(ie: Treasury Warrant, Contract binding one to Caesar, etc ...)
along with all the supporting facts and law relied upon showing authority and jurisdiction to bring claim (ie: FARA registration statement, oath of office, official surety bond, errors and omissions carrier, delegation of authority affidavit, loyalty and security clearance (22 USC 272b), etc ...)
AND A Writ of Mandamus for order to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion AND a Writ of Prohibition directing a subordinate to stop doing something the law prohibits AND any other Writ commanded by Law and Equity ... However, I an led to believe the Verification of Complaint by itself should cause the court to act accordingly, as the Verification rebuts ALL presumptions.
The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, to deny him his liberty is to take from him all that makes his life worth living; to give him his liberty but take from him his property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty is to leave him a slave." - George Sutherland, the Associate Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court in 1921
Thus "no proof of claim" = "involuntary servitude" for it has ALREADY been decided under United States v. Kozminski
- 487 U.S. 931 (1988) that "involuntary servitude" consists of "(a) the servant believes that he or she has no viable alternative but to perform service for the master (b) because of (1) the master's use or threatened use of physical force, or (2) the master's use or threatened use of state-imposed legal coercion (i.e., peonage), or (3) the master's use of fraud or deceit to obtain or maintain services where the servant is a minor, an immigrant or one who is mentally incompetent. (such as: "you must have an attorney to continue")"
and further backed up by United States v. Mussry
, 726 F.2d 1448, 1453 (1984). See also United States v. Warren
, 772 F.2d 827, 833-834 (CA11 1985) ("Various forms of coercion may constitute a holding in involuntary servitude. The use, or threatened use, of physical force to create a climate of fear is the most grotesque example of such coercion").
Therefore, in a war between the United States and a belligerent which admits of slavery, if a person held in bondage by that belligerent be captured by or come as a fugitive under the protection of the military forces of the United States, such person is immediately entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman. To return such person into slavery would amount to enslaving a free person, and neither the United States nor any officer under their authority can enslave any human being. Moreover, a person so made free by the law of war is under the shield of the law of nations, and the former owner or State can have, by the law of postliminy, no belligerent lien or claim of service. - Article 46 of the Lieber Code
Florida Constitution: Article V: Section 3
(b) JURISDICTION.—The supreme court:
- Shall hear appeals from final judgments of trial courts imposing the death penalty and from decisions of district courts of appeal declaring invalid a state statute or a provision of the state constitution.
- When provided by general law, shall hear appeals from final judgments entered in proceedings for the validation of bonds or certificates of indebtedness and shall review action of statewide agencies relating to rates or service of utilities providing electric, gas, or telephone service. (hmmm ... Interesting)
- May review any decision of a district court of appeal that expressly declares valid a state statute, or that expressly construes a provision of the state or federal constitution, or that expressly affects a class of constitutional or state officers, or that expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law.
- May review any decision of a district court of appeal that passes upon a question certified by it to be of great public importance, or that is certified by it to be in direct conflict with a decision of another district court of appeal.
- May review any order or judgment of a trial court certified by the district court of appeal in which an appeal is pending to be of great public importance, or to have a great effect on the proper administration of justice throughout the state, and certified to require immediate resolution by the supreme court.
- May review a question of law certified by the Supreme Court of the United States or a United States Court of Appeals which is determinative of the cause and for which there is no controlling precedent of the supreme court of Florida.
- May issue writs of prohibition to courts and all writs necessary to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction.
- May issue writs of mandamus and quo warranto to state officers and state agencies.
- May, or any justice may, issue writs of habeas corpus returnable before the supreme court or any justice, a district court of appeal or any judge thereof, or any circuit judge.
- Shall, when requested by the attorney general pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of Article IV, render an advisory opinion of the justices, addressing issues as provided by general law.
Rule 9.030(a) Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Fla. E. App. Pro.
(3) Original Jurisdiction. The supreme court may issue writs of prohibition to courts and all writs necessary to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction, and may issue writs of mandamus and quo warranto to state officers and state agencies. The supreme court or any justice may issue writs of habeas corpus returnable before the supreme court or any justice, a district court of appeal or any judge thereof, or any circuit judge.
We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.
If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
and in keeping with all of this, it appears you can take the order up to the supreme court and seek Writ of Quo Warranto in regards to the production of the proof of claim