Certified Number 7010029051033298

NOTICE OF FAULT

By Certified Mail:70100290000251033298

John T. Fowlkes
236 Bremington Place
Memphis, Tennessee 38111

JOHN T FOWLKES
201 Poplar Avenue
Division 6 Criminal Court
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Re: Deprivation of Rights, Oath of Office Violation and Conspiracy

Greetings Mr. Fowlkes:

This is lawful Notice and is sent pursuant to Bill of Rights, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Articles
in Amendments to Constitution for the United States of America, and pursuant to your oath, and requires your written response specific
to subject matter. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, everything in this Notice with which you disagree,
is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this Notice is true, correct, legal, lawful and
binding upon you, in any court of law, without your protest or objection or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your
acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential
of due process of law”. See also: U.S. V. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral
duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”

1) On August 24, 2007 you swore to and signed Oath of office for Judge of Criminal Court Division VI for the 30th Judicial
District, of the State of Tennessee. Is that not correct?

2) It is presumed that Oath Of Office administered to you contained Pledge to support the Constitution of the United States of
America and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee. Is that not correct?

3) It is presumed that as Judge of Criminal Court Division VI for the 30th Judicial District, of the State of Tennessee, you are
bound to protect and uphold Rights guaranteed to those, who are within your Jurisdiction, including protections of due process
of law. Is that not correct?

4) It is presumed that you are aware that Erique: Richardson is a living, breathing, flesh and blood natural-born being and not a
U.S. federal citizen, nor ward of the Court or State. Is that not correct?

5) Pursuant to your oaths, it is presumed that you are required to abide by those Oaths in the performance of your official duties,
such as those before this Criminal Court Division VI for the 30th Judicial District, of the State of Tennessee. Is that not correct?

6) It is presumed that you are knowledgeable and that you have taken Notice that I revoked, cancelled, and made void, ab initio,
my power of appointment on any and all contracts, agreements, forms, or any instrument which may be construed in any way to
give any agency or department of any federal or state government authority, venue, or jurisdiction over me upon subject matter
that is within my sole personal province; one being my Right to be free from all government restraint of my choice of action
unless I have first harmed or trespassed upon Rights of another; and that this position is in accordance with the U.S. Supreme
Court decision of Brady v. U.S., 379 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970), where "Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be
voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and
consequences." Is that not correct?

7) On February 2nd and on March 14th , 2011, Notice And Demand To Dismiss Case # 10 07107, STATE OF TENNESSEE V.
ERIQUE RICHARDSON was filed into case number 10 07107 Shelby County Clerk, Kevin Key at Criminal Court Clerks
Office and hand Delivered to D.A. Amy P. Wierich office at 201 Poplar Avenue, 4th Floor, Memphis, Tennessee and without
any response from you. Is that not correct?
8) It is presumed that you are aware of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1621, and "Perjury of Oath of Office" is a Federal Crime, as well
as 18 U.S.C. Chapter 47, and that you could be subject to a term of imprisonment of up to five (5) years and a Two Thousand
 ($2,000.00) dollar fine. Is that not correct?

9) In that Notice And Demand To Dismiss Case # 10 07107, STATE OF TENNESSEE V. ERIQUE RICHARDSON, it is
presumed Court was informed of frivolous claims initiated and pursued by former , Esquire William Lee Gibbons, et al. Is that
not correct?
10) It is presumed that you know or should have known that all public officials, Officers of governmental bodies politic, in all
branches: Executive, Legislative, or Judicial, being of Oath of Office, bonded to fidelity, are under ministerial duty, Rock
Island County v US ex rel. State Bank, 4 Wall 435, US v. Thomas, 15 Wall 337, US v Lee, 106 US 196, 1 S Ct 240,
fiduciary/trustees, US v Carter, 217 US 286, 30 S. Ct 515. “The implication of a trust is the implication of every duty proper to
a trust.

11) Please read U.S. Senate Report 94-204, which deals with Federal judicial intervention, due to corrupt State Courts and
violations of the Ku Kluk Klan Act. It is presumed that Public Law 94-381 is one valid Jurisdiction and course of Action;
however, UCC is another. Therefore, this clause (11) would serve as Notice to any would be co-conspirators, who violate the
Constitution of the United States. Is that not correct?

12) It is presumed that you, John Fowlkes, individually and in your official capacity as Public Official in and for Shelby County,
State of Tennessee, and the United States, de facto, having beforehand sworn solemn and binding Constitutional Oath of Office
in regard to your Office duties and obligations, required by the Constitution of Tennessee and the Constitution for the United
States of America, being under OFFICIAL BOND, do re-affirm herein, by way of this voluntary REAFFIRMATION of OATH
OF OFFICE, in form of private Affidavit, for benefit of Claimant so that Claimant may feel secure and knowledgeable in that,
you, Grantee, Trustee, Agent, in your fiduciary capacity, will not violate unalienable Rights of Claimant, nor will you, having
superior knowledge of the Law, opportunity, authority, power to prevent, knowingly allow other Government Officials to
violate Claimant's Rights and Protections. Is that not correct?

13) It is presumed that your failure to respond is an admission to your participation in a conspiracy to cause deprivation which is a
violation of Federal Law. Is that not correct?

14) Pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1981-1988, it is presumed pursuant to your OATH OF OFFICE mentioned herein; you will
with diligence endeavor to stop, prevent, or correct violations of Claimant's Rights and protections. Is that not correct?

15) Whoever is a fiduciary or in conscience chargeable as a fiduciary is expected to live up to them.” Buffum v. Peter Barceloux
Co. 289 US 227, 237; 77 L.Ed.1140, 1146, cited in Bruun v. Hansen, 103 F 2d. 685 (1939), wherein it further states, “Being
fiduciaries, the ordinary rules of evidence are reversed”; must obey the law, Butz v Economou, (US) 98 S Ct 2894, Davis v
Passman (1979, US) 99 S Ct 2264. “The law will protect an individual who, in the prosecution of a right does everything
which the law requires him to do but fails to obtain his right by the misconduct or neglect of a public officer.” Lytle v
Arkansas, 9 Howe 314, 13 L Ed 153, Duluth & Iron Range Co. v Roy, 173 US 587, 19 S Ct 549, 43 L Ed 820, and “It is a
maxim of the law, admitting few if any exceptions, that every duty laid upon a public officer for the benefit of a private person is
enforceable by judicial process”. Butterworth v US ex rel. Hoe, 112 US 50, 5 S Ct 25, 28 L Ed 656, and it is presumed that you
are aware that it is criminal to conceal criminal acts, and fraud to conceal fraud, therefore it is presumed that you will refuse to
be Party to crime or concealment, thereof, which would result in actions under tort feasor to aforesaid Article I, Section 10,
Clause 1, U.S. Constitution of 1787, amended 1791. Is that not correct?

16) It is presumed that your efforts with co-conspirators to bankrupt me and deny me Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness are
personal Acts without Authority, initiated by your co-conspirators, and it is further presumed that your participation in these
Acts to degrade my public image, my freedom, good name and public financial stature are Acts of criminal sabotage. Is that not
correct?

17) It is presumed that you agree that “peonage and involuntary servitude”, the principle of violation of Thirteenth Amendment
prohibition of imprisonment for debt is well settled in Clyatt n US, 197 US 207 (1905), Pressy v Ferguson, 163 US 537, 542,
therefore keep in mind the term “whoever” as used in Fact of Law Title 18 USC 1581, “Whoever holds or returns any person
to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage,
shall be fined not more than $5,000.00 or imprisoned not more than five years. Is that not correct?

18) Since the term ‘whoever’ denies immunity to even the highest office in government, barring none. It is presumed that Whoever
holds someone in peonage, or is in conspiracy, covin, confederation, collusion, combination, aids or abets in the act, in any
way, is nonetheless liable for penalty. Is that not correct?

19) Notice to principle is notice to agent. Notice to agent is notice to principle, therefore it is presumed that the term ‘whoever’
applies to ‘you’, having ministerial obligation to act yet fails to do so, as now referenced in , Notice And Demand To Dismiss,
Notice and Declaration of Revocation Of Power of Attorney Notice and Declaration Of Fraud Notice To Cease and Desist
Claim, hand delivered to Agent Kevin Key, Shelby County, Criminal Court Clerk, 201 Poplar Avenue, 4th Floor, Memphis,
Tennessee 38103. Is that not correct?
20) It is presumed by this Public Notice and Declaration, the world is now informed. Since the term ‘whoever’ denies immunity to
even the highest office in government, barring none. Whoever holds someone in peonage, or is in a conspiracy, covin,
confederation, collusion, combination, aids and or abets in the act, in any way, is nonetheless liable for penalty. Is that not
correct?

21) It is presumed that you are aware that “A ministerial officer is liable for an injury done, where his acts are clearly against
law.” Tracy v Swartwout, 10 Pet. 80, 9 L Ed 354, “ or where he acts willfully, maliciously, and unjustly, in a case within his
jurisdiction.” Kendall v Stokes, 3 How 789, 11 L Ed 833, “may be liable in tort for misfeasances, which are violations of
public laws or official duties.” Garland v Davis, 4 Howe 131, 11 L Ed 907, “and action will lie against him; and a verdict for
nominal damages should be rendered unless special damage is alleged and proved.” Boyden v Burke, 14 How 575, 14 L Ed
548, and “When the law requires a ministerial act to be done by a public officer, and he neglects or refuses to do such act, he is
liable in damages to the party injured. Mistake or honest intentions will not excuse him.” South v Maryland, 18 How 396, 15 L
Ed 433, Amy v Barkholder (Amy v The Supervisors) 11 Wall 136, 20 L Ed 101, “For breach of public duty an officer is
punishable by indictment.” South v Maryland, 18 How 396, 15 L Ed 433, “The judicially fashioned doctrine of official
immunity of judicial, legislative, or executive officers does not reach so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an
Act of Congress.” Is that not correct?

22) It is presumed that you are aware that your having prior knowledge, authority, power, opportunity to prevent or aid in
preventing injury, damage, to Claimant, Title 42 USCS Section 1986, as applies to public officials, Officers, by the existence
of an agreement between 2 or more persons, acting in a private conspiracy, McNalley v Pulitzer Pub. Co. (1976) 532 F 2d 69,
429 US 855, 50 L Ed 2d 131, for deprivation of substantive Rights, Dickerson v City Bank & Trust (1983) 575 F Supp 872,
regardless of source, Gillespie v Civiletti (1980) 629 F2d 637, 30 FR Serv 2d 407, to conspire, through said conspiracy, to
impede or hinder, or obstruct or defeat the due course of justice in a State or Territory, with the purposeful intent to deny the
equal protection of the law, under color of State law or authority, or other, Griffin v Breckinridge (1971) 403 US 88, 29 L Ed
2d 338, 91 S Ct 1790, depriving Claimant of having or exercising a Right, Federal Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice Act (Title
42 USCS Section 1985(2)), by invidiously, discriminatory, class based animus, Rowe v Tennessee (1977) 431 f Supp 1257,
for political motivations, Grimes v Smith (1985) 776 F2d 1359, Cameron v Brock (1973) 473 F2d 608, by ostensibly
government actions, Gemini Enterprises v WFMY (1979) 470 F Supp 559, deprivation of due process, even by federal
officials, Williams v Wright (1976) 432 F Supp 732, Founding Church of Scientology v Director, FBI (1978) 459 F Supp
748, 98 L Ed 2d 150, 108 S Ct 199, Moriani v Hunter (1978) 462 F Supp 353, Kenyatta v Moore (1985) 623 F Supp 224,
even attorneys, Stevens v Rifkin (1984) 608 F Supp 710, even District Attorneys, Rouselle v Perez (1968) 293 F Supp 298, ,
places upon the perpetrators the badges of fraud, prior knowledge, superior knowledge of the law, will of intent, perjury of Oath
of Office, constructive treason, bad faith, breach of fiduciary/trustee responsibility, whereupon “Being fiduciaries, the ordinary
rules of evidence are reversed,” Bruun v Hansen, (1939) 103 F 2d 685., further being advised, as in Ex Parte Young, 209 US
123 (1908), “The attempt of a State Officer to enforce an unconstitutional statute is a proceeding without authority of and does
not affect, the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity, and is an illegal act, and the officer is stripped of his official
character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to its
officer immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.” Is that not correct?

23) It is presumed that your failure to respond to this Notice of Fault is your acquiescing and agreement to pay for damages
inflicted against my NAME and life, value, which at present, is worth twenty million U.S. Gold Eagle one ounce Coins or
payment in equal value of pre-1933 US silver Dollars. Is that not correct?

24) It is presumed that such judgments and liens against conspiratorial parties will be sought through the Commercial Process and
all properties, accounts, stocks, bonds and wages of said Party are subject to Judgment and Liens. Is that not correct?

25) It is presumed that you will fail to respond to this request as you have disregarded past Notice and you are now found at fault,
in fault, and default will enter. This is presumed to be sufficient lawful Notice. Is that not correct?

26) By Your default, failure to respond within time allowed, reply, object to, this Public Notice and Declaration, it is presumed that
you are deemed willing, knowing, approving, informed, consenting to be sued or levied by Claimant, giving rise to
estoppel, 3J. Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence Section 805, p.192, Restatement 2d of Torts Section 894(1)(1979), Wilber
National Bank v US 294 US 120, 124-125 (1935), due to misconduct by Government Officials, contractors, sub-contractors,
agents, assigns, Heckler v Community Health Services, 467 US 51, at 59, 60, Federal Crop Ins., supra. Is that not correct?

27) It is presumed Mr. Fowlkes that you agree, without exception, with all aspects of this Affidavit without rebut and if you
disagree with anything in this Notice, then refute or rebut that with which you disagree, in writing, with particularity, within ten
(10) days upon receipt of this Notice of Fault, and support your disagreement with fact, evidence and law based on
Constitutional Law or Case Law. If you answer, then it is presumed that your answer is in whole, and your inability or refusal
to respond, refute or rebut this Notice, shall be presumed to be your tacit admission and agreement with presumptions, herein.
Is that not correct?
However, your failure to respond or pay this debt in full, as stipulated, is your agreement with and admission to the fact that
everything in this Notice is true, correct, legal, lawful, and your irrevocable admission attesting to this, binding without exception
upon you, without your protest, objection, or that of those who may represent you; and shall be Stare Decisis, in any subsequent
 administrative or judicial proceeding.

Acknowledged, executed, with explicit reservation of rights, and certified that this Notice of Fault to be true and correct to best of
knowledge under penalty of perjury pursuant to Laws of the United States of America, 28 USC 1746(1), except as to matters stated
to be on information and belief, and as to those, believes those to be true, this Twenty-third Day of Third Month, A.D.
Two-thousand Eleven.
Teste meipso,
Seal
Erique: Richardson
sue potestis esse.

Erique; Richardson
Non-resident/ non-domestic
First Class , U.S. Delivery
c/o 3682 Belleau Street
Memphis
Tennessee state

Certified Number 70100290000251033298

Before me, in Shelby County, Tennessee, this Twenty-third Day of the Third Month, Anno Domini, in Year of Our King, A.D.
Two Thousand Eleven, Erique: Richardson, who is known by me or did positively identify self to me, did acknowledge and
execute, and certify per 28 USC Section 1746(1) under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that
this Notice of Fault is true and correct.

______________________________________ _____________________

Notary Public My Commission Expires

Notary Stamp