Mary's struggle for the People's unalienable rights

In the hired help's attack of Mary and their use of force to try to be over Mary as if they were kings instead of public sevants to the People, the following is Mary's response to the corrupt system using one of their trained bar persons to "try to guide Mary's bending to a settllment that the corrupt system can pretend under color of law has a hint of freewill agreement and get the use of force out of the picture.

August 11, 2009

Mary Severance
1518 Saratoga Road
Pueblo, Colorado 81001

Catherine Mitchell
405 So. Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903

Re: Resolution of 07Cv1626 globally to 09Cr1682

Catherine:

I am consenting to present this paper to you as a first step in an effort to resolve this non-constitutional statutory procedure regarding false accusations by non-constitutional statutes to which and of which I am not guilty. I do not consent to any presentments in the settlement document submitted by TIM ODIL and DANIEL C.KOGOVSEK. I do not consent to the ‘hands off attitude’ towards the alleged criminal charges presented by DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK in concert with DAVID BROUGHAM using non-constitutional statute(s) in this special statutory proceeding presented in this settlement document in an effort to further harass Me. DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK is a LIAR! There are no ‘false liens’.

The so-called ‘information” is UNVERIFIED. The court held in Scott v People, 176 Colo. 289, 490 P.2d 1295 (1971) “Verification of an information is required under this article”.

The affidavit from MICHAEL MIRANDA is not sufficient to meet conditions of this article. DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK has NO STANDING to bring these charges since he is unqualified and improperly credentialed county attorney absent an oath of office. People v Quimby, 381 P.2d 275, (Colo 1963) has adjudicated he functions from a vacated office. He is impersonating a county attorney.

This statutory court has no jurisdiction over a People. Article 3, Sec. 2 in the United States Constitution clearly states that”The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity (not statutes) arising under this Constitution …to Controversies between a State, or the Citizens thereof…” “In all Cases affecting …and those in which a state shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction”. The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO is the plaintiff, a “STATE”. Therefore, Article 3, Sec. 2 in the United States Constitution rules.

I have been ruthlessly attacked, injured, abused and threatened with jail and/or prison because DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK denied Me suffrage in 2006. I am the victim of many dishonest schemes enacted upon Me to get the removal of recorded documents from the public record through the use of a special statutory procedure, a non-constitutional legislatively created court run by statutes that are used under “color of law.” All attorneys and judges are in violation of their Code of Professional Responsibility at 251.1(a) which supports My claim to support the oath taken by each attorney to support the United States Constitution and Colorado state Constitution which is federal and state law. DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK does not meet the Code of Professional Responsibility regarding honest, integrity, obedience as adjudicated in the below listed court references.

Had the default been lawfully accepted and acted upon by Rule 55, none of this mess would have occurred. I would not have placed claims on the bonds of the public officials and I would not have been injured by the Pelican court and continued actions of the Crowder court in 07Cv1626. I do not consent to any bogus criminal charges by statute that has no force and effect of law as they are non-constitutional. An unqualified and improperly credentialed state legislature has no authority to create statutes absent Article VI in the United States Constitution and the mandates of the First Congress of 1789.

I do not consent to the taking of My unalienable Rights of Liberty and attack upon My guaranteed domestic tranquility as mandated in the Preamble to the United States Constitution for America of 1789, by non-constitutional courts. See Pantex, supra.

HISTORY OF THIS CASE

DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK disallowed Me constitutional suffrage in the 2006 election. After the election results were tabulated, I created the complaint and the subsequent recording of a “judgment by default” in a “court of record” by “the court” as per the G. L. of 1887, §412. Abel Tapia and Dorothy Butcher refused to answer My complaint and to talk with Me on or before January 8, 2007. The huge problem has been created by uninvited attorneys in an effort to administratively declare My judgment by default as spurious by 38-35-201-204 C.R.S. Catherine, Richard C.Kaufman of MCKENNA, ALDRIDGE, AND LONG law firm knew I was NOT a “person” subject to this non-constitutional statute, but that did not stop him. As a result of presuming to have persona jurisdiction, this case has grown into this mess. The problem commenced with Richard C. Kaufman bringing a statutory action against Me a people knowing that 38-35-201 through 204 C.R.S. is disallowed under Article 3, Sec. 2 of the United States Constitution and Colorado’s de jure Article VI of 1876 that was unlawfully altered and changed by Referendum in 1962. If he did not know that no change or alteration can occur to the organic law and attempt to create a non-existent jurisdiction through use of statutes, then it is my firm belief, that it is the actors who have to own the liability they created. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I do consent to the on going attack on a People, who created the government to secure My unalienable Rights. At NO TIME have any one of the attorneys of record EVER disproven that I am a People, nor disputed My authority as one of the people in Colorado who is a making Owner of the contract. JURISDICTION HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN even though asked for at minimum four times.

I do not consent to the on-going attacks upon Me after the 08SA271 Writ of Mandamus was filed into the Pelican court on August 12, 2008. The Colorado Supreme Court had jurisdiction on August 12, 2008 through to and including this present writing. All actions after August 12, 2008, are null and void including the present contempt charge the Pelican court allowed by ODIL and KAUFMAN to create absent the procedures stated in R107( c). This includes the present alleged criminal activity in Gilbert’s court.

Therefore, I consent to settlement of the Notice of Claims I placed upon the bonds of the respective officers of the court for willfully disobeying their oath of office and creating a huge degree of mistrust, lack of integrity, obedience, obstruction of justice and/or the judicial process as per Article 3, Sec. 1 of the United States Constitution for America “The judicial Power shall be vested in the United States [the people] in one supreme Court… “

FULL DUE PROCESS OF LAW

I gave full due process of law to all ‘persons’ named in 07Cv1626. Nothing new has been added regarding those challenged for their refusal to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” to secure My unalienable Rights when served a Notice to Contest an Invalid, unenforceable Administrative Warrant on the unqualified and improperly credentialed sheriff, KIRK TAYLOR on May 13, 2008. This paper resulted in injury to My rotator cuff on June 23, 2009, when the Pueblo Police arrested Me without the charging instrument. I was released on a PR bond purchased by ABEL TAPIA in 07Cv1692. Western Surety Insurance Company carries the bond for the county sheriff.

DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK, the unqualified and improperly credentialed county attorney, was served a Notice of Claim for Damages on May 28, 2008. The issues are the same in all Notice of Claim for Damages to all fictions, namely, to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” to secure My unalienable Rights. The same issue to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” to secure My unalienable Rights with some revision was served on Administrative Law Judges, STEPHEN T. PELICAN, DAVID A. GILBERT, RICHARD C. KAUFMAN, Esq. and LENO LIPINISKY DEORLOV, attorneys; and, at a later time the seven justices in the Colorado Supreme Court with the Department of Personnel Administration under title 24-30-1502(5) C.R.S. All bonding companies have been notified but refuse to act under their 24-10-113 C.R.S

Choices were made by all actor-fictions and unintended consequences resulted when all actor-fictions defaulted upon the 90 day window under 24-10-109 C.R.S. It is the attorneys and judges who have breached their contract to which they are bound and must accept the unintended consequences. I have no problem making financial concessions and I consent to acting responsibly with removal from public record that which can be agreed to, but they are to be held accountable for the damages and personal injury I sustained by this unlawful, statutory attack upon Me, a People who has unalienable Rights. The actors were given notice of My People standing on August 27, 2007. Did they submit or obey their oath of offices? The answer is NO and now the mess. I consent to upholding the statement of policy in Code of Professional Responsibility’s objective in 251.1(a).

I do not consent to the threat of jail or prison because I am hodling My employees accountable when they all chose to refuse to faithfully perform the duties of his office” to secure My unalienable Rights. I used the general laws of 1877 as a basis of my complaint and claims placed upon the bonds of the actor-fictions. Without constitutional authority through Amendment XIX, Referendums were and have been used to alter the organic law into the Administrative Reorganization Act of 1968 which in essence stole the Republic and created a “state within a state” to accommodate Bills of Credit disallowed in the organic law in Article 1, Sec. 10, Cl. 1 of the United States Constitution of 1789. Codification of the general laws began in 1935, continued in 1953 and 1963 with the presumption that statutory creations have supplanted the general laws and Article VI in Colorado’s organic constitution can abolish law and equity thus making Article VI inapposite to Article 3, Sec. 2 of the United States Constitution of 1789. The attorneys are responsible for these actions know Colorado’s Article VI cannot be less than the Rule of Law in Article 3, Sec. 2. They DEFRAUDED the people into accepting statutory creation-law with no foundation in law. This Public Corruption and Fraud in Colorado is outlined in the FBI filed verified complaint for all unlawful attacks made upon My unalienable Rights and consequent injuries I have sustained from the criminal conspiracy of attorneys who know or should know the law and consequences from non-compliance to the RULE OF LAW, the Declaration of Independence, subordinate United States Constitution and still further subordinate Colorado Constitution of 1876.

I do not consent to use of “under color of law statutes” which is NOT a stated jurisdiction mandated in Article 3, Sec. 2 of the United States Constitution of 1789. See Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886), regarding liability to non-constitutional laws. An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
RULE OF LAW—IF THIS CONTRACT IS NOT FOLLOWED, WHAT CONTRACT WILL BE FOLLOWED?

I consent to use of the only common grounds that can be used in this resolution being the RULE OF LAW, the contracts, known as the Declaration of Independence, subordinate United States Constitution and still further subordinate Colorado Constitution of 1876 with which all public servants/employees volunteered to be in compliance when they signed their oath of office.

I do not consent to anymore veiled threats to scare Me into acceptance of the inferior court’s jurisdiction in order to fulfill an improper motive for this action through use of the submitted Settlement DOCUMENT presented by TIM ODIL AND DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK. I do not consent to the use of any statutory creations including 38-35-201 through 204 C.R.S. (spurious document) and 18-5-114 C.R.S. (filing false and fraudulent documents) applicable to “created persons”—corporations, partnerships, trusts, and association” who are constitutionally liable under general laws, not statutory creations. I consent to the fact that “fictions arise from law, not law from fictions”.

I consent that all attorneys in this case took the following oath of office voluntarily. I consent to its application and I consent to make financial concessions. I consent to remove from the public record recorded documents once compliance has been made as presented in the recorded documents. The actor-fictions made a choice and now the unintended consequences.


I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR by the Ever living God (or AFFIRM) THAT:

“ I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Colorado; I will maintain the respect due to Courts and judicial officers; I will employ only such means as are consistent with truth and honor; I will treat all persons [People] whom I encounter through my practice of law with fairness, courtesy, respect, and honesty; I will use my knowledge of the law for the betterment of society and the improvement of the legal system; I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed; I will at all times faithfully and diligently adhere to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.”

The Rule of Law is superior to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, but these rules applicable to the attorneys of record and judges apply in this instant case. Because the Colorado Supreme Court created these rules, then as superintending authority of the lower courts, this conduct is binding.

Rules of Professional Conduct as Binding

Rule 251.1(a) Statement of Policy. “All members of the Bar of Colorado, having taken an oath to support the Constitution and laws [general laws] of this state and of the United States, are “charged with obedience to those laws at all times”. For the record that obedience is to, “faithfully perform the duties of his office” which is to secure My unalienable Rights”.

I read the summary of the following adjudicated cases and if these cases support the principle that the oath of office demands to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, obedience, to secure My unalienable Rights, then the following cases support My position of abuse and damage I have sustained by the attorneys of record and the Notice of Claim I placed upon the bonds of the actor-fictions is valid.

Adjudicated Cases

“An attorney must adhere with dedication to the highest standards of honesty and integrity in order that members of the public are assured that they may deal with attorneys with the knowledge that their matters will be handled with absolute propriety. People v Golden, 654 P. 2d 853 (Colo. 1982).

As officers of the court, lawyers (attorneys) are charged with obedience to the laws of this state and to the laws of the United States, and intentional violation by them of these laws subjects them to the severest discipline.” People v Wilson, 176 Colo. 389, 490 P.2d 954 (1971) .

Attorney never to obstruct justice or judicial process. An attorney has a high duty as an officer of the court to never participate in any scheme to obstruct the administration of justice or the judicial process. People v Kenelly, 648 P.2d. 1065 (Colo. 1982); People v Richards, 748 P.2d. 341 (Colo. 1987).

Since a lawyer is an officer of the court, the court cannot tolerate or allow fraud by a lawyer to go unpunished, for to declare such acts to be unprofessional conduct would be to use the mildest of language. People v Radinsky, 176 Colo. 357, 490 P.2d. 951 (1971).

Disciplining those who perpetrate fraud on courts is a sacred duty. “A most sacred duty is to maintain the integrity of the law profession by disciplining lawyers who indulge in practices which are designed to perpetrate a fraud on the courts.” See Radinsky, supra.

Acts and conduct on the art of an attorney which establish that he is incapable of being trusted, when coupled with acts of dishonesty and deceit, render that person unworthy or public confidence and recognition by the courts “ Radinsky, supra.

A lawyer who holds the position of district attorney, with substantial powers of that office, assumes responsibilities beyond those of other lawyers and must be held to the highest standard of conduct. People v Brown, 726 P.2d. 638 (Colo. 1986).

I consent that Rule 251.4 Duty of Judge to Report Misconduct or Disability should have been acted upon, but was not. I have been made victim of conspiring of Judge and attorney to continue the ongoing attack upon Me and the taking of My unalienable Rights, by Judge Crowder and Judge Gilbert.

It appears that Canon 3(B)(3) has been violated by Judge Pelican, Judge Crowder, Judge Prince, and Judge Gilbert in this instant case. I consent to Radinsky, supra which states “a most sacred duty is to maintain the integrity of the law profession by disciplining lawyers who indulge in practices which are designed to perpetrate a fraud on the courts.”

Rule 251.5 Grounds for Discipline

Misconduct by an attorney, individually or in concert with others, including the following acts or omissions, shall constitute grounds for discipline …:” (a) Any act or omission which violates the provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct; (b) Any act or omission which violates the criminal laws of this state or any other state, or of the United States.

Judge Gilbert is a plaintiff in this case as he has a claim placed upon his bond for failing to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” to secure My unalienable Rights. I do not consent to this scheme and the claim upon his bond is correctly placed and discharge of this claim is valid.

Furthermore, with the State Legislature NEVER having taken a sworn and subscribed oath of office perfected by the chief justice since 1880, is also grounds to dismiss this bogus use of a criminal statute. 'Where there is no office there can be no de facto officer. “

I consent that all officers of the court are guilty of filing false and fraudulent information based upon no lawful standing of the state legislature since 1880. This includes 38-35-201 through 204 C.R.S. used by TIMOTHY ODIL AND DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK in Judge CROWDER’s court and the D.A. in Gilbert’s court.

I have met the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that use of statutes is non-constitutional based upon the absent of a lawful state legislature since 1880. Additionally, there can be no lawful grounds to codify the general laws into special statutes by use of a referendum to turn Article VI upside down on its head inapposite to Article 3, Sec. 2 in the United States constitution of 1789 and Article V, Sec. 25 in Colorado’s organic law of 1876.

Violation of Code of Professional Responsibility in conjunction with other disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify disbarment.

Conclusion

In summation, I consent to financial concessions to all claims except the city of Pueblo.

I consent to work firstly on the claim placed upon the city of Pueblo who volunteered into the agreed to liability in recorded document 208124590. The agreed to liability of 205,782.22 U.S. funds plus interest is of primary importance. The doctors, hospital, physical therapists in good faith provided me with the best of care. Medicare is going to remove what it paid knowing that the city of Pueblo is liable. The bills have all gone to collection and I really must get this settled now. Tom Jagger, city attorney is the problem. DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK is involved in this situation somehow.

I consent to work toward resolution of the financial aspects of this case without the fear and intimidation of jail and/or prison. I consent to the D.A. dismissing this case with prejudice immediately. The lies presented therein from DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK are just that—LIES! There are NO LIENS! There is NO foundation in law for these charges. I do not consent to the loss of My liberty based on statutes which have no foundation in law in either the United States Constitution or Colorado state Constitution of 1876. I rely on United States Securities v Pantex as my reasoning for the above stated belief. I do not consent to the loss of My Liberty in a non-constitutional forum as adjudicated in Pantex. Anything repugnant to the United States Constitution is null and void. The mere fact that in 1962 that the electorate allowed Article VI to be turned upside down on its head and remove law and equity as jurisdiction in Article VI and then have the audacity to NOT say jurisdiction will be based on “statutes” is an abomination beyond belief and a FRAUD upon the People. The Colorado Constitution has to comply to the United States Constitution and no Referendum can change the organic law and create statutory law inapposite to Article 3, Sec. 2 in the United States Constitution for America. The non-constitutional statutory creation is inadequate to take My unalienable Rights to Liberty and guaranteed domestic tranquility as stated in the Preamble of the United States Constitution for America. I consent to the dismissal of this case with prejudice to prevent unintended consequences D.A. MAY and others could sustain for the taking of My unalienable Rights to Liberty.

I do not consent to any conditions presented in the Settlement documents from TIM ODIL AND DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK. My employees have absolutely no authority to make demands of their employer no more than a child has the right of attacking its parent. The CREATION is not greater than the CREATOR. Marshall v Marshall, 04-1544 (May,2006), quoting Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v George, 233 U.S. 354, 360. “The CREATION is not greater than the CREATOR”.

I do not consent to holding over My head the threat of jail because the so called 1996Cv604 ORDER is a default judgment created without My being served a complaint. This so-called ORDER is a published forgery containing material misstatements. I do not consent to being held in contempt of an ORDER resulting from a non-materialized case stopped by the August 12, 2008, Writ of Mandamus. CONCURRING JURISDICTIONS CANNOT EXIST.

The Attorney General confirmed that this statutory court of record had no record in recorded document in 208124589 A Making Owner’s Mandatory Judicial Notice of a Publicly Recorded Forgery. ODIL AND KOGOVSEK attempted to remove page 8 & 9 from My 208124589 proven in 07Cv1626 on July 8, 2009. There are no supporting documents in the statutory court of record in 13-1-111 C.R.S. ODIL and KOGOVSEK are in violation of the Professional Code of Responsibility 251.1(a) “Acts and conduct on the art of an attorney which establish that he is incapable of being trusted, when coupled with acts of dishonesty and deceit, render that person unworthy or public confidence and recognition by the courts” People v Radinsky, 176 Colo. 357, 490 P.2d. 951 (1971).

I consent and will remove from the public recorded documents once I have been reasonably compensated for My injury and damages and reasonable effort of compliance has been executed by the offending public servant.

I consent to extensive discipline of DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK as an impersonator county attorney because he has no oath of office and has been harassing Me from a vacated office adjudicated in People v Quimby, 371 P.2d. 263 (Colo 1963), since August 14, 2001. He has taken funds from the People in Pueblo County as an impersonator. He is going to take a PERA retirement to which he is not vested. And, this situation involves all the other unqualified and improperly credentialed created persons including all judges in Pueblo and El Paso counties.

I consent to know exactly which plaintiff-fiction was injured and how. According to Pantex, there was no injured “person” because none appeared at the ‘trial” on July 8, 2009. In reality, according to Pantex, the case should have been dismissed on July 8, 2009.

I consent to extensive correction of the state legislature and the absence of sworn and subscribed oath of offices. I consent to the repayment of funds collected by ABEL TAPIA and DOROTHY BUTCHER for falsely representing themselves as a state senator and state representative absent constitutional elections and absence of an oath of office.

I consent to the repayment of funds collected by all county employees for falsely representing themselves as a sheriff, county clerk and recorder, county commissioner absent constitutional elections and compliance to Article VII in Colorado’s Constitution of 1876. We the People are guaranteed a Republican form of government and nothing less is acceptable. See U.S. v Reece, 92 U.S. 214 (1875).

I consent to the return of and re-establishment of constitutional elections in Colorado and use of general laws as prescribed by the People in 1876 in Article V, Sec. 25.

Submitted,

_____________________________
Mary Severance, one of the people in Colorado