January 22, 2007 -- Case No. AN1343453 ...
1st Pleading
Wally, Junior North Justice Center Superior Court Case No. AN1343453
DEMAND THAT JUDGE WITH FILED OATH (OR AFFIRMATION) AND BOND TO HEAR THIS CASE
I, Wally, Junior, do not give my consent to have a Magistrate and/or Commissioner and/or Pro Tem hear my case; and further
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE UNDER EVIDENCE CODE §451
1. The Constitution for the state of California of 1849, at Article XI § 3, said: "Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ----------, according to the best of my ability";
2. California Constitution Article VI, Section 1 says that: “The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record”;
3. The first Statute relating to oaths of office read, in pertinent part under Section 4: "If any person, elected or appointed to any office, shall perform any of the duties thereof without having executed and filed in the proper office any bond required of him by law, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and his office be declared vacant. Statute 1850, Ch. 21, "An Act concerning the Official Bonds of Officers" February 28, 1850;
4. The Constitution for the united States of America states under Article I Section 10, in pertinent part, the following: "No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts";
5. I have not found any written evidence that the State of California has withdrawn from said Union at any time since 1850, or that said Union has been dissolved;
6. “The holding of gold remained prohibited until 1973, when congress repealed the 1934 ban on private ownership of gold, 87 Stat. 352 (1973), as amended by 88 Stat. 445 (1974), but did not address the 1933 prohibition of gold clauses. This omission was remedied in 1982, when the statute was adopted 31 U.S.C.A. 5118(d)(2) (1983), (hereinafter “section 5118”). The language provided that obligations covered by gold clauses prior to 1977 are, as before, dischargeable dollar for dollar with United States currency. . . Gold clauses are enforceable after October 27, 1977, pursuant to section 5118; . Therefore, the gold clause contained in the August 28, 1982 contract is enforceable. The amount of rent owed under the gold clause and the date from which it should accumulate will be determined at trial. THEREFORE, plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED,” the FAY CORPORATION a Washington corporation, Plaintiff v. BAT HOLDINGS 1, INC., also known as Marshall Field & Co., a Delaware corporation; and Fredrick & Nelson Seattle, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, No. C86-542D. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, 646 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 946, 948, 952, 953 (October 23, 1986); and further
“This court concluded that the effect of novation was to revive the original gold clause. Thus rent after August 28, 1982 is to be made pursuant to the original lease terms ‘in lawful gold coin of the United States of America of the present standard of weight and fineness’. . . “Lease, Article II FAY CORP. V. BAT HOLDINGS 1, INC.651 F. Supp. 307, 308 (W.D. Wash. 1987); and further
“The court found the gold clause in the commercial lease to be enforceable. . . Congress determined in 1977 that obligation entered into after 1977 would be enforceable. 31 U.S.C. section 5118(d)(2) (1983).” FAY CORP. V. FREDRICK & NELSON SEATTLE, INC., 896 F.2d. 1227 (9th Cir. 1990);
WHEREFORE, the gold clauses have been reinstated and all Oaths of Office are secured by Bonds valued according to the Par Value Modification Act Amendment (87 Stat. 352) Sec. 1 as amended: "0.828948 Special Drawing Right or, the equivalent in terms of gold, of forty-two and two-ninths dollars per fine troy ounce of gold" which is the constitutional money of account in this case; and further Section 2 (b) of said Act states:
"No provision of any law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and no rule, regulation, or order under authority of any such law, may be construed to prohibit any person from purchasing, holding, selling, or otherwise dealing with gold"
UNLESS THE PRESIDING JUDGE IN THIS CASE IS COMPENSATED IN GOLD AND SILVER COIN THIS MATTER SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
I, Wally, Junior, am a competent witness over 21 years of age, and have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and do solemnly state that:
1.a. I am a flesh and blood man, one of the People of the united States of American, and one of the People living on the land in the California republic, and not "in the State" or "in this State" as defined in California Revenue and Taxation Code §6017 identified as a "Federal area" under Title 4 U.S.C. §110(d) and (e);
1.b. I am not a trained or licensed Attorney; of necessity, I am acting at all times within my right to defend my life, liberty, and property as set out in the California Constitution, Article I, Section 1 which says:
“All people are by nature, free and independent, and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life, and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” [New section adopted November 5, 1974.]; and further
1.c. California Constitution Article I, Section 15 says in pertinent part that:
“The defendant in a criminal cause has the right to a speedy public trial, to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant’s behalf, to have the assistance of counsel for the defendant’s defense, to be personally present with counsel, and to be confronted with the witnesses against the defendant”;
2. California Constitution Article VI, Section 1 says that: “The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record”;
DEMAND THAT CONSTITUTIONAL JUDICIAL OFFICER HEAR THIS CASE; DEMAND FOR A STATEMENT OF DECISION ON ALL RULINGS, MOTIONS etc. DEMAND FOR VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE UNDER EVIDENCE CODE §451
I, Wally, Junior, request a Verified Complaint be filed pursuant to Penal Code § 853.9.
"PLEASE TAKE MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING"
3. The ticket is deemed to be a "complaint" and the Supreme Court of the united States of America stated in OVERTON v. OHIO, Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Daily Appellant Report, which says the officer cannot sign the complaint nor the affidavits.
4. Pursuant to Penal Code §740, which says, "except as otherwise provided by law, all misdemeanors and infractions must be prosecuted by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant." Such complaint may be verified on information and belief. If there is no complaint, the court has no jurisdiction over the matter. See RIPLEY v. JOHNSON, 120 CAL2nd 548, 261 P2d 318. Please provide me with a copy of the affidavits in support of the complaint and the judge's determination of the probable cause pursuant to Penal Code §813.
5. The officer cannot determine the probable cause. See WONG SUN v. UNITED STATES, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.CT. 407 (1963) and OVERTON v. OHIO.
6. The officer cannot prosecute this case. See Penal Code §691(d) which states "Prosecuting Attorney" whether designated as District Attorney, City Attorney, City Prosecutor, Prosecuting Attorney, or by any other title, have by law the right or duty to prosecute, on the behalf of the people, any charge of public offense. The officer doesn't have a "Bar License" (card), he cannot prosecute nor can he have an opinion in court. If the court does not follow procedures prescribed by law, the court and its officers may held liable under "RICO Act." See U.S. V. FREGA, 179 F.3rd 793 (9th Cir. 1999) where three judges were charged with using the court as a "Racketeering Enterprise to Extort Money."
THEREFORE, this matter should be dismissed due to failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
*****************************************************************************************************************
JUDICIAL NOTICE
COMES NOW Wally, Junior, sui juris, Defendant, non-licensed attorney litigant, the undersigned, and now gives Notice to the court;
NOTICED the court is now a Judicial, and not an administrative, proceeding and
FURTHER NOTICED said Defendant in error is a Native American Citizen of European descent who retains full Constitutional Rights and enjoys the benefits thereof being the qualified heir of the Joseph Straton Estate valued in gold and silver Coin as per Article I Section 10 of the Constitution for the united States of America;
FURTHER NOTICED, FAIR WARNING, NOT AS A THREAT, NOTICE pursuant to United States v. Lanier on certiorari No. 95-1717 is hereby given each member of the prosecuting party.
Respectfully submitted on this 18th day of January, 2007
All Rights Reserved
****************************************************************************************************************
Claim of Right, Title and Interest
I, Wally, Junior, Sui Juris, the undersigned with my name spelled in upper and lower case, appear before this court as a living, breathing flesh and blood Native American Man of European descent, possessing all right, title and interest due a Citizen in the California republic and thereby in one of the several Article I Section 10 united States of America, possessing full constitutional rights guaranteed in both the federal and state constitutions;
I, Wally, Junior, Sui Juris, appearing first before a Notary Public deposes and says:
I am of lawful age and competent; and as such a native, natural Free Born Sovereign of Michigan and now California, and thereby in one of the united States of america, in fact, by right of heritage descending from my Great, Great, Great, Grand Father, Citizen Joseph, born 1794, in the north of Ireland, father of Major William, born 14 April 1821, in the Henderson Homestead, Logan county, Virginia, father of Citizen Allan Butcher, born 7 June 1857 in Logan county, Virginia, father of Citizen James Allan, born 2 November 1894, in Logan county, West Virginia, father of My father Citizen Wally Senior, born 19 January 1923, in Detroit, Wayne county, Michigan;
I am a Michigan born Native American similarly situated and living in the California republic and protected by the California Constitution of 1849 by way of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution for the united States of america (1789), including its Preamble and the Bill of Rights (1791); and therefore retain the Inalienable Rights granted by My Creators declared as such by the 4th of July 1776 Declaration of Independence, and further acknowledged by the Treaty of Peace (1783), a tax treaty between 12 independent states and Great Britain wherein the King of England relinquished all of his Sovereign Powers to the Citizens of the several states, who further established these Sovereign powers for their posterity and established binding Rights upon Myself and My Posterity, this day and for all time; and further,
I, Wally, Junior am the qualified heir to the Joseph Estate valued in gold and silver Coin as per the Coinage Act of 1792 in concurrence with the Spanish Silver Dollar standard established for the colonies by the Statute of Queen Anne; and further
It is an undisputed fact that all judges, court clerks, prosecuting attorneys, and peace officers are required to take an oath of office to support and defend the United States Constitution and the California constitution; and further
It is an undisputed fact that all STATE OF CALIFORNIA state actors and/or employees are not currently compensated in gold and silver Coin and are in violation of their oath of office and the prohibition of Article I Section 10 of the United States Constitution that mandates in pertinent part the following:
“No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts!”
It is an undisputed fact that this court is without Article I Section 10 jurisdiction and does not possess any power whatsoever to force Wally, Junior into a position of involuntary servitude or to participate in a scheme that undermines the United States Constitution; and further
It is an undisputed fact that Article III Section 1 of the California Constitution states:
“The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America , and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.” [Emphasis added]
It is an undisputed fact that the Congress passed on September 21, 1973 , the “Par Value Modification Act Amendment wherein section 3 of said Act states the following:
“(a) Section 3 and 4 of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (31 U.S.C. 442 and 443) are repealed.
“(b) No provision of any law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and no rule, regulation, or order under authority of any such law, may be construed to prohibit any person from purchasing, holding, selling, or otherwise dealing with gold.”
It is an undisputed fact that:
“The holding of gold remained prohibited until 1973, when congress repealed the 1934 ban on private ownership of gold, 87 Stat. 352 (1973), as amended by 88 Stat. 445 (1974), but did not address the 1933 prohibition of gold clauses. This omission was remedied in 1982, when the statute was adopted 31 U.S.C.A. 5118(d)(2) (1983), (hereinafter “section 5118”). The language provided that obligations covered by gold clauses prior to 1977 are, as before, dischargeable dollar for dollar with United States currency. . . Gold clauses are enforceable after October 27, 1977 , pursuant to section 5118; . Therefore, the gold clause contained in the August 28, 1982 contract is enforceable. The amount of rent owed under the gold clause and the date from which it should accumulate will be determined at trial. THEREFORE, plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED,” the FAY CORPORATION a Washington corporation, Plaintiff v. BAT HOLDINGS 1, INC., also known as Marshall Field & Co., a Delaware corporation; and Fredrick & Nelson Seattle, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, No. C86-542D. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle , 646 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 946, 948, 952, 953 ( October 23, 1986 ); and further
“This court concluded that the effect of novation was to revive the original gold clause. Thus rent after August 28, 1982 is to be made pursuant to the original lease terms ‘in lawful gold coin of the United States of America of the present standard of weight and fineness’. . . “Lease, Article II FAY CORP. V. BAT HOLDINGS 1, INC.651 F. Supp. 307, 308 (W.D. Wash. 1987); and further
“The court found the gold clause in the commercial lease to be enforceable. . . Congress determined in 1977 that obligation entered into after 1977 would be enforceable. 31 U.S.C. section 5118(d)(2) (1983).” FAY CORP. V. FREDRICK & NELSON SEATTLE, INC., 896 F.2d. 1227 (9th Cir. 1990);
I, Wally, Junior retain all the privileges and immunities guaranteed to a First-Class American Citizen by way of the United States Constitution Article IV Section 2 and 4 of a republican form of government; and further
It is an undisputed fact that Article VI Section 1 of the California Constitution says:
“The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record.”
I, Wally, Junior was denied due process of law by the Orange County Superior Court Clerks when they refused to file my pleadings on December 18, 2006 and on December 29, 2006 ; and further
WHEREFORE, the gold clauses have been reinstated and all Oaths of Office are secured by Bonds valued according to the Par Value Modification Act Amendment (87 Stat. 352) Sec. 1 as amended: "0.828948 Special Drawing Right or, the equivalent in terms of gold, of forty-two and two-ninths dollars per fine troy ounce of gold" which is the constitutional money of account in this case; and further
I, Wally, Junior challenge this courts jurisdiction according to the maxim of law that states:
“No sanction shall be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction”; and further
“It follows that there is no occasion to determine under what circumstances the plaintiffs would be entitled to judgment against a delinquent tax- payer for penalties, interest, or attorney's fees; for, if the plaintiffs are not entitled to judgment for the taxes arising out of the assessments in question, no liability for penalties, interest, or attorney's fees could result from a refusal or failure to pay such taxes. Judgment affirmed.” SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394
I, Wally, Junior declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 18th day of January, 2007.
***************************************************************************************************************
Wally, Junior
January 18, 2007
Via Overnight Delivery; Return Receipt Requested
To: Attn: Supervising Judge Douglas J. Hatchimonji
Superior Court Clerk L. Cuevas
North Justice Center Dept. N07
1275 N. Berkeley Ave.
Fullerton , California 92838-0500
RE: Case No. AN1343453
Sir:
The court clerks, under your supervision, have refused my pleadings and stated that they only accept electronic filings. This refusal constitutes a violation of my right to due process of law. I am sending this Judicial Notice by way of overnight delivery to you personally for filing because I have been denied access to the court and am being deprived of due process of law, which is my right.
This letter is lawful notification to you, pursuant to The Bill of Rights of the National Constitution, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Amendments, and The Bill of Rights of the California Constitution, in particular, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 24, and pursuant to your oath, and requires your response specific to the subject matter. Your failure to file my documents and/or state with particularity why I am not being denied my constitutional right to access my courts as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, everything in this letter with which you disagree is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful and binding upon you, in any court, anywhere in America, without your protest or objection or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law.” Also, see: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”
I demand that you file my original Judicial Notice (and file stamp the two copies enclosed) immediately upon receipt and that it appear as such on the public record by 1:30 pm on January 22, 2007 . I also demand that an Article I Section 10 Judge who is compensated in gold and silver Coin hear my cause or else you must dismiss this action immediately with prejudice or you are in violation of your oath of office.
Sincerely,
___________________________________________
Wally, Junior
All Rights Reserved
