unalienable rights and bank account withdrawal slips

What most call one’s bank account checks!!!! 10-23-09

There is an informal group who carry on a conference phone meeting on Sunday evenings. A couple of weeks ago one of the folks pointed out that the line on what most folks call a bank check to withdraw money from their account was not a solid line but was small print writing. He sounded concerned about the writing and its effect on the signature and the signors lawful obligation. I looked at one I had handy and could see there was something there and not a solid line. I ordered in a cheap ($4) 10x or 20x magnifying lens. When it arrived I could just barely make out using 20x magnification, the line indicates that “authorized signatures” was what the words were. I checked two different banks. One repeated for the length of the line, the words “authorized signature only” the other bank went with “authorized signature” only over and over for the length of the so called line one signs on. It didn’t give me any reason for alarm.

Since I believe and so live my life (hence conduct) with the Declaration of Independence as the supreme contract between we the people and the US Constitution as the subordinate contract, I view things in a way many don’t.

In the early 1980s when the patriots were saying that the use of bank accounts made one libel unless the bank cards were signed in a certain way, I didn’t buy the verbiage, but did not have my present understanding of our contract form of government and hence our status (rank) with respect to our form of government.

I suspect the present signature line on the bank account paper is concerning the banks responsibility from days past. In theory once one signed the bank card, a draw was not suppose to be done against that account until the signature had been verified against that signature card by the bank as the payee. If not done, the liability of the bank was probably close to 100% for any fraudulent draws against an account. The customs of business evolve over time and change is always in the wind. I further suspect that our present forms of banking makes the signature card semi-moot. Each bank is a separate business, even though they advertise as branch banks. The ownership of the branch bank may or may not be by the parent bank. Regardless, the original signature card can only be kept in one place (generally the bank where you signed it). I have run into this situation in trying to get funds on a Saturday when the bank where the signature card (which I had not signed) was kept but bank not open with any staff. I got my funds, but had to fuss with the branch bank persons.

Please note the following info. In the past, it use to say on most bank account withdrawal slips, checks --- one does not see that now-a-days. Reason being is probably because that bank account withdrawal slip is either a check or negotiable instrument. The difference being, it is fraud to give a check for funds not on deposit; while for a negotiable instrument the funds only need to be there when the instrument is presented for payment. By the rules of commerce, the accepting of a negotiable instrument is an extension of credit, and considered apart (separate transaction) from the good/s obtained. If one notices, pay instruments use to and most probably still do have payroll indicated on them. That was done by code mandate, because the workers were not after the fact extending credit to the boss.
Given my view of the contracts of this land which I claim as a making writer by adoption, it is not possible to override the boss’s determination of my (or your) status. But how one uses the bank account determines whether one has a checking account or a negotiable instrument account or whether the account holder is mixing the use of the account as a part time checking and the other part a negotiable instrument account. I stay with checking account.

Please note: I know of no contract logic which makes ss, drivers license , license of any type, HJR 192, or any other code condition binding on you, me or our contract standing and status. Part of my reasoning being is the hired help, corporations, banks, etc are bound by contract they were created under and that is the subordinate US Constitution ((a contract which I (we) wrote and hence gave)). To all persons, or entities created pursuant to that contract, it is an adhesion contract –means created have no say in the contract and can not change it, but must accept it as a matter of law as the makers intended and have written. I and the other writers do not write a contract which has parts that are not for our benefit and use.

Please note: the created persons and corporation having “limited liability” – I am discussing only the corps’s. The US Constitution makes all the corps’s assets losable but not ones personal asset that are not used to buy shares in the corps’s or loan funds to the corps’s.

Since, if you finance a menace with your funds, then it is possible to have at risk that which you gave the menace on credit. This is especially true as you probably have deeper pockets. I think you will find this was the original use of the car titling system. By code the hired hands were making the selling on credit of cars, free of liability to the manufacture for putting cars in the hands of drunks and other menaces for their damages to others. It stands to reason that ford or gm has deeper pockets than a drunk who has to pay for car by the month. By code they tried to separate the credit sell from the responsibility of the common law rules.

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

Mary's struggle for here unalienable Rights from Creator

The following article is long was filed as part of a defense by Mary using her law and yours. In no event did she break faith with the law of this land althouh she discusses the attackers corrupt system.

July 27, 2009

Mary Severance, One of the people in Colorado
1518 Saratoga Road
Pueblo, Colorado [81001]

Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Pueblo Division
Civil Rights Division
720 N. Main Street, Suite 330
Pueblo, Colorado 81003

A VERIFIED COMPLAINT DISCLOSURE OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION
and FRAUD in
Pueblo and El Paso County(s), Colorado ‘Acorn’ Type Election Fraud

I.

I am the victim and My name is Mary Elizabeth Severance (hereinafter Mary Severance).

II.

Victimizers (Witnesses):

Person of Daniel C. Kogovsek, # 7566 Unqualified and improperly credentialed County Attorney for Pueblo County, Colorado, 215 West 10th Street, Room 312, Pueblo, Colorado 81003, 19-583-6630.

Valerie Haynes, # 25288, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Ass’t County Attorney for Pueblo County, 215 West 10th Street, Room 312, Pueblo, Colorado 81003, 19-583-6630.

Person of Richard C. Kaufman, # 8349, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Attorney, 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 700, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 634-4000.

Person of Leno Lipinisky DeOrlov, #13339, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Attorney, 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 700, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 634-4000.

Person of Timothy Odil, # 35771, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Attorney, 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 700, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 634-4000.

Person of David Brougham, #1950, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Attorney, 112517th Street, Suite 600, Denver, Colordo 80202-2052, (303) 628-3327.

Person of Kirk Taylor, Unqualified and improperly credentialed county sheriff, 909 Court, Pueblo, Colorado, 81003 19) 583-6125.

Person of Gilbert Ortiz, Unqualified and improperly credentialed county clerk and recorder, 215 West 10th Street, First Floor, Pueblo, Colorado, (719) 583-6620.

Person of Jeffery Chostner, # 15769 Unqualified and improperly credentialed de facto county commissioner, 215 West 10th Street, First Floor, Pueblo, Colorado, (719) 583-6620.

Person of Tom Jagger, # 24614, Unqualified and improperly credentialed City Attorney for Pueblo, Colorado, Thatcher Building, 503 N. Main Street, (719) 545-4412.

Person of Abel Tapia, Unqualified and improperly credentialed de facto state senator for Pueblo county, 11 Judy’s Dream Lane, Unit A, 81005 (719) 546-2235.

Person of Dorothy Butcher, Unqualified and improperly credentialed former de facto state Representative for Pueblo county, 101 Encino Drive, Pueblo, Colorado 81005 ((719)561-2746.

Person of Jerry Pacheco, City Manager for the City of Pueblo, Unqualified and improperly credentialed One City Hall Place, Pueblo, Colorado 81003 (719) 553-2655.

Person of Barbara Vidmar, President for the City Counsel for the City of Pueblo, Unqualified and improperly credentialed One City Hall Place, Pueblo, Colorado 81003 (719) 553-2655.

Person of John Suthers, #8492 Unqualified and improperly credentialed de facto A. G. for the State of Colorado, 1525 Sherman Street, 7th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 866-4500.

Person of Richard Gonzales, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Director of the Department of Personnel Administration, 633 17th Street,Suite 1600, Denver,Colorado 8020, (303) 866-0000.

Person of Mary Mullarkey, # 5430, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Chief Justice for the Colorado Supreme Court, 2 East 14th Street, 4th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 837-3790.

Person of Gregory Hobbs,# 9 , Unqualified and improperly credentialed Justice for the Colorado Supreme Court, 2 East 14th Street, 4th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 837-3790.

Person of Alex Martinez. # 7491, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Justice for the Colorado Supreme Court, 2 East 14th Street, 4th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 837-3790.

Person of Michael L. Bender, # 3479, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Justice for the Colorado Supreme Court, 2 East 14th Street, 4th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 837-3790.

Person of Nancy e. Rice, #6655, Unqualified and improperly credentialed ustice for the Colorado Supreme Court, 2 East 14th Street, 4th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 837-3790.

Person of Nathan B. Coats,# 8233, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Justice for the Colorado Supreme Court, 2 East 14th Street, 4th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 837-3790.

Person of Allison Eid, # 21163, Unqualified and improperly credentialed Justice for the Colorado Supreme Court, 2 East 14th Street, 4th Floor, Denver, Colorado, (303) 837-3790.

Person of Stephen Pelican, #3035, Unqualified and improperly credentialed 4th Judicial District Court Judge (Retired) P.O. Box 2980, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 (719)-448-

Person of David Gilbert, # 13737, Unqualified and improperly credentialed 4th Judicial District Court Judge, P.O. Box 2980, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 (719)-448- 7524.

Person of Ronald Crowder# 8679, Unqualified and improperly credentialed 4th Judicial District Court Judge, P.O. Box 2980, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 (719)-448-7737.

Person of David Prince , #20056, Unqualified and improperly credentialed 4th Judicial District Court Judge, P.O. Box 2980, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 (719)-448-7504.

Person of Daniel May, #11379, Unqualified and improperly credentialed de facto District Attorney for El Paso County Colorado, 105 E. Vermijo Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colo. 80903, (719) 520-6169.

Person of Robyn Cafasso #17116, Unqualified and improperly credentialed DDA for El Paso County, Colorado, Colorado Springs, Colo. 80903, (719) 520-6169.

Rebecca Greenberg # 39242 Unqualified and improperly credentialed DDA for El Paso
County, Colorado, Colorado Springs, Colo. 80903, (719) 520-6169.

Sheriff Terry Maketa, Unqualified and improperly credentialed 210 S. Tejon Street, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903, (719) 520-7204.

Western Surety Insurance Company, Lea Neiburh, P.O. Box 5077, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 57117, (605) 335-0357.

Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) , Claims Adjuster, 3665 Cherry Creek North Drive, Denver, Colorado 80209, (303) 757-5475.

Colorado Counties Casualty and Properties (CAPP) Janet Grossnickle, Claims Adjuster,
800 Grant Street, Ste. 400, Denver, Colorado 80203, (800) 544-7868.




Quoting Daniel Webster, when he reminded our Forefathers:

“IF THIS CONSTITUTION BE PICKED AWAY BY PIECEMEAL, (PIECE BY PIECE), IT IS GONE AS EFFECTIVELY AS IF A MILITARY DESPOT HAD GRASPED IT , TRAMPLED IT UNDERFOOT, AND SCATTERED IT TO THE WINDS”

The below reference materials validates what Daniel Webster said in 1789 regarding the PIECEMEAL, TRAMPLING of the People’s law, the unanimous Declaration of Independence and its CREATED contact, the United States Constitution for America of 1789, and further subordinate Colorado state Constitution of 1876, for its federal and/or state employees/public servants in America presently in 2009.
The unanimous Declaration of Independence of 1776 endowed man with certain unalienable Rights from the CREATOR. By its authority man CREATED the subordinate UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION of 1789 for its public servants and employees who volunteered to work of their own free will for the people. That contract has intentionally and willfully been PIECEMEAL eroded into the existing FRAUD in this nation. In order to attempt to prevent this PIECEMEAL erosion, Article VI in The United States Constitution clearly bound all public servants to this contract at the federal and state levels. All governments have to comply to the United States Constitution of 1789 by oath of office. The oath of office is based upon the Declaration of Independence to secure My unalienable Rights which have been and are presently being trampled under foot by the hired help, a/k/a public servants.
The Declaration of Independence was the original compact/contract which is the law for the People. The people’s law is based upon Nature’s Law and of Nature’s God. It was written by Thomas Jefferson. Quoting paragraph two “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted [CREATED] among Man, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”




Identifying Information about the Victim

The victim is Mary Severance and I live at 1518 Saratoga Road, Pueblo, Colorado. I am a senior Citizen, age 72, and with private , contract, natural, unalienable Rights—civil Rights. The United States Constitution for America is a civil contract designed to secure My unalienable Rights to Liberty and guaranteed domestic tranquility as per the Preamble to the United States Constitution for America of 1789. However, before I present public corruption in Pueblo county that has now extended it’s tentacles into the so-called judicial branch of government in El Paso County. I will provide a history of the FRAUD perpetrated upon the people in Colorado by the elected public officials—PUBLIC CORRUPTION and FRAUD in Colorado state.
I understand the law as well as contract law. As one of the people in Colorado, I have the highest contract status in this controversy with the ‘created persons’ regarding the self evident endowed unalienable Rights of Mary Severance. Congress did not create Me, one of the People in Colorado state, as proven in My self-evident exhibits the unanimous Declaration of Independence at 207012213, the United States Constitution at 20801224, and Colorado state Constitution at 208012205 as a matter of public record. My signature on these documents energized the contract. Absent the signature on the contracts, the law essentially had become a ‘dead hand’ documents when the last founding father signatory died. My signature on the contract energized it just like putting My signature on a check. A written check without a signature is lifeless. Apply the signature and instantly, the check comes to life. The same principle applies to the signature on the Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution and the Colorado state Constitution. I now have the same place in history that the Founding Fathers had in 1789. I have the authority to enforce and/or drive all contract/compacts. As one of the Founding Fathers, I wrote the law, and I am “[T]he judicial power shall be vested in the United States [the people] in one supreme Court, and, inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Please refer the cross reference in Article 1, §8, Cl. 9 “To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” See THE PEOPLE EX REL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. THE NEWS-TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY AND THOMAS M. PATTERSON, 35 Colo. 253; 84 P. 912; (1906 Colo.) adjudicated “…The judiciary is the one department of government that may indict, try and convict for real or imaginary offenses against what it is pleased to term [*269] its "dignity." The court is not only "imperio in imperium," but it is "THE STATE" itself, the only higher tribunal being "THE PEOPLE."
History
1. The state of Colorado was created in 1876 which embodied the Enabling Act binding it to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. The people ratified its constitution in 1876 and Colorado was admitted to the Union on August 1, 1876. It was accepted by President Grant in the self-evident exhibit 205201896 as a matter of public record. Colorado had four years of a constitutional republic. After that it has been PIECEMEAL eroded into the existing FRAUD in Colorado presently. Today, our constitutional Republic has been TRANSFORMED into a business that functions by UN-CONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES and applied to the people which is FRAUD.
The Colorado constitution shall comport to the United States Constitution for America to all of its basic mandated contractual obligations. The Colorado constitution may expand its contract, but never be less than the mandates in the United States Constitution of 1789. The First Continental Congress placed great emphasis upon Article VI, the part of the contract that binds all public officials, elected or appointed to work for We the People as its public servant or employee.
2. The oath of office of all public officials must be a sworn and subscribed oath and recorded with the appropriate public official, usually the Secretary of State for some state public officers, like judges, district attorneys and mandated state legislators. The county clerk and recorder is used to record oath and bonds for county and other local public officials.
The oath of office was of such great importance that the Laws of the United States, Acts of the First Congress of the United States of 1789 prepared in I Stat. 23, Sec. 3 that (Sess. I, Ch. 2 ) mandating that all state legislators, executive, and judicial officers, elected or appointed shall take and subscribe their written oath of office with that responsibility being placed on the ‘person’ administering the oath of office. Colorado has had only one state legislator who has complied with this strict written and subscribed oath compliance since 1880. My self-evident exhibit 206090386 is a matter of public record provides proof that Colorado has NOT had a CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED AND CREDENTIALED LEGISLATURE since 1879. Everything they have done is NULL & VOID, but is “treated as” lawful, under “COLOR of LAW”, hoping no one will discover this FRAUD upon the people in Colorado.
3. Colorado’s law is that of general laws mandated in Article VI, §28 in the organic law of 1876. The gradual erosion of the constitutional mandate of use of general law started early in 1903 and has grown exponentially to the present day FRAUD using Statues to govern Colorado in violation of Article 5, §25, Article VI, § 1 in the organic law, and Article 3, §2 in the United States Constitution for America. The oath of office states the intention of the subordinate United States Constitution which is to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” which means to secure unalienable Rights and to be bound to the security of the people’s unalienable Rights and other contractual mandates written in Articles 1 through 7. All state constitutions have to “secure unalienable Rights. Today’s public officials take an oath of office and apply their name to the contract. Do they know to what they have signed and bound themselves? The contract is used by the public officials when it is to their advantage; and, discarded and ignored when to their disadvantage and agenda. It is this problem that causes Me to write about this FRAUD that exists in Pueblo and El Paso County, Colorado, that changed the organic law of 1876 PIECEMEAL through the use of REFERENDUMS AND INITIATIVE procedure. One of the worst things that happened early in Colorado’s history was the use of a REFERENDUM to create the INITIATIVE and REFERENDUM procedure in Section 1 in Article 5 in Colorado’s contract of 1876. But, that doesn’t matter as long as the people do not discover the fraud. It is okay until exposed. Many changes occurred in the thirties, fifties and sixties into the nineties which has created the present day PUBLIC OFFICIALS CORRUPTION and FRAUD implemented in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s etc.
4. In 1933 the Colorado Bar Association approached Governor Edwin Johnson and volunteered to abolish the county courts which were constitutionally created by the Colorado Constitution contract “courts of record” as seen in the Civil Code of 1887, in Sec. 412 in the self evident exhibit Book 2939, page 3 of 5 in the Pueblo Clerk and Recorder’s department. The abolition was completed in 1962 by REFERENDUM in violation of Article 5, sec. 25. Knowing that Article VI , §1 in Colorado’s organic law and Article 3, §2 in the United States Constitution cannot be abrogated, including the Enabling Act, the statutory courts operate FRAUD upon the people through use of statutes, knowing that law and equity rule. Statutes are now used on and for all infractions on the people in violation of the endowed and secured unalienable Rights.
5. Article VI in its entirety was abolished by REFERENDUM presenting to the people a purported constitutional amendment “Providing for the Reorganization of the Judicial Department “. United Securities, Inc. v Pantex, 53 P.2d 1935 reveals the truth of regulating the jurisdiction and duties of ‘justices of peace” in contrast to Article V, §25 by the general assembly by special laws (statutes) a FRAUD on the people. Regulating the practice in courts of justice (lawful courts of record) as stated in Sec. 412 in 1887 law is the basis of the created fiction. “Fictions arise in law, not law from fictions”. The vote was 64 Yes; 35 No. This REFERENDUM was NEVER ratified by Congress.
6. In 1936 by Initiative the people were asked by de facto general assembly to amend their state constitution to add the income tax by the wording on the initiative being “Amending revenue section of constitution principally by giving General Assembly power to provide for an income tax within limitations”. The people defeated this INITIATIVE 79 %; NO, 20% yes.
7. In 1962 by REFERENDUM the income tax question was presented to the people to define by law the income upon which income taxes may be levied under section 17 of Article X. It passed 53%; 46% rejected. This REFERENDUM was NEVER presented to Congress for ratification. The income tax is unlawful and illegal.
8. In 1935 the Bar Association absent authority for its existence in Article 5, sec. 25 started codification of the general laws into statutes used exclusively today in the legislatively created statutory courts operating as a business and trading on all Wall Street. Making money on public money is a felony in Article X, sec.13.
9. On January 22, 1937, the non-constitutional legislature adopted The Declaration of INTERDEPENDENCE was adopted thus creating a step towards the created democracy in 1967.
10. In 1946, Article VII (Suffrage and Elections) §8, the non-constitutional legislature, without any delegated authority by use of a REFERENDUM starting taking the election procedure out of the hands of the people with of paper ballot replaced with voting machines. Is this “warring on the constitution commonly termed treason? The vote was 56 Yes; 43% NO. This REFERENDUM was never ratified by Congress.
11. In 1910 the INITIATIVE and REFERENDUM procedure was brought before the people for its approval or rejection by REFERENDUM. The vote was 76% Yes; 23% No. This REFERENDUM was never ratified by Congress.
12. In 1980 use of a REFERENDUM to alter Article 5, §1 with “An amendment to Articles V and XIX of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, concerning the INITIATIVE and REFERENDUM process, and providing that an elector must be registered in order to sign a petition for an initiated or referred measure and that the proposed initiative measures shall be submitted to the legislative research and drafting offices of the General Assembly for review and comment at a meeting open to the public before a ballot title is fixed was approved by the voters. This was approved 60 % yes; 39 % No. This alteration to the Colorado contract was never ratified by Congress.
13. In 1966, control by the People of judge selection was presented in an “Amendment to Article VI of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, concerning the Judicial Department, and providing for the selection tenure, removal or retirement of Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of Other Courts of the State of Colorado” by INITIATIVE was approved by a vote of 52% to 47% NO. This alteration to the Colorado contract was never ratified by Congress.
14. In 1966, by REFERENDUM, an Amendment to Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, by the addition of a new section 22, providing that executive and administrative offices, agencies, and instrumentalities of the executive department of the state government shall be allocated to not to exceed twenty departments, with certain exceptions.” Approval was 69% to 30% No. This alteration to the Colorado contract was never ratified by Congress.
15. In 1967 another piecemeal transition of the Republic into a Democracy started with transferring the various departments from the Colorado state Constitution into what will become known as the Administrative Reorganization Act in 1968. Title 24-1-101 C.R.S. created a state government within a government in contrast to Article IV, §3 of the USC quoting “ New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but, NO NEW State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State * * *without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress”. This piecemeal transition of the Republic into a Democracy violates Article IV, § 4 quoting “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion ,,,” The self evident exhibit 205201896 documents the transition of the organic state constitution into a statutory created state government is presented as a matter of public record. (emphasis added is mine) This alteration to the Colorado contract was never ratified by Congress
16. In 1984 by INITIATIVE “An amendment to Articles IV, XIV, XX, and XXI of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, providing that a person must be a registered elector in order to vote for state elected executive officers, to vote for removal of a county seat, to vote on the striking off of county territory, to sign a petition for or to vote on county home rule, to vote on the formation, merger, election of members of governing bodies, and the functions of service authorities, to vote on a franchise relating to any street, alley or public place of a home rule city, to sign a petition for or to vote on municipal home rule, to sign a petition for or to vote on recall of state and local elective public officers, and applying to registered electors the percentage for determining the number of signatures on home rule petitions.” This was approved 72% Yes; 27% NO. The “qualified elector, status of the people, would soon become a statutory “eligible elector” and lose its authority/status in 1991. The 10th Circuit has ruled against “registering” in Davidson v Campbell along with Duprey v Anderson by the Colorado Supreme Court . Registering to vote is an adjunct. This alteration to the Colorado contract was never ratified by Congress.
17. In 1996 by REFERENDUM “An amendment to article XIV of the constitution of the state of Colorado, concerning the office of county sheriff, and, in connection therewith, authorizing the general assembly to establish qualifications for the office of county sheriff.” This was approved by 56% to 43% No. The county sheriff no longer acts on behalf of the people, but answers to the Reorganized “STATE” government of 1968”. He functions by STATUTE, not the organic law of the State of Colorado of 1876. The sheriff’s oath of office comes into question. He says he “will faithfully perform the duties of his office” which means to secure the people’s unalienable Rights, BUT operates against the people by STATUTE . The county sheriff is constitutionally bonded to and by the People in the general laws of 1877, but since 1994, to a surety company. Is there a conflict of interest? This alteration to the Colorado contract was never ratified by Congress.
18. I have presented the FRAUD and PUBLIC CORRUPTION and PIECEMEAL ALTERATIONS, not ratified by Congress to the organic law of 1876. I ask each reader does this translate into what has been adjudicated as WARRING on the constitution in COOPER v AARON, 358 U.S. 1 quoting “Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has state that “no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violation his undertaking to support it: See also IN RE SAWYER, 124 U.S. 200 (1888); U.S. v WILL, 449 U.S. 200, 26, (1980); COHENS v VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. (1821).”
Do these actions equate to conspiracy? Have public officials created false and fraudulent writings—such as their oath of office— defined in Title 18 sec. 1001? The oath of office is genuine. Has the public official’s signature on his oath of office stated that it is a forgery with material misstatements on it like to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” meaning to secure My unalienable Rights” then attack Me without My consent because of the Sheriff’s allegiance to a STATUTE and his codified position in 1996 by REFERENDUM in contrast to the demands of the oath of office to defend and support the organic law in Colorado of 1876? Does his signed oath of office admit to perjury or false swearing? Does enforcement of the signed oath of offices in this instant case of DANIEL H. MAY, D.A., ROBYN CAFASSO, D.D.A., Judge CROWDER, Judge GILBERT, and Judge PRINCE need to be reviewed and action taken by the FBI since the United States Constitution has been willfully violated for failure to be bound to the protection of My unalienable Rights by these ‘persons’ and other Articles to which they are bound to obey? Sheriff TERRY MAKETA is also in this mix even though I do not have his oath of office. It is on file with the local county clerk and recorder along with his bond to “secure the people’s unalienable Rights’? One cannot serve two masters. Quoting in part, SCHEUER V. RHODES, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
“Intentional misuse of that authority for personal gain is fraud. Intentional misuse of that authority which causes a deprivation of liberty or right is a criminal act. When a judge, acting with power possessed by virtue of his/her employment with the state, commits fraud against a citizen, does that judge then have a right to immunity? Is a judge above the law? According to the U.S. Supreme Court: "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."
The ‘justice’ courts rely on the sheriff to enforce ORDERS UNENFORCEABLE by the rendering judge. Quoting in part Blitz v Moran 17 Colo. App. 253; 67 P. 1020; 1902,
“ Section 11 of article 6 of our constitution provides as follows: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all [civil] cases, both at law and in equity." The foregoing provision is made the subject of an elaborate argument. It is said that by conferring jurisdiction in all [civil] cases in equity upon the district courts, the constitution invested those courts with all the powers inherent in, and incident to, courts of equity, among which is the power to appoint officers to carry out their decrees; and that the legislature is without authority to adopt a code of practice which would divest them of any of their inherent powers. We are not sure that we understand exactly what counsel mean; but we assume that they intend to say that by virtue of the foregoing constitutional provision, all the powers which the court of chancery gathered to, and consolidated in, itself, during the long period of evolution of English jurisprudence, inhere in our district courts. We think such [*261] conclusion entirely unwarranted. Jurisdiction is conferred by the constitution, but concerning [***12] the manner of its exercise, nothing is said. In cases of equitable cognizance, the district court may adjudicate and determine the claims of parties before it, and decree the proper relief; and, in doing so, it exercises the jurisdiction which the constitution confers. The constitution simply invests the court with the jurisdiction; it NOWHERE prescribes the PROCEDURE to be resorted to for the purpose of SECURING the DESIRED RELIEF, or PROVIDES THE MACHINERY by MEANS OF WHICH THE COURT'S DECREE MAY BE ENFORCED. Section 1 of article 5 of the constitution vests the legislative power in the general assembly, and its authority to enact legislation is limited only by the provisions of the constitution. While it may not impair the constitutional jurisdiction of the court, it is not inhibited from providing a mode of procedure in conformity with which the jurisdiction may be made effective. The general assembly has given us a code of practice, which NOWHERE undertakes to DISTURB the JURISDICTION VESTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, but which does prescribe the method by which the jurisdiction may be asserted. Our courts have no prescriptive powers. Their powers are derived solely from the constitution [***13] and the statutes, and their inherent powers are those only which are necessary to render their expressed powers effective, and enable them to exercise their jurisdiction. Inasmuch as the law has provided an officer to execute their processes, writs and orders, the appointment by them of another officer to perform the same duty, is not necessary for the purpose of rendering any expressed power effective, and is, therefore, outside of any inherent power. In other words, the “justice court’s” ORDERS are UNENFORCEABLE except by the use of the sheriff unlawfully and in violation of his oath of office to “secure My unalienable Rights”. I have been subjected to this unconstitutional action twice by Sheriff MAKETA and without a Fourth Amendment warrant.

THE PROBLEM BEGAN WHEN I WAS DENIED SUFFERAGE

I wanted to vote by the constitutional provision in My contract in Article VII in the Colorado state Constitution of 1876; and, I was discriminated against by the unqualified and improperly credentialed county attorney, DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK in conjunction with CHRIS MUNOZ, then Clerk and Recorder in 2006. Both conspired and decided to throw out My vote and refused to count it because I refused to register to vote. Registration to vote has been adjudicated in Campbell v Davidson , 99-1257, “…In Colorado Project-Common Cause v Anderson, 495 P.2d 220, 222 (Colo. 1972) (en banc), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the act of registration is “not a qualification but a mechanical adjunct to the elective process” for the elector. Quoting, Dupery v Anderson, 518 P.2d 807, 808 (Colo. 1974)( en banc) (“Registering to vote”). The basic qualifications to be a voter pertain to citizenship, age and residence. All electors who possess these qualifications "shall be qualified to vote at all elections." Registering to vote does not come within the ambit of a constitutional qualification to vote. In Benson v. Gillespie, 62 Colo. 206, 161 P. 295 (1916), it was held that those laws requiring registration do not limit the right of suffrage or add to the constitutional [***4] qualifications of voters. It was also held therein that the laws requiring registration merely prescribe a procedure by which frauds may be prevented [**809] and mistakes avoided on the day of election. More recently, in Colorado Project-Common Cause v. Anderson, 178 Colo. 1, 495 P.2d 220 (1972), this court quoted with approval from Benson "that registration is not a qualification but a mechanical adjunct to the election process which enables election officials to determine that the prospective voter has the qualification to vote on election day." It is our view that whether initial registration or registration after purging is involved, it is not a qualification to vote. It is merely an administrative process designed to facilitate rather than complicate participation in the election process.
I filed a complaint under the jurisdiction of Article VII in the common law document known as the Colorado Constitution of 1876, against those who won the election. I knew from My research, the election is NOT constitutional based on the fact of required ‘registration’ and the codification of the election procedure disallowed in Article V, §25 wherein the general assembly shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases “…the opening or conducting of any election or designating the place of voting”. The first thing codified in Volume 1 of the C.R.S. is the election procedure—a special statutory procedure.
On January 18, 2007, I recorded in the public record the “judgment by default for failure to answer or otherwise plead”, on January 18, 2007, against five ‘persons’. My self-evident exhibit is recorded at 207008804, 207008805, 207008806, 207008807, and 207008808 as a matter of public record. I convened My court a “constitutional court of record” as per the standards in INTERNATIONAL LAW quoting “…[T]he person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.” If the ‘hired help’ had any respect for its CREATOR, the judgment by default would have ended this fraud on the people. The court held in and I quote See also, in support thereof Schneckloth, Conservation Center Superintendent , v Bustamonte, 410 U.S. 218 (1973) said “…A judgment, in its nature, concludes the subject on which it is rendered, and pronounces the law of the case. The judgment of a court of record, whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on the entire world as the judgment of this court [the United States Tribunal (court for created person-fictions] 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 “. ( See Ex Parte Watkins, 3 Pet. @200-203.
In Colorado that court is found in the law of 1887, Civil Code, Sec. 412 Page 212 “Each of the following courts shall have a seal and shall be courts of record: the Supreme court, the District courts, and County courts and Any court established by law and expressly denominated a court of record. “By law” means common law with common to all being the mandate to best secure unalienable Rights’ and, to get consent from the governed before attack by the fiction-actors in this instant controversy. Section 412 in the 1887 general law has now been codified in 1935 by the legislature without any delegated authority creating a statutory creation a/k/a “color of law” Title 13-1-111 C.R.S. The Colorado state Constitution did not delegate any authority to the legislature to legislatively create statutes as a jurisdiction and especially for use against the People. Title 13-1-111 C.R.S. is a special statutory procedure created by the general assembly in violation of Article V, §25 “Fictions arise from law, not law from fictions”.
FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS
The Fourth Amendment protection applies to Me because absent its protection, My unalienable Rights to Liberty was taken and domestic tranquility guaranteed in the Preamble to the United States Constitution for America was violated. The fictions that made the arrest are bound to the United States Constitution to secure My unalienable Rights endowed by My CREATOR in the supreme law of the land, the unanimous Declaration of Independence.
I have been subjected to four kidnappings absent the fourth amendment protections by the use of administrative warrantless seizures. The dates of these Fourth Amendment violations are June 23, 2008, April 24, 2009, May 6, 2009, and June 23, 2008.
On June 23, 2008, the first warrantless seizure was the result of the litigation commenced on March 15, 2007, by RICHARD C. KAUFMAN, using a legislatively created statute 38-35-201 through 204 C.R.S. in an effort to remove the default judgments and 07Cv1626 that was filed in El Paso County, Colorado District Court, a special statutory procedure. The June 23, 2008 the first warrantless seizure resulted in a personal injury that required surgery for correction to My left shoulder. Surgery occurred on September 3, 2008. Medicare paid the bill, but the City of Pueblo admitted to the liability as presented in My self-evident exhibits 208117487, 208117486, 208124590, 208134363 as a matter of public record. The City of Pueblo is refusing to honor its agreed to default judgment. No liens have been created by Me. I have read and studied KAWANANAKOA v. POLYBLANK, 205 U.S. 349 (1907) and quote “… [A] sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law or which the right depends. “ I give no consent and state for the record that RICHARD C. KAUFMAN knows or should know that as one of the people in Colorado he has no persona jurisdiction over Me. Incidentally, jurisdiction has been challenged and never proven by any of the prosecutors.
On April 24, 2009, I sustained a second warrantless seizure absent a fourth amendment warrant issued from ALJ PELICAN’s court without PERSONA AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION over a People who has unalienable Rights as a result of the March 31, 2008, proceedings in ALJ PELICAN’s justice court. The so-called default judgment created in 96Cv604 is VOID. On March 31, 2008, had ODIL and KOGOVSEK done their homework, they would have known that they had NO JURISDICTION to ask for a contempt charge . The contempt charge requested on March 31, 2008, resulted in My personal injury requiring surgery on September 3, 2008. ODIL and KOGOVSEK failed to follow Rule 107 ( c) mandated procedures disallowed in 2-5-103(d) in this justice court as a result of 1962 when Article VI was turned upside down by REFERENDUM unratified by Congress. Judge PELICAN’s oath of office means nothing to him. It appears to be “just a piece” of paper.
The second contempt charge is VOID based on the facts present about 96Cv604 on the March 31, 2008. Additionally, a superior Writ of Mandamus SA08271 was filed into 07Cv1626 . on August 12, 2008, removing the jurisdiction from the PELICAN court to the Colorado Supreme Court. Concurrent jurisdictions cannot exist, but yet I am and have experienced harassment and threats of jail/prison. Moreover, ODIL and KOGOVSEK created NO paper trail mandated in Rule 107 ( c ) for the execution of a second warrantless seizure on April 24, 2009. The failure to appear charge is also VOID.
On May 6, 2009, a fourth warrantless seizure occurred, for 09CR1682 absent SUBJECT MATTER and PERSONA jurisdiction. As a People I am not subject to STATUTES created outside the constitutional mandates in Article VI, § 1 cross referenced in Article 3, §2 in the United States Constitution mandating jurisdiction is law and equity. Additionally in Colorado’s constitution of 1876, the people mandated in Article VI, § 28 use of only general law. In 1962 Article VI was abolished by REFERENDUM. Absent ratification by Congress and use of a REFERENDUM VOIDS all changes to Article VI in 1962 and law and equity stand as of this writing. Only Amendment XIX can be used to alter, change, or amend the People’s organic law. The use of STATUTES was the basis of the arrest on May 6, 2009, and on a people without a fourth amendment warrant created the third warrantless seizure. All actions are outside the mandates of the United States Constitution for America and are NULL and VOID. Judge GILBERT’s oath of office means nothing to him. It appears to be “just a piece” of paper.
On June 23, 2009, a fourth warrantless seizure occurred when I appeared by special appearance in ALJ GILBERT’s court without an attorney. Judge GILBERT revoked My bond and I was escorted by sheriff Terry MAKETA’S staff to El Paso County Jail without a warrant of commitment and a fourth amendment warrant. On June 26, 2009, I was returned to his ‘justice court’ and released pending the purchase of another bond costing Me 200 U.S. funds on June 27, 2009.
Since the Fourth Amendment mandate regarding probable cause is so important, the court held and adjudicated that the suspect warrant needs to be investigated to see if it met procedural and constitutional requirements relative to its validity. I am relying on the following and quoting “… [ I]f a warrant does not meet procedural and constitutional requirements, it is invalid. STATE V. BURTIS, 664 S.W.2d 305 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983). A void warrant invalidates all subsequent proceedings emanating from the warrant. STATE v. CAMPBELL, 641 S.W.2d 890 (Tenn. 1982). No valid conviction can occur if the charging instrument is void. STATE v. MORGAN, 598 S.W.2d 796, 797 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979).
Judge GILBERT’s oath of office means nothing to him. It appears to be “just a piece” of paper. Sheriff TERRY MAKETA and Sheriff KIRK TAYLOR’s oath of office appears to be “just a piece” of paper to them also. Both could have prevented these warrantless seizures if they would obey their oath of offices. The PUBLIC CORRUPTION by the unqualified and improperly credentialed general assembly in 1996 by REFERENDUM negates any responsibility to the enforcement of STATUTES in Colorado’s Republic by Sheriff MEKETA and Sheriff KIRK TAYLOR My endowed CREATOR unalienable Rights were taken in violation of all ‘fictions’ oath of office by failing to “faithfully perform the duties of his office “ to secure My unalienable Rights. This failure then led to the willful failure to enforce the fourth amendment which took My unalienable right to Liberty and turmoil experienced at home regarding the willful disdain for violation of My domestic tranquility guaranteed in the Preamble to the United States Constitution for America.
The bonding company, Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (SCIRSA) is refusing to honor the valid claim. As a corporation created by statute as per Article XV§ 2 in Colorado, it is bound to the Colorado state Constitution of 1876 which is bound to the United States Constitution to secure My unalienable Rights as per the Declaration of Independence. Their statute 24-10-113 C.R.S. supports its compliance. CIRSA chooses to rebel against 24-10-113 C.R.S. as do Colorado Counties Casualty & Property Pool (CAPP), Western Surety Insurance Company, and Department of Personnel Administration in care of Richard Gonzales, Director.
FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS
I exercised My unalienable Right of Liberty to Freedom of Speech and to Publish because I chose to discipline My employees/public servants for the intentional taking of My unalienable Rights when they willfully chose to violate their oath of offices. I placed a Notice of Claim for Damages upon their bonds for their contemptuous attitude towards their duty to be bound to My contract in Article VI to which they freely volunteered to do when they chose to work for Me; and, subsequently failed to submit to the supreme law of the land, the Declaration of Independence to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” to secure My unalienable Rights.
I took ownership of the Declaration of Independence, the subordinate United States Constitution for America and the still further subordinate Colorado state Constitution of 1876 on August 27, 2007. When I signed all contracts, My signature energized the contracts and by birthright and adoption, I became as though I were one of the original signers of the unanimous Declaration of Independence of 1776 and subordinate United States Constitution of 1789. I now have standing to enforce that which I wrote. I became the LAWMAKER quoting CARTER v CARTER COAL CO. , 298 U.S. 238 (1936), “…[A]nd the Constitution itself is in every real sense a law-the lawmakers being the people themselves, in whom under our system all political power and sovereignty primarily resides, and through whom such power and sovereignty primarily speaks. It is by that law, and otherwise, that the legislative, executive and judicial agencies which it created exercise such political authority as they have been permitted to possess”. I am sovereign. Quoting YICK WO v HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 “…[S]overeignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. For, the very idea that man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself”. Quoting more on sovereignty CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall, 419, 454 said “…[a]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern; but, themselves…”
ARTICLE 3 AUTHORITIY BY CONTRACT
As a standing sovereign and one of the People in Colorado Owners, I have judicial Power. I wrote Article 3, §1 “The judicial Power in the United States [the people] shall be vested in One supreme Court, “… The UNITED STATE SUPREME COURT recognized the difference between the CREATOR and CREATION when it stated in AMERICAN BANANA CO v UNITED FRUIT CO, 213 U.S. 347 “…The very meaning of ‘sovereignty’ is that the DECREE of the sovereign makes law.” THE PEOPLE EX REL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. THE NEWS-TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY AND THOMAS M. PATTERSON, 35 Colo. 253; 84 P. 912; (1906 Colo.) adjudicated “…The judiciary is the one department of government that may indict, try and convict for real or imaginary offenses against what it is pleased to term [*269] its "dignity." The court is not only "imperio in imperium," but it is "THE STATE" itself, the only higher tribunal being "THE PEOPLE." Quoting PENN v COM, 528 S.E. 2nd, 179,
“…[J] urisdiction means the power of a court to hear and determine a cause, which power is conferred by a constitution or a statue, or both”. .
As a result of the CREATION being unable to submit to authority, all actors brought a total of two new statutory actions against Me in an effort to get My self-evident exhibits of the t judgments by default 207008804, 207008805, 207008806, 207008807, and 207008808 removed from the public record and My Final Judicial Decrees. These new statutory actions were designed to relieve the bonding companies of their admitted liability by default.
I have had to surrender two and one-half years of My unalienable right to Liberty and Life to defend against these unconsciousable attacks. The actors know I am a People. Not once have they ever disproven that I am a People, but continue to treat Me as a “fiction” by attempting to reduce My People class one status to that of themselves, the CREATION. They fail to accept that the “creation are not greater than the creator” quoting Marshall v Marshall, 04-1544 (May 1, 2006) quoting Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. George, 233 U. S. 354, 360.



CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
In an effort to get their way, all actors-fictions have un-ceasing harassed Me by having Me seized WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, created injury that required surgery for correction and now refuse to assume the liability admitted to by the city of Pueblo by their bonding company; and, are now attempting to have me imprisoned because I will not submit to them. This is CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT because I chose to hold accountable My employees/public servants who willfully chose to breach their contract and violate Article 1, Sec. 10, Cl. 1 of the United States Constitution ”No State shall enter into *** ex post facto Law [the Administrative Reorganization Act of 1969], or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. See Article 2, §11 in Colorado’s constitution. All actors fail to realize that and quoting SHERAR v CULLEN, 481F. 2nd 946 (1973) “…There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights” to demand the securing of My unalienable Rights. Quoting RYAN V COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE, (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 518, 533 “Before sending person to jail for contempt or imposing a fine, judges are required to provide due process of law, including strict adherence to the procedural requirements contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Ignorance of these procedures is not a mitigating, but an aggravating factor”. The public officials fail to accept and realize that and quoting BUTZ v ECONOMOU, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); U.S. v LEE, 106 U.S. at 220 (1882) “…No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may se that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it”.
More CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT is to knowingly proceed with this court scheme knowing that Jurisdiction CANNOT BE PLACED UPON THE RECORD because NONE exists against one of the People in Colorado, a making Owner and Creator in this action. Jurisdiction has been challenged at least four times and ignored by Judge Gilbert. As CHIEF JUSTICE Chase said in EX PARTE MCCARDLE, 74 U.S. 506 (1886) and quoting him “…The first question necessary is that of jurisdiction * * * Without jurisdiction, the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause. And this is not less clear upon authority than upon principle”. John Marshall, Father of judicial review, continued to affirm and wrote that for the court to usurp jurisdiction would be TREASON to the constitution”. (emphasis added) CASE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICION. Therefore, this matter must be determined before moving one step closer to a trial by jury.
Still more CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT is the on-going harassment and threatened jail/prison time for holding accountable the public servants that agreed voluntarily of their own free will to work for Me, their employer, as My employee (public servant) per their oath of office to the United States Constitution for America of 1789, (hereinafter U.S.C.) to secure My unalienable Rights. This will cause Me harm and is a crime in 18-8-404 C.R.S. Each public servant is bound to Article VI, in this contract created by the authority of the Declaration of Independence as a result of wanting to have My right of suffrage (voting) in 2006, in Pueblo county. My vote was not counted and thrown out; and, the beginning of this under Color of Law Civil (natural, rights contract) Rights complaint. This appears to be an “Acorn type” election fraud situation in Pueblo county Colorado and supported as such within the State of Colorado?
TRIAL BY JURY
The GILBERT court is harassing Me into a trial with NO probable cause based upon STATUTES which are not law and use of an UNVERIFIED information as the charging instrument. As a sovereign I am entitled to a Trial by jury mandated in the Seventh Amendment which then means that I shall have an Article 3 common law trial by jury mandated in the Article 3,§2, Cl. 3. The oath of office rears its ugly head again to which all actors refuse to submit. The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT in COVERT v REID, 354 U.S. 1, (1957) stated in Article 3, § 2 “…the trial by jury ever has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law. And if it has so great an advantage over others in regulating civil property, how much must that advantage be heightened when it is applied to criminal cases!...[I]t is the most transcendent privilege which any subject [People] can enjoy, or wish for, that he cannot be affected either in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve his neighbors and equals.” (emphasis added is mine) See also Ex parte Milligan 4 Wall. 1, 122-123; Thompson v Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 349-350; United States ex rel. Toth v Quarles, 350 U.S. 11,16, 18-19; 2 Kent’s Commentaries, 3-10; The Federalist, No. 83 (Hamilton); 2 Wilson’s Works (Andrews ed. 1896) 222. De Tocqueville observed: “The institution of the jury…places the real direction of society in the hands of the governed, or of a portion of the governed, and not in that of the government…He who punishes the criminal is …the real master of society…All the sovereigns who have chosen to govern by their own authority, and to direct society instead of obeying its directions, have destroyed or enfeebled the institution of the jury”. De Tocqueville, Democracy in America (Reeve trans. 1948 ed. 282-283.
Mary Severance is NOT a PERSON
The term ‘person’ has been carefully described and I have read and am quoting from the definition of ‘person’ in the American Law and Procedure, Vol. 13, page 137, 1910: “This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently [IN APPEARANCEONLY] natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use…A ‘person’ is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested…not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons…The law of persons is the law of status or condition”. It is a ‘legal fiction’. A person in law is a legal fiction. It is undisputed that Mary Severance is a People with self evident unalienable Rights per the unanimous Declaration of Independence.
Also, PERSON, is a noun. Per'sn. [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.] -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
Quoting the Supreme court in Wills vs Michigan State Police, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1989)”… a sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a “person,” or “any person”.


ARTICLE VI OATH USC VIOLATORS
The Acts of the First Congressional Congress of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in I Stat. 23, §3 makes it perfectly clear that there is absolutely NO excuse for the Colorado State Legislature to have never taken and subscribed an oath of office and to have allowed this to happen since 1880 is reprehensible. The following oath offenders are presented for investigation and consequential actions:
First are the unqualified and improperly credentialed State Senator ABEL TAPIA and former State Representative DOROTHY BUTCHER. This grievous infraction was allowed by Chief Justice MARY MULLARKEY who knows or should know the requirements of 1 Stat. 23§ 3. The entire state legislature is unqualified and improperly credentialed to fill the state legislature position and they too are guilty of 18-8-303 C.R.S. for taking “compensation for past official behavior”.
Second is the unqualified and improperly credentialed county attorney, DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK. He has been employed since August 14, 2001, and is in violation of 18-8-303 C.R.S. taking “compensation for past official behavior” from the Pueblo taxpayers for pretending to be a county attorney. The county commissioners are to review the credentials of all elected and/or appointed officials at the first meeting in January of each year as stated in 24-13-105 C.R.S. The county commissioners per 24-13-107 C.R.S. are to keep a record of examination. DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK vacated office has been adjudicated in Quimby v People, 381 P. 2d. 275 (1963) and by statute 24-13-108 C.R.S. .
Lastly is Attorney General, JOHN SUTHERS who was appointed to fill the vacancy of KEN SALAZAR on February 7, 2005. By law, JOHN SUTHERS was required to file his oath of office on February 7, 2005. By the admission of the public record at 20055611052 from the Secretary of State’s records, it states that JOHN SUTHERS filed his oath of office on May 02, 2005. JOHN SUTHERS did not qualify for office required by Article 12, §§ 8-10 in Colorado’s Constitution of 1876. JOHN SUTHERS is therefore, unqualified and improperly credentialed to fill the office of attorney general. He is trespassing upon public office. Moreover, MARY MULLARKEY is in violation of 1 Stat. 23, §3, because she swore him. MARY MULLARKEY had the duty to prepare the written certificate. As attorneys who go to law school, they know or should know contract law and how to lawfully fulfill the requirements of filing his oath of office that he accepted on February 7, 2005, to fill the vacancy of KEN SALAZAR. Attached is his admitted vacated office and continued taking of compensation for past official behavior according to 18-8-303 C.R.S.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9, CL. 8 and SECTION 10. CL. 1
I, standing in the shoes as though I were James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin by birthright and adoption of the supreme law of the land, the unanimous Declaration of Independence, subordinate United States Constitution of 1789, and still further subordinate Colorado state Constitution of 1876 state for the record that the intent of the United States Constitution is to secure My [all of the People’s] unalienable Rights and to protect them from the “Kingly”, “Aristocratical”, “Monarchial” government by including Article 1 Sec 9, Cl. 8, and Article1, Sec. 10, Cl. 1 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person [public servant] holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title [Esquire, Attorney, Judge ,] of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” Quoting Section 10, “No State shall grant any Title of Nobility”.
Article 5,§25 in Colorado’s Constitution prohibits “the [unqualified and improperly credentialed since 1880 ] general assembly shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say; “…granting to any corporation, association [the bar association] or individual any special or exclusive privilege, immunity, or franchise whatever…”
The People no where in the organic law of 1876 created any provision for the Colorado Bar Association and went so far as to say in Article VI, §18 “ [T]he Judges of the Supreme and District Courts ***and no such Judge shall receive any other compensation, perquisite or emolument for or on account of his office, in any form whatever, nor act as attorney or counselor at law”. Article VI, §18 is in compliance to Article 1 Sec 9, Cl. 8.
The original, organic Colorado state constitution mandated that the Section 10 “no person shall be eligible to the office of Judge of the Supreme Court unless he be learned in the law …” By the non-ratified REFERENDUM by Congress in 1962, Article VI was abolished. Please notice that “learned in law” was removed in section 11 and now the judges “…shall have been licensed to practice law in this state for five years.” The People’s qualifications of “learned in law” have now been put under the control of the Colorado Bar Association. The judges sitting on the bench are in violation of Article VI, §18 and are an active registrant with the Colorado Bar Association.
The Colorado Bar Association functions on presumption of creation by special legislation of which I can find no reference. The Secretary of State has no reference of registration as an active association. The “BAR (=British Attorned Registry) ASSOCIATIONS” have unlawfully established that they are above the law, not subject to violations of law and are above contestation of their authority to break our laws. These “Foreign Agents” in 22 USC 611 have given their loyalty to a “Foreign Power” and are barred from all “Public Offices. These Esquires cannot hold public office in the Republican form of government guaranteed in Article IV, §4. They have a conflict of interest as stated in Article I, Sec. 9, Cl. 8 and Article I, Sec. 10 of the United States Constitution of 1789. Each bar number represents active participation in the Colorado Bar Association with no proof of registration with the Colorado Secretary of State. Therefore, all named attorneys are in violation of 22USC, §22 and subject to accountability.
Conclusion
To make a long story shorter, I placed claims upon the bonds of the unqualified and improperly credentialed county sheriff, county attorney, the City of Pueblo for My surgery and service funds due those who corrected My injury sustained by Me from the Pueblo cops, a claim upon the bond of the City Manager, and the seven Colorado Supreme Court Justices. The claims are all the same. All of My employees have intentionally and willfully breached their contract in violation of Article 1, Sec. 9, Cl. 8 and Section 10, Cl. 1 in the United States Constitution and in Article 2 § 11 in Colorado’s constitution regarding the violation of “..Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, and the ex post facto mandate. ” All public entities have failed to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” to secure My unalienable Rights, all ‘persons’ have been given due process of law per the contract under the Fifth and Seventh Amendment, with trial by jury being by Me under Article 3, § 1 in the United States Constitution for America quoting “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court..” As a cross reference, please see Article 1, Sec. 8, Cl 9 “To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” I can enforce the contract; and, because I wrote the law, as one of the People in Colorado and a making Owner of the United States Constitution of 1789, I would not give equal or greater authority to My employees. Carter v Carter Coal Company, supra clearly adjudicate that the lawmakers are the people.
A Public Notice to the World was recorded in My self-evident exhibits at 207127767.
Additionally, there is absolutely no excuse for this kind of misconduct and I do not consent to the on going attack upon Me. The ‘public servants’ were caught with their hands in the preverbal “cookie jar”; and, now they do not want to be held accountable for their breach of contract and other conspiring activities. Moreover, they are angry in that the common law trumps statutory law jurisdiction not to be found anywhere in the USC and/or Colorado state Constitution subordinate contracts. Article 3, § 2 makes it perfectly clear that jurisdiction of the judiciary is in law and equity. Colorado’s constitution in Article VI, §1 of 1876 remained in tact until 1962. At that time the legislature created a referendum and placed upon the ballot asking the people to change Article VI. The “new altered Article VI, § 1 has NO mention of statutory jurisdiction because they know this article has to be in compliance with Article 3, §2 of the USC. Legislatively created statutes are COLOR OF LAW and violate the delegated law and equity created by the People in 1876. Justice courts are not courts of record. Justice courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The present day court system is one of special statutory proceedings and was adjudicated as non-constitutional courts and exist under authority and by permission of the legislative branch of the government in United Securities Corp. v Pantex Pressing Machine Inc., 53 P. 2nd 653 (1935). The Plaintiff has NOT appeared in this controversy because a plaintiff may appear by his agent at the time of trial and save the dismissal of a cause—can mean nothing else than that the agent may represent the plaintiff in the trial of that cause. A corporation must be represented by an attorney. Quoting SHELBY COUNTY V NORTON,118 U.S. 425 (1886) “…[A]n 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”.
It is for the above stated reasons that I am seeking the investigative arm of the Victim Assistance Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the PUBLIC CORRUPTION AND FRAUD in Pueblo and El Paso County. I have sustained and could sustain further damage because of the anger and vindictive nature of this situation. The actor-fictions were caught for being in violation of each actors Oath of Office for failure to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” to secure My unalienable Rights. Additionally, the bonding companies have conspired with unqualified and improperly credentialed Attorney General, JOHN SUTHERS, to avoid having to discharge their liability by violating the above stated contractual obligations to get relief from judgment by default they brought upon themselves for failing to answer or otherwise plead. If no answer is filed, there is no issue to be tried. In an unlawful detainer action where a written complaint is filed in compliance with section 13-40-110, if defendant fails to file a written answer, there is no issue to be tried, and defendant is in default in both original and appellate courts, if an appeal be taken from a judgment against him. FORT V. DEMMER, 91 Colo. 285, 14 P.2d 489 (1932). Vol. 5 P. 318.
DANIEL MAY, D.A. has been woven into this conspiracy and is using the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO as the Plaintiff. He knows or should know by now, that the self-evident exhibit 205201897 proves that PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO are a non-entity. Not being a corporation or other such entity, requires the Plaintiff to appear, and not by the D.A. If DAN MAY insists on pursuing this case based upon the foregoing facts, it is filed in the wrong court. The United States Constitution in Article 3, § 2 clearly states that “…when a controversy exists between a State, or the Citizens thereof, original jurisdiction resides in the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. I do not consent to being prosecuted by STATUTES and in El Paso County, if indeed, the State is attacking Me.
The solution was very easy before January 18, 2007. All the unqualified and improperly qualified newly elected ‘persons’ had to do was talk with Me. This is called a “union” meeting. But, what did they do? They ran to attorneys who have created this huge problem and expanded a simple default judgment into the discovery of PUBLIC CORRUPTION and FRAUD in Colorado, namely Pueblo and El Paso counties. “Oh what a web we weave when at first we deceive” What is clearly apparent, needs not be proven”
Under the authority of the People, I declare these statements as true.
__________________________
Mary Severance, one of the People in Colorado

Verification
Using a notary on this document does not constitute any adhesion, nor does it alter My status in any matter. The purpose of a notary is verification and identification only; and, not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.

On this 26th of July, 2009, this PUBLIC CORRUPTION and FRAUD In
Pueblo County, Colorado ‘Acorn’ Type Election Fraud was sworn and signed in My presence by Mary Severance known to me or identified, who did acknowledge that she executed the same as her free act and deed.
_________________________
Notary and date
____________________________
Notary Commission





















As stated in the letter of March 1, 2007, letter from the unqualified and improperly credentialed DANIEL C.KOGOVSEK also brought this special statutory proceeding assisted by VALERIE HAYNES, # 25288. Apparently KOGOVSEK and KAUFMAN all attend the same law school as both know or should know that “…[A] sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law or which the right depends “ quoting POLYBLANK, supra.

On August 12, 2008, I filed a superior Writ of Mandamus 08SA271 into 07Cv1626 . The Writ of Mandamus was not entered into the ROA . Because I knew the superior Writ of Mandamus removed jurisdiction to the Colorado Supreme Court, I did not appear on August 22, 2008. To show the disdain ALJ PELICAN and ODIL and KAUFMAN requested another charge for contempt be filed against Me. The default asked by ODIL and KAUFMAN became a quasi-criminal procedure. The P-R Bond was revoked and another bench warrant was entered into the record by ALJ PELICAN. Upon arrest I will be held without bond until returned to this court. The NON-FOURTH AMENDMENT WARRANT was entered on August 25, 2008, while the Colorado Supreme Court still maintained jurisdiction. ALJ PELICAN’s oath of office which is to “faithfully perform the duties of his office” to best secure My unalienable Rights has been breached willfully. As a result of this unconsciousable behavior, I placed a claim upon the bonds of Steven Thomas Pelican, David A. Gilbert, Richard C. Kaufman, and Leno S. Lipinsky deOrlov on June 10, 2008. I have the authority to enforce My law in the United States Constitution to hold accountable the public servants who volunteered to serve Me, not attack, not harass, not to imprison without My consent. I consent ONLY to be served and for compliance to My contract to which they volunteered to be bound.

The Notice of Claim for Damages and Claim of Liability matured AFTER 90 days. On September 24, 2008, an Owner’s JUDICIAL FINAL JUDGMENT AND DECREE as My self-evident exhibit 208105395 as a matter of public record was recorded with the El Paso county clerk and recorder. On November 19, 2008, a Ten day Notice and Demand for payment was recorded as My self-evident exhibit 208124595 finalized the claim due and payable to Me for damages I sustained for the willful taking of My unalienable Rights by Stephen Thomas Pelican, David A. Gilbert, Lino S. Lipinsky deOrlov, and Richard C. Kaufman. The “public entities” were afforded complete due process of law and by operation of law, a common law lien was created BY THE CONTRACT, not Me. The public entities have NO personal monetary obligation of funds owed Me. The liability rests with the Department of Personnel Management who are refusing to honor their statute at 24-10-113 CRS.
*************



.
I am one of the People in Colorado State who have CREATOR endowed unalienable Rights as per the unanimous Declaration of Independence. I am reporting PUBLIC CORRUPTION AND FRAUD in Pueblo County, Colorado ‘Acorn’ Type Election Fraud that involves county and state officials within the jurisdiction of Pueblo County mandated in Article XIV. All I wanted to do was to vote constitutionally under the mandates of Article VII in Colorado’s constitution of 1876, in the November 2006 election. The election was held, I voted, but the vote was not counted because I refused to register to vote. I then challenged the election and those that were elected unconstitutionally refused to answer or otherwise plead. However, before I get into the specific issues of PUBLIC CORRUPTION AND FRAUD, the history of this FRAUD must be presented



On March 31, 2008, TIMOTHY ODIL and DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK requested that I be held in contempt of an ORDER RE: Permanent INJUNCTION in case 96Cv604 recorded in the public record at 1148558. Upon investigation by Me, I found that this case could not materialize because I was NEVER personally served a summons, complaint, Motion or Temporary restraining Order, and Notice of Hearing in this matter on 10-3-1996 as stated in the bogus ORDER in paragraph 12. ON 10/2/96 the ROA contradicts the bogus ORDER which said on the Return of Service “DEFT served 10/2/96 at the El Paso Co Jail.” I testified on July 8, 2009, that I was not in El Paso County Jail on either of these two dates. A civil case fails when process is faulty. Moreover, I used the open records format and wrote to the Colorado Attorney General Office on March 16, 2007, asking him for a copy of all paperwork in his possession regarding 96Cv604. Quoting in part, the Deputy Attorney General’s Jason Dunn response is presented in My self-evident exhibit at 208096038 as a matter of public record. His response was “after a thorough review, our office has NO PUBLIC RECORDS responsive to your request. Specifically, news printed media, MOTIONS, COMPLAINTS(S), ANSWER, ORDERS, JUDGMENT, SUMMONS, HEARING DATES a duly certified transcript of the entry of the Permanent Injunction ...” I made this request of the A.G. because I had a copy of the ROA with no paper work, NO court of record for this statutory created “court of record” codified in 13-1-1111C.R.S. To make matters worse, on July 8, 2009, ODIL and KOGOSVEK subpoenaed Sandy Hook, clerk and recorder for El Paso County and presented My self-evident exhibit 208124589, absent pages 8 & 9. This is called, in My book, Tampering with Evidence a crime in 18-8-610 CRS. Additionally, I believe the intent of tampering with evidence was an attempt to prove that there was a “court of record” with a paper trail to Judge Crowder. I impeached this presentation which proves that there is NO proof of a Return of Service validating I was served on 10/3/96 a summons and complaint on 10-3-1996 in paragraph 12 in the so-called ORDER and unsubstantiated in the ROA at 10-2-1996. Regardless of the truth presented, Judge Crowder ruled against Me stating that I knew I could not use the public record. I ignored this bogus ORDER because I knew that faulty process negated the ORDER and that this special statutory proceeding had no real reason to enforce this so-called contempt charge because ODIL did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt required in Rule 107 that the ORDER was valid, absent the paper work documenting SERVICE and My proof forthcoming for presentation on July 31, 2009. That court is/was in want of paper trail, the bogus ORDER is VOID, because at no time did I ever make an appearance. This bogus ORDER is a default judgment as entered on the ROA on 10/30/96. The published bogus ORDER at reception number 1148558 is a crime under 18-5-105 CRS, the criminal possession of a forged instrument created by the Colorado Attorney Generals Department. Forgery is also a crime under 18-5-102 CRS which includes a written document containing “material misstatements” which appears among much in the written words of ELIZABETH WEISHAUPL, Ass’t Attyn General on the ROA .

As a result of ODIL and KOGOVSEK’s request for a contempt charge under Rule 107, I sustained injury to My left shoulder when I was arrested WITHOUT a FOURTH AMENDMENT warrant with affidavit of probable cause attached. I had to use the public record in El Paso County Colorado because DANIEL C.KOGOVSEK would not allow use of My clerk and recorder in Pueblo county. He made a judicial determination with no authority.

***********
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN PUELBO COUNTY

A ‘court of record’ is one where paper backs up the docket entries known as a Registry of Actions (hereinafter ROA) My self-evident exhibits 207008804, 207008805, 207008806, 207008807, and 207008808 as a matter of public record default judgments have now been deemed as “false liens” as per My self evident exhibit 207038694 as a matter of public record. I submit 207038694 this exhibit because the unqualified and improperly credentialed , de facto county attorney DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK made a judicial determination that the default judgments were “judgment liens” because of the phrase “court of record” and “by the court” accusing Me of impersonating the unlawfully created legislatively created Colorado courts codified at 13-1-1111 C.R.S. I did not impersonate Colorado courts because as one of the People making Owners of the subordinate U.S. C. I have fully described why I am a judicial Power validated in NEWS-TIMES PUBLISHING, supra. Common sense says that as the Owner/Enforcer of the USC, I would not give equal or more power to the “hired help” the “created persons” than that of Myself. Additionally, this document was recorded as a self evident exhibit of “threat and bribery” by DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK as stated and signed by him in his March 1, 2007, letter “In order to resolve the problem created by the three recorded Judgment Liens, I request that you come to my office on or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 16, 2007, and each sign a Release of Judgment Lien form, the threat! Copies of the Release of Judgment Lien forms are enclosed for your review. If you do not sign a Release of Judgment Lien by March 16, 2007, I will have no alternative but to commence appropriate litigation against each of you—bribery, a crime at 18-8-302 C.R.S. A “Judgment Lien” is a statutory creature and My/Our default judgments are not statutory. The Release of Judgment Lien was not signed and DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK carried out his threat and attacked Me/Us with litigation which has turned so ugly that I am now threatened with 48 years of prison time in 09CR1682. DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK, # 7566 conspired with DAVID BROUGHAM, # 1950 who also threatened to bring criminal charges by statute in his December 10, 2008 letter attached. Statutes do not apply to Me, a people in Colorado who has unalienable Rights.


DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK and TIMOTHY ODIL attempted to conceal from Judge Crowder that case number 1996Cv604 is a “court of no record” which is validated by the only thing in this record in Pueblo, Colorado is a ROA. Moreover, My self-evident exhibit 207038695 as a matter of public record (Exhibit C in 07Cv1626) is a confession that DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK is impersonating a county attorney absent his oath of office mandated by the People in Article 12, Sec. 10. Refusal to qualify-vacancy. “If a person, elected or appointed to any office shall refuse or neglect to qualify therein within the time prescribed by law, such office shall be deemed vacant”. This is a crime at 18-3-207 C.R.S. DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK is mandated by law to have a bond and the oath attached to each other. In all likelihood, Valerie Haynes is also unqualified and improperly credentialed to work for DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK.

Furthermore, the law that created the bond-oath combined paperwork is found in G.L. §1940. Two maximums describe this scenario, “Fictions arise from law, not law from fictions”. “What is clearly apparent, needs not be proven”. DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK has been extorting funds from the People in Pueblo county since 2001. This is a crime at 18-3-200 C.R.S. It is time for DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK to be arrested and this office remains closed until it can be filled constitutionally.










The issue on the civil side fails to present a claim upon which relief can be granted. The prosecutor fails to meet his burden beyond a reasonable doubt as mandated in Rule 107. The bogus criminal side using UNVERIFIED information presents lies and deception which I challenged in the Objections to the Fatally Defective Complaint and Information. To seek to imprison a People for any time is unconsciousable especially when all courts are in want of UNPOVEN challenged jurisdiction. The criminal court has been requested four times to prove jurisdiction and four times ignored. As Chief JUSTICE CHASE in EX PARTE MCCARDLE, 74 U.S. 506 (1886) said and I quote him” …The first question necessary is that of jurisdiction * * * Without jurisdiction, the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause. And this is not less clear upon authority than upon principle”. CASE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICION




*****

even though the contempt charge has not met “beyond a reasonable doubt” based upon the third reason stated in DANIEL C. KOGOVSEK’s letter relating to Case No. 96Cv604. This law suit did not materialize and I was never served with a complaint or summons validated in the so-called Permanent Restraing Order at recorded at reception # 1148558 on 12-1-1996.



based upon a court case docketed as 1996Cv604. This court action did not materialize as by the admittance of Elizabeth Weishpul she said in her order that I was served a summons, complaint, on October 3, 1996, and on the ROA it said I was served on 10-2-1996. This is not true and proof of lie is recorded as My self-evident exhibit is a matter of record.





I claim and accept all endowed by Creator’s unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty (none above), and pursuit of Happiness with My guaranteed domestic tranquility guarded in the Preamble of the United States Constitution. I signed the supreme law of the land, My self-evident exhibit personal code

the unanimous Declaration of Independence, the subordinate United States Constitution for America and further subordinate Colorado State Constitution of 1876. The Declaration of Independence is the supreme law of the land as this is My law, the law I wrote, as an Owner. This law provided the authority of creating a government for those who volunteered freely of their own will to be a “CREATED” person who is bound by contract mandated in Article VI, Cl. 2 to the supreme law for those working as My employee/public servant
THE PEOPLE EX REL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. THE NEWS-TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY AND THOMAS M. PATTERSON, 35 Colo. 253; 84 P. 912; (1906 Colo.)