We have to stop approaching these municipal mafias and courts unprepared ... thats number 1! Number 2, know that you might find it difficult to find lawyers to represent you on a case where the constitutionality of a statute is being challenged. If you do it will be pricey. Why not learn your rights and a little law and learn to stand on your own square and protect your inalienable rights, protected by your state constitution. This is how i'm moving with my situation, burying the City Litigator with several affidavits with 50-60 points on each. She has to sit there and rebut everyone point by point. We don't rebut anything... we get a ticket, summons, an affidavit is what it is... and then we don't rebut it. After 72 hours it stands as truth in the eyes of the law. We need to rebut, NO CONTRACT - I DO NOT CONSENT in red marker across the entire violation notice, citation, summons...whatever affidavit they issue you. Then start the administrative process serving them an affidavit of truth...citing all the sections of the state constitution the are violating, like taking private property for personal use without legislation (from the general assembly...general law) not ******** special law codes and statutes, and just compensation for its use. Also No Post Facto Law... aka special law is permitted. Don't believe me, look it up. It's all under our nose but we are too busy fighting them on their codes and statutes....samke them with the state Constitution.
Not to say that this will also work for you but I already won my case in my mind. Just have to let time catch up with what is already written. Some might know where i'm coming from... anyhoo....
Teresa F. et. Al.,
Can't we ask the presiding judge to take STARE DECISIS of the case that was won in the Federal circuit of Ohio.
Not everyone is hip to latin ...god knows i'm not... so here's the definition:
"STARE DECISIS. To abide or adhere to decided cases.
It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports. Mr. Greenleaf has made a collection of such cases, to which the reader is referred. Vide 1 Kent, Com. 477; Livingst. Syst. of Pen. Law, 104, 5."
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_s.htm (sorry for lack of MLA Style works cited ...no time fo dat :D)
Submit your motions onto the docket prior to your case.
- -Motion to be heard
- -Motion to dismiss
- always challenge the jurisdiciton (personal & subject matter). If you are private or they move your case to another town for some reason, you can claim improper venue
- -Motion to Vacate Default Judgement
- -Notice of Motion and Notice to Intervene (Constitutional Challenge)
- look up Rule 5.1 in the FRCP challenge the constitutionality of the statute in question
- -Motion to take notice of adjudicated facts
- -Affidavit of truth
- -Affidavit of rescission of signature
Get certified copies of the following:
- -Transcripts of the OHIO Federal Court case
- -Pre 1900 version of that states constitution
- -Judge's Oath of Office
- -Inspector's Oath of Office
- -Supervisor's Oath of Office
- -Director's Oath of Office (or the bosses boss..whoever it is.)
Have Notary make true and correct copies of the original. Take notarized copies to the county and get the county's seal on the documents, then take it to the state and do the same. Also get the notary authenticated all the way up as well. The reason for this is so no one can challenge you on the legitimacy of your paperwork or your notary. Once everything is authenticated all the way up to the state level, take those docs along with your motions and enter it into the docket, as well as serving copies to all parties pursuant to your district, city, county or state's court rules. When you get to court your paperwork will talk for you. If you chose to add additional testimony (be careful not to incriminate yourself... they use legalese to confuse the crap out of you. A word in legalese can mean something totally different in plain english. Demand that you be heard and that the judge take notice of the adjudicated facts (constitution, his oath & public officers' oath to that constitution, Ohio district court ruling). If you don't he doesn't have to listen to you and will tell you to take your constitutional mumbo jumbo elsewhere but when you move in this fashion he/she can't do that... box them in....box them in.. its all theatre .. i'm telling you its like a conveyer belt of victims...one after the other...NEEEXT!!!
You can send the affidavit of truth which should list out how your rights were violated, the law (authority..aka Article and Section of the Constitution that applies to that right) and serve the municipality. If they don't rebut in 3 days it stands as truth in the eyes of the law. Run the administrative process and serve them a second notice (notice to cure) and a third notice i say 10 days apart each), after sending them the last one (Notice of Default), take all of them, along with the certified mail receipts and the certificate of service and submit it into the docket. While you're doing this cc the highest ranking judge in the county (perhaps the president judge in the highest court of the county) on all your mailings. Also you must enter a constitutional challenge and serve that upon the attorney general of the state via Registered mail. The judge is screwed.... you just boxed him/her in. He/She must wait for the AG to answer. He won't because if he does, the rabbit is out the hat and he will inform everyone that this is truly a SHAMMMMMMMMM! Judge has to, by law, stay (not move forward with judgement) 60 days to allow AG to answer, more than likely your case will be dismissed or you will get summary judgement in your favor if you are the plaintiff. If the judge moves forward you can do a writ of removal for not following the court rules. You want to keep evidence of this for your tort suit down the road :D. Don't worry they got bonds that will pay out in case of that.
Your public officers took an oath to uphold the Constitution. If they don't you can sue them in small claims court for tort damages in their private capacity, lien up their properties and their wives properties (married...same corporation/estate..remember marraige license creates an estate...[like the birth certificate, see Minnesota Rule 220...way off on a tangent, let me get back on track])
I am fighting the same fight in Pennsylvania. Will keep you all posted. I will also give you the URL to the docket once I wipe my rear end with this City's trash.
Get your pen game up. This war is to be fought on paper my friends.
If you are suffering from the same injustices don't hesitate to reach out. We have some good information we can share.
I am not a lawyer and this is for entertainment purposes only ;D. Good luck finding one that will fight your fight better than you can. They just taking your money.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Here are some examples of the rights that the municipality is infringing on. You can find similar clauses in your states constitution:
- Denial of Motion to Be Heard.
- Denial of Motion to Intervene.
(most verbiage was omitted but i left this part for reference, so you can look that up as well)
Take notice that pursuant to the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
- Denial of Right to Trial by Jury.
Pursuant to Article 1, Section 6 of the 1874 Pennsylvania Constitution (as ratified without subsequent amendments):
“Trial by jury shall be as heretofore, and the right thereof remain inviolate”
Additionally, pursuant to Article 1, Section 9 of the 1874 Pennsylvania Constitution (as ratified without subsequent amendments):
“he cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor can he be deprived of his life, liberty or property, unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.”
- Denial of Right to Limitation upon suspension of laws.
Pursuant to Article 1, Section 12 of the 1874 Pennsylvania Constitution (as ratified without subsequent amendments):
“No power of suspending laws shall be exercised unless by the Legislature or by its authority”.
- Denial of Right to Challenge Constitutionality of a Statute. Judge xxxxxx moved to find us guilty and assess a penalty while the constitutionality of the statute was being questioned. Before the time for the State Attorney General’s time to intervene expires (60 days), the court may reject the constitutional challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional. Additionally the judge cannot take it upon him/herself to answer political questions posed to the legislative branch of the commonwealth’s government. That is practicing law from the bench, intermingling the branches of government and that act in itself is unconstitutional. President Judge also disregarded the constitutional challenge and proceeded to schedule the Summary Appeal Costs hearing for June 10, 2019, then rescheduled it again for July 15, 2019.
- Denial of Right to Limitations on Special Legislation.
Pursuant to Article 3, Section 7 of the 1874 Pennsylvania Constitution (as ratified without subsequent amendments):
“The General Assembly shall not pass any local or special law regulating the affairs of counties, cities, townships, wards, boroughs, or school districts.”
- Denial of Right to Power over municipal administration not to be delegated. Judge xxxx awarded restitution to the Property Maintenance Division for a bordering job that was contracted out to a private corporation. We never contracted with this private corporation, who decided to take it upon themselves to trespass on our property and border up doors that were only removed to let the property ventilate properly while we were back and forth from the dump hauling trash. It is unlawful to force use into contracts we did not consent to. It is also unconstitutional to extort us for excessive fees, approximately $1300 in restitution costs for attaching 1.5 sheets worth of plywood to a door and window.
Pursuant to Article 3, Section 20 of the 1874 Pennsylvania Constitution (as ratified without subsequent amendments):
“The General Assembly shall not delegate to any special commission, private corporation or association any power to make, supervise or interfere with any municipal improvement, money, property or effects, whether held in trust or otherwise, or to levy taxes or perform any municipal function whatever.”
- Denial of Right to Security from searches and seizures.
Inspector xxxxxxx conducted an illegal search of xxx xxxxxx St without our consent or a valid search warrant. That is a breach of our inalienable right to be free of unlawful search and seizures.
Pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 of the 1874 Pennsylvania Constitution (as ratified without subsequent amendments):
“The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as clearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the affiant.”
Additionally as cited below:
"The right of officers to thrust themselves into a home is also a grave concern, not only to the individual but to a society which chooses to dwell in reasonable security and freedom from surveillance. When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not by a policeman or government enforcement agent."
[Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14]:
- Denial of Rights of defense and privilege in criminal prosecution. The PMD Supervisor xxxxx of the Property Maintenance Division that was present during the summary trial Judge xxxx court was not a party to the case. He was not a witness nor was he an injured party. Inspector xxxx xxxx never showed up to the Summary Judgement or the Court of Common Pleas Appeal. Instead inspector xxxxx's supervisor showed up to take his place. When asked about the origin of the complaint, Supervisor xxxxx informed the court that the complaint was called in anonymously, therefore they were not able to produce a complaint with a verifiable signature. The PMD supervisors testimony was all hearsay, which we objected to, but Judge xxxx, in error, failed to sustain. The PMD Supervisor that was present during trial, was not present when the unlawful search of xxx xxxxx St. was conducted. The plaintiff (Inspector Supervisor) informed the court that Inspector xxxx would not be able to attend the hearing because he was no longer with their department. The case should have been dismissed at the moment for the plaintiff’s inability to produce a witness, a verifiable signed complaint, or an injured party, all elements that are required to deem this a crime (Corpus Delicti).
Additionally, no notice of violations, Citations, or Notice of Summary Trial or verifiable signed complaint were ever served in accordance to the law. They were never sent to me. I didn’t even find out about this case until I checked into Judge xxxx Courtroom to deal with another unrelated issue. Then and only then did I come to find out that there were warrants put out for our company. No proof of service was provided when we brought this up during trial in Judge Taylor’s courtroom. He immediately dismissed 3 of the 7 tickets. I am not sure why the other 4 were not dismissed at this time since they were also not served correctly. This is unconstitutional and violates my inalienable right to due process, due service, and our right of defense and privileges in criminal prosecution protected by the 1874 Pennsylvania Constitution (as ratified without subsequent amendments).
Pursuant to Article 1 Section 9 of the 1874 Pennsylvania Constitution (as ratified without subsequent amendments):
“In all criminal prosecutions the accused has a right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to meet the witnesses face to face, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and in prosecutions by indictment or information, a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the vicinage; he cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor can he be deprived of his life, liberty or property, unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.”
- Denial of Rights of Criminals informations Limited. Judge xxxx accepted the PMD’s testimony and digital information (digital images of the property) as acceptable evidence and, which is hearsay and should have been stricken from the record when requested during the trial.
Take notice that pursuant to the 1874 Pennsylvania Constitution (as ratified without subsequent amendments) Article 1 Section 10:
“No person shall, for any indictable offense, be proceeded against criminally by information except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of ware or public danger”
I am also being tried 2 times for the same citation/violation on the same day and my the City of xxxx is trying to obstruct my right to conduct commerce and taking my private property and applying it to public use, without our written consent or compensation.
NO CONTRACT, NO CONTRACT, NO CONTRACT.
Please note citation details below:
LO Section 301.3.1 (Lead) Exterior Conditions
LO Section 301.3.1 (Lead) Exterior Conditions
Please take further notice that pursuant to the 1874 Pennsylvania Constitution (as ratified without subsequent amendments) Article 1 Section 10:
“No person shall, for the same offense be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb nor shall private property be taken nor applied to public use without authority of the law and without just compensation being first made or secured.”
The taking and injury of private property must be compensated. Every time PMD cites one of our properties with a violation/citation based on unlawful statues deeply rooted under the color of law, we end up taking a loss in equity, time, and legal fees. We have incurred thousands in lost equity due to these actions and still till this day the PMD continues to abuse their “power” over the municipality, positioning themselves to make a financial gain via the color of law at our expense without due compensation. Only to put a burden on the homeowner of its municipality.
Please take additional notice that pursuant to Article 16 section 8:
“Municipal and other corporations and individuals invested with the privilege of taking private property for public use shall make just compensation for property taken, injured or destroyed by the construction or enlargement of their works, highways or improvements, which compensation shall be paid or secured before such taking, injury or destruction. The General Assembly is hereby prohibited from depriving any person of an appeal from any preliminary assessment of damages against any such corporations or individuals made by viewers or otherwise; and the amount of such damages in all cases of appeal shall on demand of either party be determined by a jury according to the course of the common law.“
- Denial of rights of Courts to be open. Take notice that pursuant to Article 1 Section 10 of the 1874 Pennsylvania Constitution (as ratified without subsequent amendments):
“All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.”
- Denial of Rights to Due Process/Improper Service & Mail Fraud. President xxxxxx decided to schedule the Summary Appeal Cost Hearing even after the Appeal was filed with the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
Take notice that pursuant to [18 U.S. Code section 1341]:
“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any , or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any postor authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
- Denial of Rights of Excessive bail or fines and cruel punishment forbidden. The xxxxx Property Maintenance Division is making a clear attempt to violate my unalienable rights to be protected from excessive fines.
Take notice that pursuant to Article 1 Section 13 of the 1874 Pennsylvania Constitution (as ratified without subsequent amendments):
“Excessive bail or fines and cruel punishment forbidden”.
PMD is seeking restitution charges for unauthorized and unsolicited work that was done on xxxxx LLC $1300 for bordering up a door and a window. Our panels were off only because we were in the process of hauling trash away from this property. PMD is looking to recoup this through the courts in restitution fines and penalties. This is unconstitutional, these costs are beyond excessive. It would take 2 men 30 minutes to install $50 worth of wood and screws.
Additionally, I never entered into contract nor did I solicit PMD or any of their subcontractors to perform such services. They came by and ticketed us on a day that we were working inside the property. These pictures have been submitted into evidence.
Furthermore, Inspector xxxxx has cited me twice for the same charge on the same day (see 2 citations for LO § 301.23.1 within Docket #: xxxxx )
- Denial of Rights of No ex post facto law, or impairing contracts. The xxxxx PMD and its subcontractor’s attempt to force property owners into unlawful contracts using threat, duress, & coersion to extort property owners, taking private property for public use without consent or due compensation. Fictitiously erecting city ordinances under the color of law. All Reading PMD City Codes/Ordinances are deemed unconstitutional, unlawful special law being implemented and carried out through the color of law. We do not wish to contract with the City of xxxxx, PMD, or any of its affiliates, agencies or subcontractors. The only contract we accept is the common law of the land and the constitution our public officials took an oath to uphold, we do not consent to any special laws.
Take notice that pursuant to Article 1 Section 17:
“No ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making irrevocable any grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed.”
Take further notice that Pursuant to Article 3 section 7:
“The General Assembly shall not pass any local or special law regulating the affairs of counties, cities, townships, wards, boroughs, or school districts.”
Take further notice that pursuant to Article 16 section 2:
“The General Assembly shall not remit the forfeiture of the charter of any corporation now existing, or alter or amend the same, or pass any other general or special law for the benefit of such corporation, except upon the condition that such corporation shall thereafter hold its charter subject to the provisions of this Constitution.“
Take additional notice that pursuant to Article 16 section 3:
“The exercise of the police power of the State shall never be abridged or so construed as to permit corporations to conduct their business in such manner as to infringe the equal rights of individuals or the general well-being of the State.“
- Denial of Rights to Proper Venue. Originally my case was going to be heard by Judge yyyyy. She decided to recuse herself and the case was moved to othercity. Judge WRJ did not have the authority to hear our case. In order for Judge xxxxx court to hear a case before it, 3 things need to be established:
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Proper Venue
Judge xxxx court did not have a venue in the proper judicial district. Judge xxxxx Court was not the proper venue for this case to be heard at. xxxxx, CCCC PA 00000 does not reside in OTHERCITYNAME. The Corporation’s business address also does not reside in OTHERCITYNAME. Neither exist within Judge XXXXX's municipal district.
Therefore we request that all cases be dismissed with extreme prejudice due to lack of proper venue. This was brought to the judge and plaintiff’s attention but nothing was done to provide remedy.
- Denial of Rights of Limitation upon suspension of laws. All points listed herein detail numerous attempt by the XXXX Property Maintenance Division to circumvent the law of the land. No judge in the Pennsylvania judicial system has the right to suspend any of the laws within the Pennsylvania Constitution. All laws shall remain inviolate. The Justice’s job is to interpret the law, not to practice it from the bench.
Take notice that pursuant to Article 1, Section 12 of the 1874 Pennsylvania Constitution (as ratified without subsequent amendments):
“No power of suspending laws shall be exercised unless by the Legislature or by its authority.”
- Denial of Rights of Reservation of Powers in People. We The People declare all laws set forth in the 1874 Pennsylvania Constitution (as ratified without subsequent amendments), the supreme law of the land and will forever remain unchanged and uncompromised. The xxxxxPMD Codes and Ordinances are unconstitutional special laws being enforced through the color of law, and continue to challenge the Pennsylvania Constitution’s supreme authority. The 1874 Pennsylvania Constitution (as ratified without subsequent amendments) is the law of the land and every law within it must and will forever remain unchanged and uncompromised.
Take notice that pursuant to Article 1, Section 25:
“To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.”
