STATE OF MICHIGAN

37TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

STATE OF MICHIGAN Case numbers: T003166W / T003167W

CITY OF WARREN,

BUILDING AND ZONING DIVISION

DATE: 10/13/2010
(EVERETT MURPHY)

Plaintiff,

VS.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FINDINGS
OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
JEFFERY DEAN SAXON,

(an obvious fictional person of the State created

by the STATE and not real party of interest

“Jeffery-Dean: Saxon”)

Trustee – Sui Juris

Defendant in error,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FINDINGS OF FACTS AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Pursuant to MCR 2.517(A), et al.

Page 1 of 6
 Comes now Defendant in error, Jeffery-Dean: Saxon, a sovereign free white man over 21

years old, who has the rights to which all free men are entitled, who is not under the power of

another, such as the implied jurisdiction of any Corporation or Government to move the court to

stay all fines or penalties in this matter and seeks relief of the same. I have the right to make

valid, or not, any contract, by my actions. In short, I am Sovereign. I live in honor and now

state for the record in affidavit form before this court.

JURISDICTION

It has been and remains the position of the defense that this court surrendered jurisdiction

through due process violations and structural errors. However, in order to seek the intended

relief, this court must hear this Motion, at arm’s length and by special appearance, by the

Defendant. Furthermore, the Defense does not wave, nor has it ever waved these violations or

errors. The Defense stands fast.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. The Defendant, Jeffrey Dean: Saxon, appeared before Judge John M. Chmura on

September 29th, 2010.

2. Judge John M. Chmura dismissed Defendant's Petition to set aside and dismiss the

complaint and summons.

3. Judge John M. Chmura found in favor of the State, but did not provide an account for his

findings.

Page 2 of 6
 ARGUMENT

The Charter for the City of Warren clearly states that municipal powers apply to

municipal property. The Defendant challenged subject matter jurisdiction and believed it was his

duty to challenge government officials performing acts of oppression.

No response was given to the petition by the city attorney. Judge John M. Chmura recklessly

and maliciously disregarded and failed to read the Defendant's petition. Even if the judge had

believed the court had jurisdiction, no refuting argument was placed on the record, and the court

could not proceed. Any order put forth would have been made in error and must be corrected.

The Defense also raised the issue of how the fines came to be. The citing official

admitted to breaking the law in order to obtain the evidence against the Defendant. This would

clearly disqualify that official from remaining credible.

Page 9‐22 Michigan Judicial Institut

e © 2009‐August 2010
A. Bench Trial
“In actions tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury,
the court shall find the facts specially, state separately its
Circuit Court Benchbook: Civil Proceedings—Revised Edition
Section 9.11
conclusions of law, and direct entry of the appropriate judgment.”
MCR 2.517(A)(1).
“Brief, definite, and pertinent findings and conclusions on the
contested matters are sufficient, without overelaboration of detail or
particularization of facts.” MCR 2.517(A)(2). Findings of fact are
sufficient if it appears that the trial court was aware of the issues in
the case and correctly applied the law. Triple E Produce Corp v

Page 3 of 6
Mastronardi Produce, Ltd, 209 Mich App 165, 176 (1995).
“The court may state the findings and conclusions on the record or
include them in a written opinion.” MCR 2.517(A)(3).
Committee Tip: Knowing the applicable law makes finding the
relevant facts easier. Consider ordering counsel to provide proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law before the trial. Utilize the
jury instructions for the conclusions of law.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the Defendants moves this court for relief and to stay collection of any fines or

penalties until the outcome of appeal.

Affiant sayth not, All Rights Reserved, Jeffery-Dean: Saxon, “Sovereign”, “One of the People”

Jeffery-Dean: Saxon reserves the right to amend this petition at any time.

_____________________________

Jeffery-Dean: Saxon c/o

JEFFERY DEAN SAXON
ADDRESS
Warren Michigan [48089]
PHONE
Accused in Pro Per
At Arms Length
Restricted jurisdiction
By special visitation - “ special appearance”
To challenge jurisdiction of the Court

Page 4 of 6
 VERIFICATION

The foregoing statements are true, correct and complete to the best of my belief.

Dated 24th day of September 2010

___________________________________

Jeffery-Dean: Saxon – Trustee for:

JEFFERY DEAN SAXON©

FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT.

Principal, by Special Appearance, a living breathing, flesh and blood man, proceeding Sui Juris.

Subscribed and sworn, without prejudice.

My Hand and Mark as Subscriber

Date: _____________________ Common Law Seal: __________________________________

Michigan State Republic )

) Jurat
Macomb County )

On the ______ day of ____________, 20_____, Jeffery-Dean, family of Saxon personally

appeared before me and proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person

whose name is subscribed hereto and acknowledged to me that he executed the same under

Page 5 of 6
asservation, and accepts the facts thereof. Subscribed and affirmed before me this day. Witness

my hand and seal this ______ day of __________________, 20_____,

_______________________________________________________

Notary Signature

My commission expires:

_______________________________________________________

Page 6 of 6