|Citizens of the American Constitution|
Constitutional Challenges To Courts, Government and Opponents
By Notices, Motions and Pleadings
Citizens of the American
Constitution challenge unconstitutional, unlawful and unauthorized
government, court and opponents’ actions by using the following
Constitutional based procedures, more specifically outlined in the case
Metris v. Edwards. Challenges are done in three different successive
methods, as listed below
Government, the courts and corporate America, by their own proven, established and demonstrated actions do not serve the interests of the People or Constitutional requirements, but only themselves, and for their own best interests, done at the vast expense of the People. Oaths mean little, if anything to public officers, who perjure those oaths at will. Our enemies will not abide by Constitutional and lawful requirements until We, The People, so require.
As Constitutionalists, we do not consider Constitutional oaths taken by public servants to be formalities, but a sacred bond given in exchange for the Public Trust. We fully expect and require that all oaths taken by public servants to the federal and state Constitutions be abided by those public servants in their performances of their official duties. The challenges are intended for this purpose, and for the Rights of the American People to be upheld by those governments and those courts sworn and bound to serve the People. The methods follow:
Opponents, such as corporate America
1. Presumptive Letters –
2. Affidavit of Truth –
3. Pleadings, Notices and Motions -
4. Requests For Admissions –
governments and courts
A. Established Motions:
1. Motion For Trial By Jury –
2. Challenge of
3. Motion To
4. Motion For Summary
5. Judicial Notice –
B. Motions for judge:
1. Motion To Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights –
2. Motion To Require Judge To Read All Pleadings
Challenges in court
As stated in the previous section, we are Constitutionalists and require all public servants, including judges, to abide by their oaths in the performance of their official duties, including those before the court. This protects the American Citizens from government and court abuse, if enforced. The previous challenges are intended to stop any action before it gets to court. Those listed below are intended to be stated or asked by the defendant in court prior to the start of proceedings. They require “yes” or “no” responses; and you must hold the judge, only, to these answers. If you allow him to evade and avoid answering as such, then you, yourself, allow the judge to damage you, your lawful positions and the Powers of and Rights guaranteed in the Constitution to you. As you can see, either a “yes” or “no” answer serves your interests, if you understand the implications.
For the sake of convenience, we shall assume the position as defendant. Please remember that all public servants serve under limited, delegated authority from the Constitution, by and through the People, for the best interests of the People. The American People must gain courage, en masse, and stand up to and challenge all forms of government, especially the courts, which are supposed to be the last bastion of justice. Since the Constitution cannot conflict with itself, the limited powers delegated to government by the Constitution can never supercede the powers of and Rights guaranteed in the Constitution to The American People. “Authority” is an extremely important word and concept. Nothing lawful can be conducted by government and the courts without Constitutional authority, and government has no authority to disparage your Rights. Keep “authority” in mind as you review the following statements and questions.
IN COURT BEFORE PROCEEDINGS START
the judge asks if the parties are ready to proceed, we say, “No, not just yet, sir (or madam), I have a few matters I need to clarify before we begin.”
Then we make the statements
we think most appropriate.
You and the prosecutor have taken oaths of office to support
and uphold the Constitution of the united States of America and that of
this state. Is that
Pursuant to your oaths, you are required to abide by those
oaths, in the performance of your official duties, including those
before this Honorable Court. Is
Note: If the
judge, or the prosecuting attorney or other state witnesses say
“no”, then, obviously, they must be disqualified and/or removed from
the bench, position or impeached as witnesses, along with their
testimonies, for obvious reasons. This
answer is evidence that the one who answered “no” will not abide by
his oath in the performance of his official duties, therefore, by his
own answer, his oath is meaningless to him.
He is a traitor and a danger to the American People, and must be
removed from power.
All those who have taken oaths are required to answer “yes”.
This answer is consistent with the requirements under the oath,
the bond which binds the oath and requirements of the Constitutions.
A “yes” answer means that ALL actions taken by the public
servant, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE must be consistent with Constitutional
requirements, specific to the Bill of Rights.
If the public servant’s past actions failed this, and if those
actions are used in an action or as evidence against the defendant, then
those actions were not taken pursuant to his oath and were done in
opposition to Constitutional requirements.
Therefore, the public servant perjured his oath, invoked the
self-executing sections 3 and 4 of the 14th amendment,
vacated his office, and forfeited all benefits of that former office,
including salary and pensions. All
charges must be dismissed, with prejudice.
must be disqualified from his position, and if a witness, he and his
testimony must be impeached and all his unconstitutional, unlawful
actions and evidence against the defendant must be denied, and the
charges dismissed. All
present and future actions by the judge and court must be conducted
pursuant to the Constitutions, federal and state. In this situation, if you are fully aware of your Rights and
the full extent of the “yes” answer, you will prevail. However, if the judge were to then after violate his answer
by his actions, you must inform him of his answer and his Constitutional
requirements thereto, and his liability if he were to fail in his duty.
I appear before this Honorable Court as a living, breathing
natural-born American Citizen, with, and claiming, all Rights guaranteed
to me in the federal and state Constitutions, and with my name properly
spelled in upper and lower case letters.
After this is stated, wait a few seconds to look at the
prosecutors and the judge, then say:
Is there any objection to what I just stated?
Obviously, pursuant to oaths taken by the judge, prosecutors or
opposing attorneys, there can be no lawful objection to what you just
stated, because all that you just stated, includes, but is not limited
to, truth and fact. If what
you just stated is true, namely, that you are a natural born American
Citizen, it would be lawfully foolish and absurd for the judge, the
prosecutor or your opposing attorneys to object.
If they were to object, then, they would be forced to support
their objections with fact and law, or their objections are reduced to
opinions, only, and opinions are not valid bases in any court of
Constitutional competence upon which to state objections or claim lawful
positions. In such an
event, you must specify this.
no objection is made, then, you appear before the Court as you stated. If there are any assumptions or presumptions made by any of
your opposition regarding any alleged contracts or requirements with the
fictitious entity, those assumptions, contracts, etc., were just removed
with your statement and no objections made.
If the case against you is based upon those contracts and
assumptions, the entire basis for the case has been removed by your own
direct and simple statement.
This court abides by all the powers of and Rights guaranteed
to American Citizens in the federal and state Constitutions, including
due process of law. Is that
Note: A “no” answer carries the
same conditions as above. A
“yes” answer is in compliance with Constitutional requirements for
American Citizens and is consistent with the “yes” answer to #1
above. Again, if you are
fully aware of your Rights and the conditions underlying the affirmative
answer, you will prevail. Remember,
bind the judge by his answer.
I am entitled to and guaranteed a fair and impartial trial
presided over by a fair, unbiased and impartial judge, in a court of
record, before and decided by a well-informed jury of my peers.
Is that correct?
Note: A “no” answer is consistent with
conditions stated above. A
“yes” answer confirms the conditions of the statement, including:
(1) Right to a fair and impartial trial; (2) unbiased and impartial
judge; (3) a jury of my peers; (4) which jury decides guilt or
I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the alleged charges,
presumptions and assumptions in, by and of this court, unless proven
guilty by a well-informed jury of my peers, beyond a reasonable doubt,
based solely on verified evidence and proof.
Is that correct?
Either answer is consistent with conditions as stated above.
However, in this statement, with a “yes” answer, you are
confirming several vital
positions: (1) presumed innocent
of all ASPECTS of the alleged charges; (2) presumed innocent of ALL PRESUMPTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS of this court; (3)
unless PROVEN guilty by a JURY OF MY PEERS; (4) proven guilty BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT (5) based SOLELY ON VERIFIED
EVIDENCE AND PROOF.
“Proof” consists of verified and demonstrated evidence,
and not opinion, especially opinion unsupported by fact, law and
evidence. Is that correct?
Note: In this statement, by the judge’s answer,
you are confirming the nature and status of “proof”.
It is highly unlikely that any judge will, on the public record,
answer “no” to this statement, since his answer will defy the very
loudly proclaimed concept of American justice, will defy due process of
law, deny Constitutional Rights and allow ‘opinion”, unsupported or
otherwise, to be used as “proof”.
When the judge answers “yes”, that will be consistent with
the judge’s oath, Constitutional requirements and his other “yes”
answers. He will confirm
the statement, and the fact that opinion, verified or otherwise, is not
proof. This is a major position, a major lawful gain and benefit.
Many “testimonies” by witnesses are simply opinions, usually
unsupported and unverified. The
defendant can now be assured that only verified and documented proof,
and not opinion, from anyone, can be used against him.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” consists solely of decisions
and verdicts from a well-informed jury of my peers based entirely on
proof that absolutely and conclusively confirms guilt, without any
reservations or questions, whatsoever, from the jury.
Is that correct?
A “no” answer is consistent with
conditions above stated. A
“yes” answer confirms ALL the conditions of the statement, due
process of law, Constitutional requirements, the judge’s oath, and
assures that a jury of your peers will make its verdict based solely on
PROOF, not opinion, that absolutely confirms guilt, without any
Opinion from any witness or prosecuting attorney unsupported
and unverified by fact, law and proven evidence is simply opinion, and
opinion, as previously established, is not proof.
Is that correct?
Note: A “no” answer is consistent with
conditions stated above. A
“yes” answer again confirms the status of ”proof” as different
from opinion. Thus, any
plaintiff, (or opponent), prosecutor or witness MUST have verified
proof, as described, and not opinion to support his statements.
This is of vital importance to American Citizens.
Therefore, “proof” by the prosecutor and testimony of
witnesses is only opinion, unless supported as above stated, and if not,
it is meaningless, frivolous, null and void and not accepted by the
court as proof of anything, including guilt.
Since I am guaranteed a fair and impartial trial, how is that
possible when you, the presiding judge, the prosecuting attorney and all
the witnesses against me work for and are paid by the state that is the
plaintiff in this case, and my opponent?
In this situation, it is impossible for me to have a fair trial.
Is that correct?
B. Further, any
data used against me is obtained from sources who, are also paid by the
state, the same plaintiff against me.
At minimum, conflict of interest takes place.
Note: A “no” answer is consistent with above
conditions. If the judge
were to answer ”no”, he is essentially saying, on the public record,
that it is possible for a defendant to have a fair trial, even though
he, the judge, the prosecutor and the state witnesses all work for and
are paid by your opponent, and that all the so-called “evidence”
against the defendant was obtained from sources paid by the state,
again, the opponent. Even
the most avowed critic can see through this fraud.
A “yes” answer confirms the conditions of the statement, and
conclusively demonstrates that a presiding judge recognizes, on the
public record, that the referenced court conditions are not fair, not
partial, and, as such, unconstitutional.
This is a major Constitutional and lawful victory for the people,
with far reaching implications.
Since I am presumed innocent of the charges and all aspects,
presumptions and assumptions of those charges and this court, I have
challenged the jurisdiction of this court, which this court has not
proven, on the public record. Therefore,
since I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the charges and
presumptions of the court, and since jurisdiction has not been proven,
jurisdiction is simply a presumption of this court, of which I am
presumed innocent. Therefore,
I move for dismissal of all charges for lack of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to the foregoing, and to numerous federal and Supreme
Court rulings, this case must be dismissed, with prejudice, and I hereby
move for dismissal of all charges and this case, with prejudice.
Note: By prior “yes” answers, it has been
established that the defendant is presumed innocent of all assumptions
and presumptions of the court. Jurisdiction
is both an assumption and presumption of the court, of which the
defendant is presumed innocent. The
defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the court, which the court
failed to prove, on the record. Therefore,
since the defendant is presumed innocent of jurisdiction, has challenged
jurisdiction, which the court has failed to prove, on the public record,
the court lacks jurisdiction and since jurisdiction does not exist, the
charges must be dismissed, with prejudice.
If the judge were to deny this lawful position and insist that his court
has jurisdiction, without his having proven it, on the public record,
the following could be stated:
the judge has stated that this court conforms to all Constitutional
requirements, then, this court conforms to the Bill of Rights, Article
III of the federal Constitution and to due process of law.
Jurisdiction is directly related to the foregoing, is an aspect
of the charges, and a presumption of this court, of which the defendant
is presumed innocent, yet this court has failed to prove jurisdiction,
on the record. Thus, this
court defies Constitutional requirements, due process of law, federal
and Supreme Court rulings, and therefore forfeits any “perceived
jurisdiction”, has no Constitutional authority to hear this case, so
this case must be dismissed, with prejudice; or the presiding judge,
pursuant to his oath, perjures that oath, commits insurrection and
sedition against the Constitution, on the public record, and treason
against the American People.
The jury swears an oath to the Constitution.
Is that correct? In
its deliberations and in its verdict, the jury is required to abide by
its oath. Is that correct?
Note: Since the jury swears an oath and is
required to abide by that oath, it is obvious that a “yes” answer is
required. The Constitutional and lawful position here is that the jury
must abide by its oath in making its verdict.
If it fails to do so, then the jury perjures its oath, its
actions and verdict are unconstitutional and the jury verdict null and
void, without force or effect, whatsoever.
Just as a public servant is required to abide by his oath in the
performance of his official duties, so is the jury.
However, the People must know and demand their Rights, or they
If the judge were to answer “no”, which is highly unlikely,
then as a defendant I would move for immediate dismissal of all charges,
with prejudice, because any judge or court that permits an
unconstitutional jury to perjure its oath and reach an unconstitutional
verdict, pursuant to its oath, operates as an open fraud upon the
People, denies and defies the Constitution and the powers of and Rights
guaranteed therein to the American people, denies due process of law and
has no jurisdiction over any American Citizen, whatsoever.
If the jury, pursuant to its oath, makes its verdict in perjury
of its oath or in opposition or contradiction to the Constitutions and
the Rights guaranteed therein to American Citizens, or based in false
information and fraud, that verdict is plainly unconstitutional, thus
null and void, frivolous, and without force or effect, whatsoever.
Is that correct?
Note: Answer given in previous note. Further, pursuant to oaths taken, any jury verdict based,
either in whole or in part, in fraud, deception, manipulation, lies or
false information is null and void.
the judge were to say that this is not correct, then I, as a defendant,
would inform him, pursuant to his oath and pursuant to his preceding
“yes” answers, why his response is not only incorrect, but
unconstitutional and unlawful. Further, I would inform him that he has no Constitutional
authority to deny, on the public record, the very Constitution to which
he, bound by bond, and the jury swore an oath.
Further, he has no Constitutional authority to exceed his limited
Constitutionally delegated authority, or to step outside that authority.
It is obvious that the judge is not a higher authority than the
Constitution, therefore, he cannot overrule it.
If the judge were to insist that the jury verdict, even when
based in fraud, etc., as above described, is valid, I would remind him
of his first “yes” answer to statement #1, in which he is required
to conduct his professional duties pursuant to his oath, as is the jury
also required. I would then
remind the judge of his other “yes” answers, in which he confirmed,
including, but not limited to, the Constitutional duties of the court.
His response is made in contradiction to his oath, as is the
jury’s verdict, thus, both are unlawful, unconstitutional, without
force or effect whatsoever, and not binding in a Constitutionally
compliant court, which the judge stated, on the public record, is the
status of this court.
this point, I would move for immediate dismissal of all charges and this
case, with prejudice, for, including, but not limited to, lack of
jurisdiction, lack of Constitutional authority, defiance of the federal
and state Constitutions, denial of due process, perjury of oath,
insurrection and sedition against the Constitution, and treason against
the American People, in the instant case, the defendant.
If the “judge” were to remain firm, then, as a defendant, I
would inform him that I am entitled to a fair and impartial trial, by a
jury of my peers, as he has previously agreed, and as is
Constitutionally guaranteed, yet this jury is not a jury of my peers for
many reasons, including, but not limited to: (1) jury members are not
part of my ethnicity; (2) they do not work in the same profession I do;
(3) they do not come from the same background and education that I do;
(4) they are not Constitutionalists and supporters of the Supreme Law of
the Land, as I am; (4) they are traitors to the Constitution and to the
American People, which I am not.
I would then, again, move for dismissal of all charges and the
case, with prejudice, based upon previously stated grounds, and further
include the fact that the judge would permit an unconstitutional verdict
by a lawless, unconstitutional jury not of my peers.
The Constitutions guarantee me a jury of my peers, yet this judge
denies this Constitutionally guaranteed Right to me. Pursuant to his
oath, he has no Constitutional authority to overrule the very same
Constitution to which he swore an oath, and, further, is not a higher
authority than the Constitution. If
the judge were to remain firm, I would again inform him that, by his own
actions and responses, he committed insurrection, sedition and treason
against the American People, is a traitor to this Nation and its People,
and must be removed from the bench for his treason.
I will immediately file criminal and civil charges against him,
personally, and in his professional capacity, and take action against
him in an Article III federal court, which I will demand, by Motion.
Ask The Jury
Are you aware
that the Constitution of the united States of America, to which you
swore an oath when you were initiated into jury duty, is the Supreme Law
of the Land – the Highest Authority in this Nation - and that, as
such, no other law, statute, rule or ordinance can supersede it, and no
other authority, including the Supreme Courts, federal and state,
any judge, prosecutor, district attorney, attorney general or other
public officer, can be a higher authority than the Constitution?
aware that the Constitution is the foundation of all forms of
American government, including the courts, and that it LIMITS the power
of government to take away any of the People’s inherent Sovereign
Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, guarantees to all
Americans their inherent, unlimited, inalienable Rights, including, but
not limited to, all due process Rights, such as those set out in the 4th,
5th, 6th and 7th Amendments to the
Are you, as jurors, fully aware of what these
Amendments mean and how they apply in this proceeding?
If not, will you request the court provide you with
copies of the Constitution so you can fully understand due process of
If you do so, will you make your verdict in this
trial in strict compliance with Constitutional due process of law and
uphold all Constitutionally guaranteed Rights of the Defendant?
4. Pursuant to your oath, is there anyone on this jury
who will not abide by his/her oath in the performance of his official
duties, including, but not limited to, jury deliberations and reaching
there any jury members who believe and will abide by the belief that the
government is superior to the People and that government is Sovereign in
this Nation, and that the People are required to obey the government in
all situations, no matter how unlawful and unconstitutional that
government or its actions may be?
there any members on this jury who are lawyers, government officers, or
work for any form of any government, in any capacity, or are employed by
corporations or companies that work for government?
7. Are there any informants, paid or otherwise, spies or provocateurs on this jury, for anyone or anything?
You have been asked these questions and are expected
to, and will be held to, your answers, pursuant to your oaths.
Does anyone wish to change his answer?