminal-Procedure Rule-Two or State-Rule-three, the prosecuting-attorney is required to certify the charges as valid by his own oath. They don't do this and if they do they never produce that documentation. So, we can also move to dismiss verbally on that basis. When we move to dismiss it's best to have as many positions for that motion as possible. Jurisdiction is a valid-position when you combine the fact that the prosecuting-attorney has not certified the charges by his own oath then the charges are bogus & fraudulent and therefore the court has no authority to hear & adjudicate those charges; the attorney has no authority to even file those charges with the court.

THREE: in a Criminal-trial or -Procedure we’re entitled to face and confront our accuser and witnesses against us in all proceedings. The first proceeding is the arraignment and in nearly all arraignments your accuser is absent; the only one who appears is the prosecuting-attorney. Because we have the right to face and confront our accuser and he's not there we can move for dismissal on that sixth-amendment position.

FOUR: we usually don't need step four; the attorney cannot testify as to exactly what happened in the arraignment-charges made against us. The attorney, DA, AD, or whoever they are, wasn‘t present when the action took place therefore they cannot verify the charges, which is why they’re required, by rule, to verify the charges pursuant to oath. In all these positions we can move for dismissal. We must know our rights or the system will rake us over the coals.

Civil is essentially the same procedure as criminal with a minor difference in position and effect. If we’re defendants in a Civil-matter then someone has made charges against us in a complaint. That's the first order of business and we're required to answer that complaint, which we always do. We rebut the charges with specificity in our answer. Then we file a CHALLENGE OF JURISDICTION and a MOTION TO DISMISS. When we file anything with a court, a motion, challenge, or document, since we're challenging the court’s jurisdiction, in every document we state that we are filing this document by “special-appearance” and that “we do not accept the jurisdiction of the court.” Always remember that by “special-appearance” we do not accept the jurisdiction of the court because once we accept the court’s jurisdiction, which we would do by filing a document without that condition, then the challenge simply goes away.

In a civil-suit, charges & claims are made against us that we respond to in the manner previously stated. The first order of business is a preliminary-hearing during which the intent of the judge is to get that case off his caseload. He wants to lighten his load, not hear the case, and resolve it one way or another; dismiss it and get it off his desk. So, when the court convenes the judge usually will look at the plaintiff’s-attorney and say, “Mister Racketeer are you prepared to proceed?” And he'll say, “Yes.” Then he'll look at us or whoever is representing or speaking for our position, “Mr. Defendant, are you prepared to proceed?” This is our opportunity to turn the court into a constitutional article-three court. We say, “No sir. There are several matters we must clarify before we go further.” The judge always says to us, “Go ahead.” Then we immediately glare into his eyes and say, “Sir, you and the opposing counsel have sworn oaths to defend and support the Constitution of the United States of America and the constitution of the state.” We pause for a second and continue with, “Is that correct?” We don't ask questions in court unless we know the answer. We ask leading questions that give us the answer we want. This trick of the trade immensely helps us proceed in court to that position. In this situation we made a statement that's based in truth, fact, law, and evidence. We know the judge and attorney are required to take an oath as required by the Federal and state-constitution, and federal, state, and County-law. So, there's enough precedent to demonstrate the racketeers we're facing are required to take that oath. So, we make this statement and ask the confirming-question, “is that correct?” The confirming-question goes exactly to the statement and nothing else. We always get a “yes.” Then we immediately say, “With all due respect, you and the prosecuting-attorney are required to abide by those oaths in the performance of your official-duties before this honorable-Court; is that correct?” When we get a “yes”-answer to that, this is on the public-record because this is supposed to be a court of record; we have commitments by the presiding judge in the trial that both he & the opposing-attorney have taken oaths and are required to abide by the mandates of those oaths in the performance of their official-duties during trial. We’ve now unofficially converted that court from a corporate, phony, Criminal-Court into an article-three Court. Now the judge is not happy, and the prosecuting-attorney is livid because the judge is answering for the -prosecuting or opposing-attorney in a civil-matter; he’s upset because he doesn't like being bound by his oath or the constitutional-mandates contained in the oath.

We helped a Southern California family with an unjust-matter. They used our procedures that included demanding constitutional rights. Subsequently two public attorneys assigned to them were fired & no longer operate. We can do that. But most people go along with the game because they don't learn tactics or want to put themselves in harm's way; not deliberately but because of lack of information & knowledge which is deliberate on the part of the system; people tragically allow themselves to be slaughtered in court because they don't know how to advocate for their own rights and that is unnecessary and why we awaken people to their rights so when they’re forced to court they're not treated like cattle. When we establish those positions and get those answers, unofficially we’ve converted that court into an article three court, which is the only Court constitutionally ordained for the American-citizen. We can do this because we know what we're doing and it's not a question of thinking we can but knowing we can do it.

Once we’ve qualified the judge for himself and prosecuting- or civil-attorney then we must hold that judge and attorney, as we do, to the constitutional-mandates contained within their oaths. And we must know exactly our rights and all aspects of due process of law and only the duties by which the racketeers must abide; they only have certain requirements and latitudes within court. We must fully know the scope of those latitudes. They have limitations imposed upon them with limited delegated authority. We fully understand what that is so when these racketeers operate outside their limited delegated-authority we immediately call them on it. We must fully know and understand all aspects of constitutionally-protected rights and due process of law including Constitutional-, Administrative-, and Procedural-due-process because if we don’t they will destroy us very quickly because although the judge says, “Yes, you're right, I will abide by my oath in the performance of my official duties.”, within 30-seconds he will test us and if we fail the test we lost our position and advantage, so we must know what we're doing.

A judge might not want to answer this. We’ve never found a judge who says, “Nope.” If a judge ever says “no, I don't have an oath” or “no I'm not going to abide by my oath” then that judge on the public record commits treason and can be immediately removed. But the judge might say, “I'm not here to answer any questions.” or “What does this have to do with anything.” or “I don't want to hear this nonsense.” or “Move on.” That’s distraction to take us off point. We stay on point and say, “Sir, I have made a statement that is based in fact and law. You are required to take an oath. You are required to abide by that oath. Are you saying now in the public record that you either do not have an oath or will not abide by your oath?” Then we await his answer. There are various things we can say but we keep it simple & limited; we could say, “Sir, I've made a valid statement and you know that you're required to have an oath. Would you like to reconsider the question & answer the question?” If he refuses to answer then we say, “Sir, by your response it appears that either you have not taken an oath or you have taken an oath but have no intention of abiding by that oath in the performance of your official-duties. I am guaranteed due process of law during these proceedings. If you haven't taken an oath or will not abide by your oath it's evident that this Court will not provide me due process of law. Any court that acts absent due process of law forfeits any jurisdiction. Therefore, sir, you are either disqualified or if you admit that this court lacks jurisdiction the only ruling this Court can render is a dismissal.”

We don't play their game; we play our game and put it right back on them. We don't argue the merits of the matter or this position in court; we want to win on challenges. If we're a defendant, we want the case dismissed. If we're a plaintiff, we want to win on summary-judgment right away. These are positions that we must understand. We advocate for protection of rights of living men and women, families, communities and assist in the movement to reinstitute constitutional-governance in America. We offer true hope now. After we've exercised constitutional court challenges we inform the court of exactly who and what we are and how we appear before the court by saying, “I appear before this court as a living breathing flesh-and-blood natural-born sovereign American-citizen with and claiming all rights guaranteed to me in the Constitution of the United States of America and the State-Constitution with my name lawfully- and properly-spelled in upper and lowercase letters.” Then we pause and ask, “Is there any objection to what I just stated?” No one can lawfully object to that; someone might try but there's no lawful-position for the objection. The judge cannot object as the arbitrator or middleman. He's officially there to ensure the court properly-performs, and that proper-decorum & -law is upheld. Unofficially he's there the collude against & hurt citizens & help anyone who opposes citizens. If Hitler were up there opposing citizens in court the judge is going to favor Hitler; that's how the system is, evil beyond measure & we must know that & how to win in it by our methods.

Once we make that statement only the opposing-attorney may properly- or lawfully-object to that statement whether it be a criminal-case prosecutor a civil-case attorney. If he does not object, then what we have just done is provide judicial-notice to the court regarding both our status & how we appear before that court: again we appear as a flesh-and-blood living breathing American citizen. We’re not a corporation. if any confusion exists as to who and what we are then we are not a corporation because you are considered corporations; you are considered Fourteenth Amendment citizens and US-citizens – you’re only to be extended privileges at government’s discretion: that's how government presumes you; they don’t presume you as sovereign, American-citizens imbued with & entitled to full constitutional-rights. Can anyone say that we're not sovereign? No. Government tries to claim that but in court the court cannot claim that. Can anyone say we are not entitled to our lawful constitutional-rights? No judge will ever claim that; no lawyer should ever claim that. And when we talk about our name being spelled only in upper & lowercase letters if there's no objection then anything about the straw man or any artificial person goes right out the window. So we have noticed the court as to both how we appear & who we are before that court.

THREE: if we know the complaint-charges filed against us are untrue, bogus & fraudulent, which 99 % of charges in criminal cases are because government racketeers against American-citizens to make money from them or puts them in jail to make money from them; they don't care whether you're innocent of guilty; they want your money or they want you to go to jail. So, knowing the charges are fraudulent, bogus, have no lawful-merit, and we can prove that whether the matter be civil or criminal, and remember in a criminal-matter the prosecuting-attorney is required to certify under oath that the charges are valid. In a civil situation the attorney has a similar requirement, and this comes under Rule 11B of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the attorney is required to represent that everything he presents to the court is true & correct to the best of his ability. That includes the documentation, oral arguments before the court, and charges; because everything is presented to the court. The attorney has filed fraudulent, bogus-charges against us & we can prove that. So, right after we make our status statement we say, “Sir, I move to dismiss this case because the charges brought against us are fraudulent, bogus & have no lawful weight or merit.”

If our opposing-attorney, civil or criminal, has any brains then he’ll keep his mouth shut. In civil matters, since they want money or something else, they’re greedier and might object. But if the attorney has read our paperwork, is familiar with our positions, has been with this case from the very beginning, then the attorney realizes he has no valid position before the court; lawfully he cannot win in this court. The only reason he's pursuing the matter is he believes if he's connected with the government then he has a corrupt-judge who works for that same government who will uphold that government position no matter what that government did. That’s the deal; they’re insiders; we’re outsiders. The judge will protect the attorney & the attorney will protect the judge because they work together; that's the only reason he will pursue the action.

Civil proceedings are the same; the corporation has bought the judge through a direct bagman and through contributions to judge’s funds, judge’s retirement funds, and many ways judges are bought. If the attorney has a strong connection with the judge or desires to get money from us then he's going to object. When he objects we say, “Pursuant to Mr. Attorney’s objection then I move that Mr. Attorney certified the charges against us as valid, lawful-charges specific to the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of the State, in particular specific to the Bill of Rights by means of his own sworn and notarized affidavit signed under the pains and penalties of perjury of the laws of the United States of America and the laws of the state.” Now we've made a second motion to the court based upon the objection by the attorney.

Now, what's the attorney’s position? The attorney realizes he’s put fraud upon the Court; he's misrepresented & presented false-evidence to the court, but his charges have no lawful weight or -merit; he knows that, these racketeers are dumb, arrogant, but not exactly stupid. They believe they don't have to do certain things because courts are corrupt so all they have to do is show up and the fool who thinks he's a citizen or constitutionalist is going to lose. In this situation they are quickly surprised because we have two motions before the judge; the attorney objected to the first motion; we have a second rebel motion before the judge based upon that objection. The judge knows the attorney believed he would automatically rule for the attorney. But the attorney knows he's put fraud upon the court and he knows I know this; they're in a quandary and now have a problem; what are they going to do? It gets comical because this is all on the public-record. Usually in such a situation there is a conference; we don't often do this because we win most cases within five minutes on arraignment, initial proceeding, or hearing. When we do get into these positions the judge immediately dismisses criminal-charges or the civil matter and/or calls a conference. The opposing attorney will approach the judge & talk about a baseball game & never address the specific point or issues, and then for some obscure reason from right field the case is dismissed because the attorney either withdraws the charges or the judge dismisses the case & that's the agreement & it's over. It's never dismissed pursuant to our motion. But it is dismissed, and we don't care whether it's pursuant to our motion, we just want to walk away victorious with the attorney’s tail between his legs, angrily glaring at us wondering where we came from; they don't like to be shown up by people they deem cattle, it insults their egos. We file motions & documents with the court and they’re caught in their extremely corrupt system. We have turned things around in America’s because the Constitution prevails in all situations. That's the dismissal-procedure from A to Z whether with criminal or civil matters.

For help with documents and your case please contact us at this link: form.jotform.com/72196346394162 Thank you for helping to restore the constitutional-republic one county at a time.