Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Any reference to local, State, county, Municipal, or federal codes, statutes, rules, procedures,
policies, or case law in this and any other matter or correspondence with any government
“person”, agent, agency, instrumentality, department, or office is not intended or meant to bind
Affiant or give personal or subject matter jurisdiction to any of the various government agencies
over Affiant or Affiant’s labor, but is intended and meant to remind said government courts,
agencies, and instrumentalities and the courts of the rules, laws, codes, statutes, and limitations
that they are bound by, especially and including but not limited to those found in the Holy Bible
as the Lord God Almighty’s Writ, Will, and Testament and the constitutions that those agents of
the various government agencies and instrumentalities swore to uphold.
Affiant, Deanna Gay: Mintz, being of sound mind and competent to make this affidavit with
personal knowledge of the facts contained herein has in the past and continues to attest to said
facts in My authorized capacity as an aspirating, natural, born of my Mother’s womb, moral
Woman created by and of the God Almighty in Heaven.
Note: "Sovereignty 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.; "Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US
356, 370.
79. Affiant is not in receipt of any document that verifies that Affiant is not a sojourning
bondservant of Christ, technically suae potestate esse, politically holding the status of
Judicial Power Occupant and sovereign, a sovereign Citizen of Heaven, who is
exclusively under the Law and Ordinances of the Almighty God in Heaven as
witnessed in His Holy Writ, Will, and Testament, owing allegiance to no politically or
legislatively created entity, and free to go about Affiant’s way through the land of my
birth so long as Affiant does no harm to another living, breathing soul or another’s
property without interference.
MATERIAL FACTS
80. Affiant was exercising Affiant’s Right of Locomotion and Right to Use and Enjoy
Affiant’s personal, non-commercial, recreational, privately owned, motorized
conveyance on the public ways and means of Washington on the afternoon of the
nineteenth day of the tenth month of the Year of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour
Jesus, the Christ, at five-fifty-three in the evening, approximately five miles outside of
the town commonly called Orondo, on the public highway known as state route 97, and
was not passing through any known construction zone where workers were present.
Affiant was moving at the same speed as other motorists on the public highway.
81. Affiant was pulled over by an unmarked automobile with red and blue flashing lights,
said vehicle having been noted by Affiant as having moved very fast, passing all other
vehicles behind Affiant in what appeared to be a no passing zone to pull behind
Affiant.
82. Affiant promptly pulled to the side of the road to give the speeding, flashing light
automobile room to pass safely by and said automobile pulled in behind Affiant as both
Affiant and unidentified auto came to a stop.
83. Affiant noted that the man coming out of the automobile that the Affiant pulled over to
the side of the road for appeared to be an armed Washington State Patrol Officer.
84. Alleged Washington State Patrol Officer, identifiable only as #736 since the
automobile was unmarked, the Officer’s nametag was not clearly visible, and the
signature on the alleged NOTICE OF INFRACTION/WASHINGTON UNIFORM
COURT DOCKET is unintelligible, upon being asked if there was anything Affiant
could do to help him, stated that Affiant could “start by going the speed limit.”
85. Affiant is not in receipt of any document, cannot find any physical evidence, and was
refused permission to see any radar or laser reading from the alleged Officer to prove
that Affiant was going in excess of the posted speed limit or using Affiant’s private
motorized conveyance in any reckless, dangerous fashion.
86. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any physical evidence that
Affiant was moving at more than fifty-four miles per hour in what is believed to be a
sixty-mile-per-hour zone.
87. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any physical evidence or
record that proves that the area Affiant was using and enjoying Affiant’s personal
motorized, recreational conveyance in had a speed limit that was set by a roadway
engineer as a “safe speed”.
88. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any physical evidence or
record that proves that the speed limit in the area Affiant was allegedly detained in, if
Plaintiff/Witness claims that it is a fifty-mile-per-hour zone and if Affiant was even
going the alleged fifty-nine miles per hour, was not arbitrarily set by legislative,
executive, or appointed public servant with no physics or engineering training to be
able to lawfully and properly decide upon for the purpose of entrapment, racketeering,
and extorition at gunpoint in order to fill the State coffers which are empty due to the
financial irresponsibility, greed, corruption, and incompetence of our elected officials.
89. Alleged Washington State Patrol Officer #736 stated to Affiant that Affiant was
“clocked” going fifty-nine in a fifty mile per hour zone, upon which Affiant informed
the alleged Officer that Affiant did not believe that Affiant was speeding.
90. Alleged Washington State Patrol Officer #736 stated to Affiant that another motorist
was noted going fifty-eight miles per hour and that said same Officer “pulled that
motorist over too.”
91. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any physical evidence that
proves that the alleged Washington State Patrol Officer #736 did in fact pull over any
other automobile and did not single out Affiant’s automobile because of the out-of-state
plates on Affiant’s private motorized conveyance.
92. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any physical evidence that
Affiant’s motorized conveyance was the one marked as “speeding” instead of the red
pickup truck that passed Affiant shortly before Affiant noted the alleged Washington
State Patrol automobile.
93. Affiant was, after being passed and the red pickup truck going out of site, at the front of
the line of automobiles moving on state route 97 that the alleged Washington State
Patrol Officer #736 passed in order to detain and interrogate Affiant.
94. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any physical evidence that it
is possible for the singular alleged Washington State Patrol Officer #736 to have pulled
over two separate motorists, one after the other, and taken the time to interrogate both,
demand proof of registration and insurance, etc., without those motorists having been
within view of each other. This improbable claim by Officer #736 evidences mistake
on his part or habitual statement of intentional untruths.
95. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any physical evidence that
alleged OFFICER #736 had authority or right to demand “Proof of Insurance” from
Affiant in light of the fact that Affiant was not involved in any kind of accident and
caused no harm.
96. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any evidence that OFFICER
#736/Plaintiff has the right or authority to refuse Affiant’s offered proof of insurance,
which is Psalms 91 out of the Creator Almighty God in Heaven’s Holy Writ, Will, and
Testament, as offered and which is the only law Affiant has ever consented to live by.
97. Alleged Washington State Patrol Officer #736 wrote a ticket commonly called an
INFRACTION/WASHINGTON UNIFORM COURT DOCKET # I 6039395, which
alleged violation of RCW 46.30.020 “No Proof of Insurance”, demanding payment of a
penalty of US$550 and placed it with Affiant.
98. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any evidence that alleged
OFFICER #736/Plaintiff acted with legal or lawful authority in demanding proof of
insurance from Affiant and issuing said citation in light of the Financial Responsibility
Act.
99. OFFICER #736’s actual lack of jurisdiction and authority can be found in the
Plaintiff’s W.R.C. 46.29.060. Also per your courts to wit:
[1] It is undisputed that, at the time of this accident, Mr. Boldt was not subject to the
requirements of our financial responsibility statute and that his insurance coverage
was a matter of voluntary contract…The statute speaks in terms of “proof of financial
responsibility for the future,” and defines that phrase in terms of “accidents occurring
subsequent to the effective date of said proof…” ROYSE v. BOLDT, 80 Wn.2d 44,
46, 491 P.2d 644 [No. 42072. En Banc. December 9, 1971.]
“In 1963, after Barkwill, the Washington legislature enacted a financial responsibility
law, RCW 46.29. Under provisions of this statute, the driver after an injury accident
must deposit security, unless he or she has an “automobile liability policy.” RCW
46.29.060-080. In addition, the driver involved in such an accident must furnish
proof of financial responsibility for the future. RCW 46.29.260, .420.” MUTUAL
OF ENUMCLAW v. WISCOMB, 95 Wn.2d 373, 378, 622 P.2d 1234 [No. 47034-1.
En Banc. December 31, 1980.]
“Under our financial responsibility act, an individual need not prove financial
responsibility until a vehicle owned or driven by him is involved in an accident
resulting in bodily injury or death of any person, or property damage of $300 or
more. RCW 46.29.060. Even after such an accident has occurred, proof of financial
responsibility for the accident and in the future may be made in a number of ways,
including, but not limited to proof of liability insurance. RCW 46.29.070, .080, .450.
Since the Legislature has not seen fit to require mandatory insurance coverage, we
will not replace its assessment of public policy with our own…we cannot require
mandatory insurance where the Legislature has declined to do so…WILLIAMS, C.J.
(Dissenting)…As we noted in Wiscomb, the provisions of the financial responsibility
act, RCW 46.29, do not become mandatory until the driver is involved in an accident
causing injury or damage of $300 or more. RCW 46.29.060; Wiscomb at 206.”
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INS. v. JESTER, 102 Wn. 2d 78, 81, 82, 83, 683 P.2d
180 [No. 50007-0. En Banc. June 21, 1984.]; JOHNSON v. DEPT. OF LICENSING,
46 Wn. App. 701, 731 P.2d 1097 (December 22, 1986.)
100. Since insurance policies and contracts are private and voluntary in nature, Affiant is not
in receipt of any document and cannot find any lawful evidenced that it is anyone’s
business or right to even inquire as to whether or not Affiant, the Aggrieved Party, and
others similarly situated have insurance on the following authority to wit:
“[1] The existence of an insurance policy is a matter of contract law, since insurance
involves a contractual relationship between the insurer and the insured.” LaPOINT
v. RICHARDS, 66 Wn.(2d) 585, 588 (July 8, 1965). And;
101. There is no evidence that the singling out of the Aggrieved Respondent and the
Aggrieved Respondent's non-commercial, personal, recreational motorized
conveyance, or those of other men and women, and the issuance of the victimless
NOTICE OF INFRACTION is not purely for the purpose of harassment, racketeering,
trafficking, criminal profiteering, and extortion/collection by BAR member legislators,
BAR member judges, and enforcement officers to enrich the issuing officer's, police
departments', presiding judges’, and the legislators' and judges' BAR member lawyer-
friends' various retirement/pension funds and other bureaucrats pockets respectively at
the Aggrieved Respondent's, and others similarly situated, expense.
102. Affiant returned this fraudulent NOTICE OF INFRACTION/WASHINGTON
UNIFORM COURT DOCKET and demand to the alleged issuing officer’s
headquarters and superior officer for cause, based upon no understanding, no
jurisdiction, no right of action, denial of rights under color of law, and lack of probable
cause, without dishonor, and without remedy and recourse to Affiant, within the stated
fifteen-day deadline to respond. Failure of OFFICER #736 or his superiors to respond
admits default and every statement made by Affiant in the return as truth in fact.
The term “motor vehicle” is said to embrace only those contrivances using the
highways under purpose #2 above, and it is not said to embrace those using the
highways for purpose #3, for “travel and communication,” as was the conduct of the
Aggrieved Respondent.
106. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find any lawful evidence that
the court decision in House v. Cramer as offered is not still standing and valid
whereupon it states:
"The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of
the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in
the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in
some vehicle." House v. Cramer, 1 12 N. W. 3; 134 Iowa 374 (1907).
107. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find evidence that the 1961
major rewrite of RCW 46 is not valid. The 1961 rewrite of RCW 46’s focus was in
defining its scope was shifted from the definition of motor vehicle and transportation,
to a distinction between privilege and common right, that right of public vehicular
travel being repeatedly deemed a “matter of right.” In this 1961 definition of “motor
vehicle” we find no mention of “transportation.” To wit:
RCW 46.04.320 Motor vehicle. “Motor vehicle” shall mean every vehicle which is
self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained
from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails. An electric personal
assistive mobility device is not considered a motor vehicle. [2002 c 247 § 2; 1961 c
12 § 46.04.320. Prior: 1959 c 49 § 33; 1955 c 384 § 10; prior: (i) 1943 c 153 § 1,
part; 1937 c 188 § 1, part; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 6312-1, part; 1923 c 181 § 1, part;
1921 c 96 § 2, part; 1919 c 59 § 1, part; 1917 c 155 § 1, part; 1915 c 142 § 2, part;
RRS § 6313, part. (ii) 1937 c 189 § 1, part; RRS § 6360-1, part; 1929 c 180 § 1,
part; 1927 c 309 § 2, part; RRS § 6362-2, part.]
108. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find any proof that the
intention of legislature is or was ever to place private travel within the scope of the
term “motor vehicle”.
109. Affiant hereby offers proof to the contrary of any claim that private travel is or has ever
been placed within the scope of the term “motor vehicle.” Affiant’s proof that private
travel is not and never was placed within the scope of the term “motor vehicle” is found
in other sections of acts and codes to wit:
Washington (Sessions) Laws of 1961, Chapter 1 § 1(x) of the Highway License act
defines a “Public highway” as:
“Every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the
State of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular
travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and
towns.”
One needn’t trek into distant enactments of 1961 to find this expression in WA
Sessions Laws.
110. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find evidence that the
following is invalid. Affiant thus presents as further, more recent evidence that Affiant
has the Right to use and enjoy her private motorized conveyance upon the public
highways and roads without hinderance, without needing to carry state sanctioned
proof of insurance or permission, to wit:
“AN ACT Relating to the definition of “county engineer”; and amending RCW
36.75.010. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. RCW 36.75.010 and 1984 c 7 s 26 are each amended to read as follows:
(4) “City street,” every highway or part thereof, located within the limits of
incorporated cities and towns, except alleys;
(6) “County road,” every highway or part thereof, outside the limits of
incorporated cities and towns and which has not been designated as a state
highway;
(11) “Highway,” every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place
in the state of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel
both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns;”
See Chapter 161, Laws of Washington state 2005, House Bill 1599, passed by the House
March 11, 2005, Yeas 93 and Nays 0, passed by the Senate April 12, 2005, Yeas 44 and
Nays 0. Approved April 22, 2005, C. Gregoire, Governor of the State of Washington;
FILED April 22, 2005 - 4:12 p.m., Secretary of State, State of Washington. Effective
date July 24, 2005. WA Laws of 2003, Chapter 244 (S.Bill 5977):
Sec. 2. RCW 47.04.010 and 1975 c 62 s 50 are each amended to read as follows:
The following words and phrases, wherever used in this title, shall have the
meaning as in this section ascribed to them, unless where used the context thereof
shall clearly indicate to the contrary or unless otherwise defined in the chapter of
which they are a part:
(11) {+ “Highway.” Every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or
place in the state of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular
travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns;”
As late as July of 2005 the collective mind of the WA Legislature unanimously viewed
and deemed Aggrieved Respondent’s conduct of public vehicular travel to be a right and
not a privilege, and WA’s former AG now Governor approved of it; it’s the law, still.
RCW 46.10.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter the words and phrases in this section
shall have the designated meanings unless a different meaning is expressly provided or
the context otherwise clearly indicated.
(6) “Public roadway” shall mean the entire width of the right of way of any road or
street designed and ordinarily used for travel or parking of motor vehicles, which is
controlled by a public authority other than the Washington state department of
transportation, and which is open as a matter of right to the general public for
ordinary vehicular traffic.
113. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
verifies that Affiant is a fictional entity or corporation or surety for a fictional corporate
entity under the title of “DEANNA GAY MINTZ, “DEANNA GAY: MINTZ”,
“DEANNA G. MINTZ”, “DEANNA G MINTZ”, “DEANNA MINTZ”, “MINTZ,
DEANNA GAY”, “MINTZ, DEANNA G.”, “MINTZ, DEANNA G”, “MINTZ,
DEANNA GAY:”, “Deanna G. Mintz”, “Deanna G Mintz”, “Deanna Mintz”, “Mintz,
Deanna Gay”, “Mintz, Deanna Gay:”, “Mintz, Deanna”, “Mintz, Deanna G.”, “Mintz,
Deanna G”, or any other such ens legis, nom de guerre, or persona designata illegally
and unlawfully created and presumed by any corporation, person, level of government,
or judgment, including but not limited to any corporate State statute, State department,
attorney, lawyer, federal agency, corporate federal statute, or governmental agencies,
fiduciaries, or instrumentality. Such noms de guerre, personas designata, ens legis, or
idem sonans were created and established by a bankrupt person which is dead in Law
and therefore are persona non standi in judicio for the purpose of misleading Affiant to
Affiant’s prejudice and are not commonly known in any fashion, especially Biblical
Law and common law. Affiant hereby denies that any such corporation exists
114. Affiant hereby denies that the following alleged entities, alleged persons, or alleged
corporations, allegedly municipal or allegedly otherwise, or other alleged entities of
similar spelling, word content, and capitalization, exist: STATE OF WASHINGTON;
State of Washington; WASHINGTON STATE; Washington State; COUNTY OF
DOUGLAS; County of Douglas; DOUGLAS COUNTY; Douglas County; CITY OF
EAST WENATCHEE; City of East Wenatchee; CITY OF WENATCHEE;
WASHINGTON STATE PATROL; Washington State Patrol; DOUGLAS COUNTY
BAR ASSOCIATION; Douglas County Bar Association; Washington State Bar
Association; American Bar Association; all other alleged Bar Associations; MINTZ,
DEANNA G.; MINTZ, DEANNA GAY; DEANNA GAY MINTZ; DEANNA G.
MINTZ; The State of Washington, the peace and dignity of the State of Washington,
and any and all other alleged corporations, or other alleged legal entities, that may be
alleged to be associated, or joined in some fashion, with the above fictional characters,
or other alleged entities, and there to be associated with any complaints against myself.
Judicial Notice: No Known Nature of Action and Cause, No Jurisdiction
over Affiant, No Fair Trail Possible for Affiant, No Understanding by
Affiant of Documents
115. Affiant has no knowing, willing, intentional, or voluntary contract, nexus, or
connection with the “State of Washington”, “Washington State”, “STATE OF
WASHINGTON”, “WASHINGTON STATE”, “DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR
VEHICLES”, “DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION”, “STATE OF ARIZONA”,
“ARIZONA STATE”, “Arizona State”, “State of Arizona”, “DOUGLAS COUNTY”,
“COUNTY OF DOUGLAS”, “Douglas County”, and/or “County of Douglas.”
116. Affiant cannot and did not knowingly or willingly sign any implied or express
agreement, promise, or contract and cannot agree to "Respond as Directed" on this
alleged citation because this alleged citation/document, and its directed responses omit
and ignore many of the Aggrieved Respondents natural, substantial, spiritual,
unalienable, God-given, and constitutionally protected Rights, including but not limited
to the Right to enjoy and use one's own personal, non-commercial recreational vehicle
in the course of conducting the Aggrieved Respondent's own private affairs without
government interference so long as no other man or woman is harmed bodily or
property-wise, the Right to be Left Alone, and the Right to Privacy.
117. Affiant cannot and did not knowingly or willingly sign any implied or express
agreement, promise, or contract and cannot agree to "Respond as Directed" on this
alleged citation because Affiant does not understand this alleged NOTICE OF
INFRACTION/WASHINGTON UNIFORM COURT DOCKET, and its directed
responses.
118. Affiant cannot and did not knowingly or willingly accept or receive this legal document
titled “NOTICE OF INFRACTION” and “WASHINGTON UNIFORM COURT
DOCKET” I 6039395, because its terms are not understandable by Affiant and are in
obvious conflict. In one hand, the document claims to be a NOTICE of a non-criminal
offense for which Affiant cannot go to jail and in the other hand claims that if I do not
respond or appear for court hearings that my “NOTICE OF INFRACTION” is a crime
and “will be treated accordingly”. Which is this thing – a civil or criminal issue?
119. Affiant cannot and did not knowingly or willingly accept or receive this legal paper,
nor can Affiant respond as directed on this document as Affiant does not know and has
not been told clearly and concisely what the nature and cause of the action against
Affiant is.
120. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find evidence that, if the
nature and cause of this action is “At Law”, there is any actual injured party. In
accordance with the supreme Law of God as written in His Writ, Will, and Testament,
natural law, constitutional law, and Christian Common Law, if there is no real injured
party, then there is no crime or right of action.
121. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find any lawful evidence
that, if the nature and cause of this action is “In Hustings”, Affiant is an artificial
person. Affiant thereby asserts that, unless the Plaintiff can show for the record
physical proof that Affiant has chartered as such with the Secretary of State’s office,
there is no crime or right of action.
122. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find any lawful evidence
that, if the nature and cause of action against Affiant is Admiralty, the Affiant
committed the alleged offense on federal territory over which the State has retained
concurrent jurisdiction.
123. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find any lawful evidence
that, if the nature and cause of action against Affiant is “in Equity”, there is any valid
international contract or agreement signed knowingly, intentionally, voluntarily, and
with full disclosure of the consequences by Affiant. In Equity or Admiralty, where
there is no valid contract, there is no cause of action.
124. Affiant is not in receipt of any valid document and cannot find any lawful evidence
that, if the nature and cause of action against Affiant is Military or Martial Law, Affiant
is a member of the military or that the nation is under a state of martial law. No
member of the military, no right or cause of action.
125. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any evidence that the alleged
Officer #736 has any physical evidence of Affiant committing an act of wrongdoing.
126. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any evidence that the alleged
police officer has any independent witnesses to corroborate his alleged testimony.
127. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any evidence that the alleged
plaintiff and OFFICER #736 has acted against respondent with probable cause.
128. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any evidence that OFFICER
#736 and alleged plaintiff acted against Affiant with any real authority, jurisdiction,
and with any physical evidence of wrongdoing.
129. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any evidence that OFFICER
#736/Plaintiff did not knowingly and intentionally misenforce RCW 46 against Affiant.
130. Affiant has researched extensively the organic laws of the united states of America,
including two hundred years of American case law (i.e., Common law), and affirms
that Affiant has secured the UNALIENABLE and FUNDAMENTAL,
UNRESTRICTED and UNREGULATED RIGHT TO TRAVEL upon both the public
walkways and the highways, and transport my personal and allodial property, duly
conveyed, unhindered by any private, corporate or statutory law, or Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) regulation or so-called requirement. This unalienable right to
travel is guaranteed by the 9th & 10th Amendments of the organic Constitution for the
united states of America and Bill of Rights, and upheld by many court decisions in
support of that right. Affiant now explicitly RESERVES, ASSERTS and DEFENDS
that right.
131. Affiant does not under any circumstances utilize the public highways for commercial
purposes. Affiant is not a 14th Amendment legal "person" engaged in interstate
commerce, nor does Affiant derive income from the travel and transport of goods.
132. Affiant is not a "driver," nor is Affiant an "operator" of a "motor vehicle.” The driver's
license is for motor vehicles involved in commerce only.
133. Affiant’s former private, self-propelled contrivance/carriage is not and was not at the
time of being detained by Washington State Patrol OFFICER #736 involved in
commerce, therefore, it was not a "motor vehicle." The corporate State of Washington
Department of Motor Vehicle code does not disclose the true intent and purpose of the
statutes, though a "motor vehicle" is adequately and clearly defined in the United States
Code (USC).
"The privilege of using the streets and highways by the operation thereon of motor
carriers for hire can be acquired only by permission or license from the state or its
political subdivision."—Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed, page 830.
134. Affiant is not effectively connected with a trade or business in the corporate monopoly
of the United States government, whether federal, State, county or Municipal. Affiant
has not knowingly or willingly waived any of Affiant’s unalienable, God-given Rights.
135. Affiant has thereby determined and hereby affirms by Affidavit and under oath, by
virtue of Affiant’s sovereign Citizenship and American case law, that Affiant is not
required to have government permission to travel, not required to have a driver's
license, not required to have vehicle registration of my personal property, nor to
surrender the lawful title of my duly conveyed property to the State as security against
government indebtedness and the undeclared federal bankruptcy. Any administrative
rule, regulation or statutory act of any State legislature or judicial tribunal to the
contrary is unlawful and clearly unconstitutional, thus NULL and VOID. American
case law has clearly adjudicated that:
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making
or legislation which would abrogate them."—Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.
" The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several state Legislatures, and all executive and judicial OFFICERs, both of the
United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to
support this Constitution;" —Constitution for the united states of America, Article 6.
140. Affiant, in accordance with Affiant’s reading of government law and code, clearly sees
by the plain wording of the Constitution that any action by a police (i.e., executive)
OFFICER, OFFICER of the court, public servant or government official to assert
unlawful authority under the "color of law" will be construed as a direct and willful
violation of Affiant’s constitutionally protected rights, and is prosecutable to the full
extent of American law.
"Public officials are not immune from suit when they transcend their lawful
authority by invading constitutional rights."—AFLCIO v. Woodward, 406 F2d
137.
"Whoever under the color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom,
willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state, Territory, or District to the
deprivation of ANY rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution of laws of the United States...shall be fined not more than $1,000 or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both..."—18 USC 242.
141. This AFFIDAVIT also certifies that the Affiant has previously completed and passed a
test measuring Affiant’s competency to safely control a motorized personal conveyance
upon the public highways within the united states of America. Affiant has also met or
exceeded all common sense requirements concerning the "rules of the road" and the
ability to maneuver a motorized personal conveyance in a safe and responsible manner.
142. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find any lawful evidence why
Plaintiff and alleged OFFICER #736’s claim/case/action should not be Abated,
Estopped, and Dismissed Without Prejudice for Lack of Jurisdiction, Denial of Due
Process, Violation of Oath of Office by OFFICER #736 and Legislature, and for
Violation/Denial of Rights under Color of Law
143. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find proof on any record that
verifies that all “Code” charges or accusations are not “Bills of Pains and Penalties”
which are Unconstitutional. [Article 1, section 9, clause 3, section 10]
144. Affiant has not ever knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, or intentionally given up any of
Affiant’s natural, God-given, absolute, fundamental, and/or unalienable Rights in
exchange for any privilege or benefit.
145. Affiant has not ever knowingly, willingly, or intentionally attempted to enjoy the
benefit of “Limited Liability for the payment of Debts”.
146. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence on the record that
any corporation, “person”, “individual”, or government agency, branch, or
instrumentality have not failed to provide everyone, especially Affiant, with “Good
Faith” Explanation, and “Written Notice”, as Required by their “Code”, thus Affiant
could not have had knowledgeable “Intent”, nor “Informed Consent” to consent to be
regulated. [See Declaration of Independence, paragraph two, “Consent of governed.”
147. Alleged creditors, governments, and all of their agents, instrumentalities, and superiors
and their agents and instrumentalities are and would be committing “Barratry”,
“Concealment of qualifying and material facts”, and “Fraudulent concealment” because
they “knew, should have known, and had ability to know” and they failed to disclose to
Affiant the nature and cause of the alleged action against Affiant or the nature and
terms of any offered, or forced upon, license, etc. It is “Collusion” and “Conspiracy” by
Lawyers and all government agents and instrumentalities under “Color of Law” to
deprive Affiant of Natural, God-given Rights secured against infringement from
corporate government by the God Almighty and the Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus,
the Christ, in the Holy Bible, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Magna
Charta, and state and federal constitutions.
148. Alleged creditors, plaintiffs, complainants, governments, and all of their agents,
instrumentalities lack “Standing to approach the Court” and are estopped from filing
any claim, due to their Privity and Knowledge, due to Congress having unilaterally
declared bankruptcy in 1932, thereby repudiating its Contracts. The bankrupt
Creditor(s) has “no Standing” to use the courts to adjudicate its claims to collect any
alleged debts or force upon another any acts it creates, unless by Contract before
bankruptcy occurred, and thus Creditor has not provided Affiant with sufficient
knowledge or information to form a responsive answer.
149. Affiant is not in receipt of any document verifying that Creditors or said government
agencies and their instrumentalities and OFFICERs have without “Waiver” or
“Consent/Assent” produced the original “Contract” bearing Affiant’s duly authorized
and notarized signature to obtain “standing”. For anyone to proceed against Affiant
without duly signed contract is non est factum and would be an involuntary servitude.
[See Clyat vs. U.S., 197 U.S. 107; Bailey vs. State of Alabama, 219 U.S. 219; U.S. vs.
Ike Kozminsky et al, 487 U.S. 931, 934]
150. Affiant is not in receipt of any document that verifies that Creditor or any level of
government has brought forth an original, valid contract convening Creditor’s or
governments’ “Administrative Process”Courts, with Creditor’s or government
witnesses, which would is deprivation of Due Process.
151. Affiant cannot find any evidence that due process and fair trial requirements are able to
be met in any Court where the State is party to the alleged action against Affiant, the
State is represented on both sides of the bench, the witness is paid by the State to extort
money from the People and Affiant for the State through the issuance of
“INFRACTIONS”, and the lawyers are all oath bound to support the best interests of
the Court and State.
152. As Creditors/Complainants were created by the State and the Plaintiff is also “THE
STATE” or other instrumentality, and as “In all Cases to which the STATE (fiction) is
a Party, its Claims appear to be a Fiction of Law, “a legal assumption that a thing is
true, which is either not true or which is as probably false as true, an assumption or
supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of
facts exists which has never really taken place; the assumption as true of something
known to be false; the assumption, for the alleged purposes of justice (Revenue), of a
fact which does not or may not exist”, -that is a “sham pleading”, “One which is
inherently false and must have been known by the Interposing Party, the Plaintiff, to be
untrue.”
153. Affiant is not in receipt of any documents that verify that Affiant has committed a
“mala in se” crime and that a valid, original Contract with Creditor or any level of
government, signed under full disclosure knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily by
Affiant, ever has been or ever was brought forth, thus the maxim of the 1789 “First
Judiciary Act” applies where therein it is stated “All Jurisdiction is based upon
consent.” No consent was given thereby no jurisdiction can be obtained by the court.
154. Affiant is not in receipt of any documents nor can Affiant find any evidence that
verifies that Affiant has harmed any fiction or every Man, Woman, and Child in the
State. If Plaintiff is suing Affiant in the name of the STATE OF WASHINGTON or on
behalf of all of the Citizenry, Affiant demands that the Plaintiff’s attorney present the
signed Power of Attorney documents from every Citizen in Washington or at least
Douglas county and that all of the alleged Plaintiff’s appear and give testimony as to
how Affiant injured or impeded their Rights, bodies, or property.
155. Affiant has not now nor has Affiant ever been able to find effective counsel. Affiant
has diligently searched for counsel that is unfettered and unbeholden to the alleged
Plaintiff(s). The only people allowed to be counselors are those who have taken a
solemn oath to support the Plaintiff(s). Attorneys are also officers of the state and the
court who have a duty to see that defendants are punished for violating Plaintiff’s laws.
Thus the first duty of an attorney to the courts, not to their clients, and, when duties
conflict, their duties to the court must take precedence – 7 Corpus Juris Secundum,
section 4, page 801-802, Footnotes 53 through 56. It seems impossible for Affiant to
obtain counsel that can present Affiant’s side of the conflict because of the attorney’s
first loyalty to the Plaintiff.
156. Affiant is not qualified to represent herself or even appear in propia persona and is
unwilling to waive the Right to effective, unbiased counsel. There is no attorney that
can be found in any of the states of the union who can practice law in Washington that
is free to effectively counsel Affiant and is not beholden to the Plaintiff/State.
157. Affiant cannot get a fair trial or have due process in this matter because the judge, like
all judges, has taken a loyalty oath to support the Plaintiff/State and is a party to the
alleged action against Affiant. The judges are employees of the Plaintiff/State and are
paid large sums of money from the Plaintiff to enforce the will of the Plaintiff. How
can the judge hearing any alleged case against the Affiant be neutral and unbiased?
158. Affiant cannot get a fair trial and have Affiant’s due process protections enforced even
in a jury trial since every juror is a member of the state and is, therefore, one with the
Plaintiff. Jurors are required to swear oaths to support the Plaintiff/State. They too
receive small amounts of money from the Plaintiff. Some receive large amounts of
money form the Plaintiff in the form of government jobs or handouts. Jurors have an
intimate and longstanding relationship with the Plaintiff, but have never met the
Affiant.
159. Affiant cannot necessarily get honest testimony or fair trial in traffic court from the law
enforcement “Witness”, who is also often acting as prosecution, since the law
enforcement officers have a very close relationship to the Plaintiff, or in some cases
claim to be the plaintiff, and are not impartial. OFFICER #736 and all law
enforcement officers are paid to go out and enforce the Plaintiff’s laws and then to
testify in court to alleged facts that will help win the Plaintiff/State’s action. The whole
livelihood of law enforcement officers depends on doing the State/Plaintiff’s will. The
law enforcement officers whole job security and chance of promotions and raises
depends on the number of tickets they write and how much money they can help the
Plaintiff extort in fines from the Citizenry.
160. Affiant has yet to find a law enforcement officer willing to honor their Oaths of Office
or that even understands the full meaning and imprecations of honoring said required
Oath. Many law enforcement officers, when asked about their Oaths of Office by a
confused or distressed People, even blatantly state “the Oath does not matter and means
nothing. You have to do what I tell you because the ‘law’ says…”, even if that law is
clearly unconstitutional, unethical, and without basis or foundation, despite the fact that
one of this nation’s founding principals and rules of law per the supreme court is that
any law that is contrary to or in violation of the Constitution, state or federal, is “Null
and Void as though it were never written” and no one is obligated to enforce or obey
such laws. Such behavior and comments from policemen only proves that most law
enforcement officers are acting under color of law, without lawful authority, and
debasing themselves to nothing more than the ruling elite’s armed extortion and
racketeer men.
161. Affiant cannot receive a fair trial or due process protections in the Douglas County
District Court or any other STATE OF WASHINGTON court because the court was
created by the Plaintiff/State. Specifically, it is an administrative unit of the legislature
and is only a court in name and not in function. It carries out the will of its creator, the
Plaintiff/State. Therefore, the court has been fettered to the Plaintiff/State and is not an
impartial tribunal. It is clear in the fourth article, section one of the Washington
Constitution that power of the lower courts is under the arm of the legislature, instead
of being a separate branch of government. This constitutes breach of the Separation of
Powers Doctrine and is a violation of due process. The same with the appeals court.
What chance is there of a fair trial when the Plaintiff/State makes the laws, employs the
police to enforce the laws, adjudicates the laws in the Plaintiff’s own courts, and the
judges, prosecutor, witness, public defenders, and jury are not just paid by the Plaintiff
– they are the Plaintiff
162. Affiant is not in receipt of any document nor can Affiant find any evidence that
Plaintiff is not a fiction, which cannot be harmed, and that Plaintiff is not unlawfully
and illegally suing in the name of and on behalf of another.
163. Affiant is not in receipt of any document and cannot find evidence that Affiant has
ever, in the past or present, voluntarily, willingly, knowingly, intentionally, with full
disclosure given by the State or other party involved, consented to being party to any
government contract, trust, judgment, private corporate State statute, or other legal
disability without the State, or an agent of the State, a court official, a Bar Association
member, or another agent or instrumentality of the State or federal government
applying threat, duress, coercion, fraud in the inducement, and/or extortion.
164. Affiant is not in receipt of any document that verifies a valid contract or claim by any
person or entity, including but not limited to any State to lien, levy, or confiscate
Affiant’s real and/or personal property which properly names Affiant as an “obligor”,
“person”, “individual”, “debtor”, or any other commercial label.
165. Affiant is not required to perform the impossible. Since no State shall make any Thing
but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts, no State can claim that Affiant
owes any State or any other entity any Debt that is constitutionally payable per the
maxim ‘Lex non cogit ad impossibilia; Law does not seek to compel a man to do that
which is impossible; ‘the law requires nothing impossible.’
166. Affiant does not understand court proceedings or anything in the WRC fully as Affiant
does not speak legalese.
167. Affiant, (the living soul), demands that OFFICER #736, Prosecution, Judge claiming
authority to hear the alleged case, and Plaintiff immediately provide Affiant a copy of
each of your corporation’s charters, as Plaintiff’s attempts to contract Me are outside of
Plaintiff’s power and therefore all such acts are Ultra Vires. Also provide me with each
of your bond numbers and bonding company’s names and addresses. Plaintiff, Witness,
and Douglas County District Court officials only have Affiant’s permission to mail
Affiant these items requested in this Affidavit.
168. Affiant hereby asserts Affiant’s Rights and states that the OFFICER # 736, the STATE
OF WASHINGTON, its Principals, or other OFFICERs or agents of the COUNTY OF
DOUGLAS, the CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE, and or the STATE OF
WASHINGTON are attempting to extort Affiant’s valuable time and or an excise tax
against Affiant’s right to locomotion. That is unlawful. [Jack Cole Co. vs. Alfred T.
McFarland, Sup. Court Tenn. 337 S.W. 2d. 453: “Legislature can name any privilege a
taxable privilege and tax it by means other than an income tax, but legislature cannot
name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege…” and Refield vs.
Fisher, Sup. Court Oregon 292 at 813: “The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot
be taxed for the mere privilege of existing” and for the right to locomotion by any
means. “The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter
powers to the state; but the individual’s right to live and own property are natural
Rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed…”]
169. Affiant’s Summary Judgment to anyone associated with the STATE OF
WASHINGTON, the CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE, the DOUGLAS COUNTY, or
any heirs, agents and assigns thereof; is to cease and desist immediately in this matter
as “OFFICER #736” has engaged in contracting based on fraud and illegality and
therefore “OFFICER #736” et al have NO LAWFUL CLAIM TO ME OR MY
PROPERTY!
170. The State of Washington has a "Higher Duty" to know the Constitution and law, and to
convey the truth of the law to its citizens. To do otherwise suggests fraud... "Silence
can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where
an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone
this shocking behavior... This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is
routine it should be corrected immediately." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also
U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932. "The parties are
entitled to know the findings and conclusions on all of the issues of fact, law, or
discretion presented on the record." citing Butz v. Economou 438 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct.
2894, 57 L. Ed. 2d 895, (1978). FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION v. SOUTH
CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY et al. certiorari to the united states court
of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 01-46. 2.535 U.S. 743, 122 S. Ct. 1864, 152 L. Ed.
2d 962, (2002). Argued February 25, 2002--Decided May 28, 2002. See also FRCPA
Rule 52(a) and United States v. Lovasco 431 U.S. 783 (06/09/77), 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L.
Ed. 2d 752, and Holt v. United States 218 U.S. 245 (10/31/10), 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S.
Ct.
Further that Affiant does solemnly attest that the aforegoing facts contained herein are true,
correct, and complete to the best of My knowledge and belief, in Witness, Knowing the
Punishment for bearing false witness before the Almighty God and men, I solemnly avow that I
have read the foregoing Affidavit and know the contents thereof; that the same is true of My Own
Knowledge, except to the matters which are therein stated on My information and belief, and as
to those matters, I believe them to be true. All mention of maxims, Sate law, federal law, and
case law is not to be construed as granting jurisdiction or placing Affiant under those laws, but is
meant to remind the courts, fictitious parties, corporate entities, officers of the courts, State
agents, etc. of the rules and laws they are bound by.
Sealed under the Authority, and by Direction, of Christ Jesus, by His Direct act of My own hand
on this _______________day of the eleventh month of the Year of Our Sovereign Lord and
Saviour Jesus, the Christ, two-thousand-nine, without the United States or any State, with explicit
reservation of all My unalienable rights without prejudice and with exception to none.
Solely by the Grace of God do I have the Honor of being a sister and bondservant of Christ.
Affiant Name
_______________________________________
Notary Public
Page twenty-five of twenty-five