rottweiler's supreme court original action at law

[rottweiler]

You are impossible, doing this or that wouldn't make any difference, you would still be confused and I didn't invite you to anything.

The First Charter of Virginia; April 10, 1606
Also we do, for Us, our Heirs, and Successors, DECLARE, by these Presents, that all and every the Persons being our Subjects, which shall dwell and inhabit within every or any of the said several Colonies and Plantations, and every of their children, which shall happen to be born within any of the Limits and Precincts of the said several Colonies and Plantations, shall HAVE and enjoy all Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities, within any of our other Dominions, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born, within this our Realm of England, or any other of our said Dominions.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

You want to accuse me of "taking things out of context", yet you present a scenario that is obviously fragmented and spread across what is conceivably numerous pages and possibly even chapters. The numbered section identifiers are a dead give away that you are not presenting the whole picture, but rather picking and choosing what you want the audience to read. To my knowledge, you have not even cited the name of the document from which these 'quotations' come from.

And You still do not address the issue of the former claims you have made in regard to me and the 'police' or in regard to 'why' you have invited me to this thread.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[rottweiler]

I stumbled upon this judicial order which apparently was filed by the plaintiff. Maybe someone could look this case up.



IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI

COUNTY OF CLAY - DIVISION 2
William Duff, ) CASE NO. 07CY-CV06125
Plaintiff, )

) ACTION

v. ) FOR TRESPASS, AND

) TRESPASS ON THE CASE

OFFICER WILLIAM FRAZIER, (SERIAL 3092) )

AND )

OFFICER ALAN ROTH (SERIAL # 4090) ) VERIFIED

Defendants. )



IN THIS COURT OF RECORD, THE COURT taking cognizance of the facts and law of this case respecting plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice, and cognizes the facts and law as follows;


LAW:

COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]
COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth. They are:
A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]

D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court. [Magna Carta, Article 34].
“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652
“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579
However, no statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record. “The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]
Exhibit F of plaintiff’s action.


FACTS:

traffic citations claiming Duff’s failure to have valid State Driver License case# 224354(4), Valid State License plates case# 2243355(1) and proof of financial responsibility case# 2243356(9), (See Exhibit C) is a traffic court with statutory jurisdiction and fails to meet all the requirements of a court of record;
William Duff vs. William Frazier and Alan Roth 07CY-CV06125 is a court of record proceeding according to the common law and meets all the requirements of same;
A conflict exists between the two courts respecting the duties of the judge in one and the magistrate in the other as well as jurisdictional issues and the law applicable to this controversy;
The property at controversy, whether it be property or money is the property of William Duff;
The Claim by defendants seeks to take property belonging to William Duff before he is heard;


THIS COURT OF RECORD FINDS AS FOLLOWS;

Property belonging to Plaintiff is at the center of this controversy in both actions and defendants seek to take said property pursuant to its claim that is disputed by plaintiff. A property right is involved. As such, this court possesses superior jurisdiction over the inferior traffic court respecting adjudication of that property right, to wit;

ORDER


This court of record, being fully informed in this matter; orders as follows;

The traffic court action herein described as; traffic citations State Driver License case# 224354(4), Valid State License plates case# 2243355(1) and proof of financial responsibility case# 2243356(9), being adjudicated in the Municipal Court of Kansas City, Mo in room B be suspended until such time as this court of record, styled as William Duff vs. William Frazier and Alan Roth 07CY-CV06125, has fully adjudicated the property rights of plaintiff respecting the claim brought by William Frazier and his agents.


Further, the property heretofore taken from plaintiff on or about June 5, 2007 by defendant is to be returned to plaintiff without delay.

================================================== =================

PRECEAPE: The Clerk of this court is directed to issue a writ of replevin with waiver of bond and deliver it to the Sheriff of Jackson County, Missouri or whatever county in Missouri wherein the property referenced above is located, without cost or delay to plaintiff and that all costs related thereto are to be taxed against defendants, and that the property above described be returned to plaintiff at 108 NW 101 Place Kansas City, Mo 64155 without delay. This order shall be copied and delivered to the Municipal court of Kansas City, Mo room B

================================================== ================

Further, the magistrate, plaintiff, and defendants are invited to each file and serve on all other interested parties a brief no later than July 31, 2007 to show cause to this court why this order should not take effect or should be modified and notice of intent to file said brief must be filed within 3 days of receiving this order either by email or by fax to the appropriate number. The court, mindful of the rights of the parties and the importance of fair play, will liberally construe the arguments presented.


IT IS SO ORDERED,


THE COURT by

____________________ date _______

William Duff

Private Attorney Seal of the court

Cc: William Duff, William Frazier, Alan Roth

[rottweiler]

Hmmmm, I wonder why the Assistant Attorney General is involved.
http://www.williamduff.com/dufffrazi...%20frazier.pdf

http://www.williamduff.com/dufffrazier/

[Livefire]

rottie,

Looks this guy lost his case. He tried to file a document to stop the sale of his impounded vehicle. Its rather strange he didnt post the orders that the court entered into its own docket. Too one sided!

[indio007]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Hmmmm, I wonder why the Assistant Attorney General is involved.
http://www.williamduff.com/dufffrazi...%20frazier.pdf

http://www.williamduff.com/dufffrazier/

How did this case end up? It seems he mixed alot of statute in his pleadings. Someone will not really going to be effective at claiming sovereignty while quoting the sovereign states statutes .....

The devil is really in the affidavit or a negative averment. An uncontested affidavit is proof of the facts stated.

My advice is use an declaration of facts duly sworn to preclude the state from asserting any sovereignty.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

You are impossible, doing this or that wouldn't make any difference, you would still be confused and I didn't invite you to anything.

Whatever happened to your understanding of the 'common law'? Do you not recognize my right to defend my 'name' and the honor of my 'name'. So when you brought my 'name' into this thread, you also gave me the right to defend my 'name' and the honor of my 'name'. Are you now attempting to deny that 'common law' 'right'?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[rottweiler]

I don't believe in using statutes either but it should not make any difference. I believe Duff's case is good but the other side has the power.

Originally Posted by indio007

How did this case end up? It seems he mixed alot of statute in his pleadings. Someone will not really going to be effective at claiming sovereignty while quoting the sovereign states statutes .....

The devil is really in the affidavit or a negative averment. An uncontested affidavit is proof of the facts stated.

My advice is use an declaration of facts duly sworn to preclude the state from asserting any sovereignty.

[indio007]

Well , I just look at the AG brief. The basis of jurisdiction and ergo state sovereign immunity is the inference that Duff is either a has a statutory duty from being a "person" or a member of the "public"

The City of Kansas City's municipal court has jurisdiction over Duff and, by statute

Where two courts have jurisdiction "over a person or particular subject matter
with power to make determination as to the thing in controversy, the court which first assumes that
jurisdiction has the exclusive right to proceed without interference from the second." State ex rel.
Standefer v. England. 328 S.W.2d 732,735 (Mo. App. 1959).

Appear as a person and you doomed. Personhood is based on an assumption contract you are acting on behalf of legal fiction a.k.a. being an actor.

Plaintiffs claims are also barred by the public duty doctrine. Law enforcement is a duty
owed to the public.

Public officers are not liable in tort for injuries or damages sustained by a particular
individual resulting from a breach of duty owed to the general public

Impounding or
causing a vehicle to be towed due to a violation of a municipal ordinance is a duty police officers
owe to the general public.

He could have averred both these assumption by oath and the State would need a competent fact witness or sworn affidavit to the contrary.

The law is only competent to act within the scope of the facts on record.

He could have demurred there are no facts on record that are evidence of "personhood or being a member of the "public". Like I said that has to be done by oath.

[rottweiler]

Duff bonded out after his arrest so I wonder if that blew his claim right there.

Originally Posted by indio007

Well , I just look at the AG brief. The basis of jurisdiction and ergo state sovereign immunity is the inference that Duff is either a has a statutory duty from being a "person" or a member of the "public"





Appear as a person and you doomed. Personhood is based on an assumption contract you are acting on behalf of legal fiction a.k.a. being an actor.








He could have averred both these assumption by oath and the State would need a competent fact witness or sworn affidavit to the contrary.

The law is only competent to act within the scope of the facts on record.

He could have demurred there are no facts on record that are evidence of "personhood or being a member of the "public". Like I said that has to be done by oath.

[indio007]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Duff bonded out after his arrest so I wonder if that blew his claim right there.

After reading through everything it's obvious Duff never shed the "person". It could be any piece of paper in the file or lack there of. It seems he never challenged jurisdiction effectively. His original action should have been against the man dba judge. He's the court ring leader and undertakes the liability that process is perfect. Proof of jurisdiction must be on appear on the face of the record.

Duff could have filed an original action as John Doe aka Duff aka foreign sojourner totally abandoning the presumption the juristic person is his identity. Then they would need to produce the instrument binding him to the state evidence by by his autograph mark or seal or oath of a witness to his verbal oath to the state.


Like an Affidavit of Obligation or the like.