Our Constitutional Methods/Affidavit Steps

Hello,

Attached hereto are some of our introductory methods, as well as some explanations and observations contained in the body of this email. Since you expressed interest in learning our methods, you should be aware that Margy and I presented about 50 seminars between 2006 and 2009, did many hundreds of radio broadcasts and some television, as well. Many of our seminars are on DVD. The most popular is the Sacramento seminar which many people use as a learning tool. That DVD has about 14 hours of material on it.

We also have a CD, Metris v. Edwards, which contains all of the case filings Margy made in a lawsuit she won against a major bank. Both are available for donations, and ordering information can be found on our website.

1. A brief summary of our Constitutional methods;

2. An explanation of our presumptive letter;

3. An explanation of our affidavit;

4. The first and last presumptive paragraphs.

5. Our Constitutional Court Challenges

The attached summary of our methods provides details of how we have used the authority of the Constitutions, national and state, as both the foundation and authority for all of our methods and arguments.

When one bases his positions in the authority of the Supreme Law, it is extremely difficult for his opponent to disavow, deny, contradict and oppose the document to which he has sworn or affirmed his oath and the Citizen's constitutionally based arguments.

As the description of the presumptive letter states, it is an honorable way to attempt to resolve a situation before it becomes necessary to go court to resolve it. The presumptive paragraphs are crucial, because they provide lawful warning to public servants regarding their unconstitutional actions, committed pursuant to their oaths, and require these public servants to rebut all charges and claims made in the presumptive letter. If they fail to do so, then, they admit to everything stated in the letter, fully binding upon them in any court, without their protest, objection or that of those who represent them. Everything stated in the letter must be true, correct, based only in fact, valid law, and evidence, and one must be able to support everything he states.

No fabrications or exaggerations are permitted in a valid presumptive letter. In our presumptive letters, all of our charges, claims and statements are based upon the specific unconstitutional actions committed against us by public officers, pursuant to their oaths. The oath also requires public officers to uphold valid state laws, so these violations can also be cited. When we point out our charges, we also point out that the unconstitutional actions were committed without lawful authority, therefore, are null and void.

We spell out the fact that the public officers are required to abide by their oaths in the performance of their official duties and execute their duties only within the lawful scope of their limited, delegated authority, as discussed above.

Obedience to the oath is not optional; it is mandated by Law.

In our experience, it is best to write down, in notes or draft form, all of the infractions committed by public officers and/or agencies/agents, cite all of their improper behavior/actions, and fine tune each charge, claim or statement we wish to put in the letter, so that the charges stated are comprehensive, direct, clear, simple and to the point.

We avoid vagueness, redundancy and ambiguities. Clean, clear, direct charges and language are needed in order for the letter to be effective and taken seriously. It is best to try to keep emotionalism and personal attacks out of presumptive letters, and instead compose them with professionalism and clearly demonstrate factually provable charges.

The attached summary of our methods and the description of the affidavit are self-explanatory. Our Constitutional Court Challenges are extremely important to use during court procedures, if the Citizen wants to protect his Constitutionally secured rights, have due process of law afforded to him, and intends to hold the presiding judge and opposing attorney(s) to the Constitutional mandates contained within their oaths. There are a series of numbered challenges which could be used, with explanations accompanying each challenge.

The most important of these challenges are 1A, 1B and 2, which we and our students successfully use in each court appearance, or even within administrative proceedings. Once you read them, and the accompanying explanations, you should have a firm understanding as to why we use these three positions.

Every public officer is required to take an oath to the national and state Constitutions and those who do not have this requirement work under agent-principal oath, meaning they work under their superior(s)' oath(s). Each oath-taker is required to abide by his oath in the performance of his official duties. This means he or she must act only within the LIMITED delegated scope of his/her duties and authority. When s/he acts outside the specifically delegated limited authority, then, s/he essentially acts on his/her own, as a renegade.

The Constitutions, national and state, are very specific regarding authority. What is not authorized in the Constitutions is prohibited by the Constitutions. There is no authority, in any form, whatsoever, that permits an oath taker to engage in actions which contradict, defy and oppose the very documents to which he or she swore or affirmed his or her oath. It all comes down to these very simple principles and lawful mandates. The oath taker either abides by the Constitutional mandates imposed upon him or her, by and through his or her oath, or he or she does not.

The Constitutions are the "textbooks" for how government, federal and state, can lawfully operate. Any actions conducted in violation of the Constitutions are unlawful. We reduce everything to these very simple, specific, but lawfully powerful points. Be aware of the difference between the words "lawful" and "legal". For an act to be lawful, it must fully comply with all requirements of the Constitutions, specific to the Bill(s) of Rights. Unfortunately, most of the "laws" on the books are administrative in nature and rarely, if ever, comply with Constitutional mandates.

These so-called "laws" are considered "legal", but unless they fully comply with the Constitutions' mandates, they are not valid law. Sadly, these "legal" administrative statutes, codes, regulations, policies, etc. operate unchecked under what is called "the color of law" until they are challenged Constitutionally. However, since so few people know the difference between lawful and legal, these administrative "laws" are seldom challenged in a manner which would show them inferior to the superior Law of the national and state Constitutions. Agencies operate on administrative "laws", procedures and policies, which typically violate the rights secured to the people in the Constitutions.

There is no Constitutional authority for the creation of administrative agencies; thus, the agencies, themselves, are unconstitutional, therefore, unlawful. Accordingly, actions conducted by such agencies are perpetrated under the "color of law", but are not, in fact, lawful acts. If we were in your place, we would become extremely familiar with the national Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights and Article I, Section 8, as well as the parallel sections of your state Constitution. If one is going to speak about his rights, he first must know what those rights are and, secondly, he must know the limitations imposed upon government.

Article I, Section 8 covers this regarding the federal government. We would also scrupulously research the powers and authority delegated by the People, through their state Constitution, to the state Legislature. In a Constitutional Republic, such as America, every state is guaranteed a republican form of government, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4. This means that the government operates under the Rule of Law, and not the rule of man.

In this country and in every state, the Rule of Law is the national Constitution, since it is the “supreme Law of the Land”, as declared in Article VI, Clause 2. Therefore, since legislative powers are vested in Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 1 of the national Constitution, and in similar authorized delegations of power to your state legislature, in your state Constitution, then, valid law can only arise by and through the duly enacted legislation of Congress and/or the state legislature. Further, all legislative laws must be Constitutionally compliant specific to the Bill(s) of Rights or they are null and void, without lawful force or effect.

In Eternal Truth and Freedom, Jack and Margy Flynn

*****************************************************************************

Affidavit Process Steps 1 through 5 – Summary

STEP 1 Affidavits are sent to the public officer whose unconstitutional actions have perjured his oath, violated the Constitution(s) and violated the rights of the people who were damaged by his actions. When the Affidavit recipient(s) fail to rebut, in kind, then, go to step 2.

STEP 2 Requires Affidavits be sent to all supervisors and oversight personnel of the original Affidavit recipient, with a copy of the original Affidavit attached. When none of these oversight people respond, in kind, and rebut, by means of their own sworn, notarized Affidavits, then, we go to step 3.

STEP 3 Affidavits of Complaint written against all those to whom you have written Affidavits, which are unrebutted, are then filed with the: (1) County Sheriff; (2) County DA; (3) County Prosecutor, if any; (4) State Attorney General and (5) U.S. Attorney for your state.

STEP 4 When none of these so-called law enforcement entities take any action against those you have cited in your Complaint(s), then, all of them must be sent individual Affidavits which clearly state that, pursuant to their oaths, they have not taken any lawful actions against the criminal unconstitutional actions committed by public officers that were named in your Affidavit(s) of Complaint. Then, you cite their failure to act, pursuant to their oaths, against those who have harmed the people, as well as other appropriate language that can be added as needed to state that they had a sworn duty, pursuant to oaths taken, to act upon lawful notification provided to them by Citizens, yet they took no action whatsoever. Therefore, they have condoned, aided and abetted these unconstitutional, criminal actions, perjured their oaths and invoked the self-executing Sections 3 & 4 of the 14th Amendment, vacated their offices and forfeited all benefits thereof, including salaries and pensions.

STEP 5 When none of these so-called public officers respond, in kind, and rebut by means of their own sworn Affidavits, then, the only choice left to the Citizens is to take the matter to civil court because, by the failures of all those notified in this matter, it is clear that there is no legitimate lawful Constitutional governance in this state by which the Citizens can obtain lawful remedy for the injuries they have sustained.

*************************************************************************************

Affidavit Process and Beyond

The main intention behind doing Affidavits to errant public officers is to get the system to remove them from office, based upon the sworn Affidavits of Formal Complaints filed by the Citizens who have previously sent Affidavits to these public officers, which the officers did not rebut. If the system does not honor the will of the people, remove these criminals and take lawful actions to prosecute them, then, the Citizens can file civil suits in court.

The idea behind the Affidavit is to redress our grievances to government, a right guaranteed in the First Amendment. When govt refuses to redress those grievances, stop the problem(s) and resolve it/them, constitutionally, then, govt officers war against the Constitution(s), perjure their oaths and violate the public trust. Americans are painfully finding out that virtually all govt officers throughout this country, federal, state, county and local, with very few exceptions, are criminals who routinely oppose the Constitution(s), rights guaranteed therein to the people and due process of law.

It is absolutely unfortunate and tragic that the American people never once, in the history of our nation, ever accepted the responsibility delegated to them in the Constitution to be a self-governing people, vigilant over their public officers operating the machinery of government. Now is a crucial time for America, and now is the time that all loyal Americans who love our republic and our Constitution(s) take lawful effective actions against the ruling domestic-enemy-traitors.

The Affidavit process has been very successful for a long time, in and out of court. When used in connection with a court case by one party against the other party, then, obviously, only one party is using that Affidavit which has been unrebutted by the recipient.

When used against errant public officials, with the intention of lawfully removing them from office, the entire objective is for many people in that jurisdiction to write Affidavits against the offending public officers. Further, and most people forget this or neglect to do it, Affidavits are also to be sent to the supervisory and oversight personnel of the errant public officer(s) who received the Affidavit. A copy of the original Affidavit sent to the errant public officer(s) should be also be sent to the supervisory/oversight personnel.

The Affidavit sent to the oversight/supervisory personnel can be very simple and basically state that a public officer, and name him or her, serving under your authority and watch, committed unconstitutional actions against me which have harmed me. S/he has no constitutional authority whatsoever to inflict any form of harm upon me, and any action s/he commits either supports and upholds the Constitution(s) or opposes and violates them.

His/her actions against me were totally unconstitutional, therefore, committed without lawful authority, thus, s/he exceeded the lawful scope of his/her limited delegated duties and authority, thereby lawfully vacated his/her office, pursuant to Sections 3 & 4 of the 14th Amendment to the national Constitution.

Your duty, pursuant to your oath, is to remove this man/woman from office and hold him/her accountable for his/her actions. If you fail to do this, pursuant to your oath, then, you condone, aid and abet these unconstitutional actions, war against the Constitution(s), and you will be held personally responsible, because you will have stepped outside the lawful scope of your limited duties and authority.

The whole idea here is to put PRESSURE upon the entire system, because the entire system you are facing is totally corrupt and evil. It will take large numbers of committed people to engage in this process to accomplish this result, and they must be persistent, committed and courageous against the evil that rules them.

If large numbers engage in this process, and the system does not buckle under, that is when the action is taken to court. In the court action, you can demonstrate that the entire system is totally unconstitutional, does not uphold constitutional rights and due process of law and by their own unlawful actions, war against the Constitution(s). The unrebutted Affidavits previously sent to the errant public officers and their supervisors and oversight personnel will support your lawful and legal arguments made to the court. Once the oversight and supervisory personnel fail to rebut, then, step 3 is to write an Affidavit of Complaint against the public official to whom the original Affidavit was written and the supervisory/oversight personnel, calling for their removal from office and arrests, pursuant to the self-executing Sections 3 & 4 of the 14th Amendment, and attach the original Affidavits as support for the Affidavit of Complaint.

These can then be delivered to the local sheriff for his lawful action, pursuant to his or her oath, against the Affidavit recipient(s), as well as to the county DA and prosecutor, if one exists, the state Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney for your state. The sheriff is elected by the people, therefore, directly responsible to the people, and not to the system.

He or she has taken an oath to support and defend the national and state Constitutions. All the other law enforcement personnel mentioned have also taken oaths, and pursuant to the mandates of Article VI, Clauses 2 & 3 of our national Constitution, all of them must uphold the Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land", SUPERIOR to any other form of "law".

In Eternal Truth and Freedom, Jack and Margy