THIS PETITION IS IN SUPPORT OF NORMAN BLAKLEY WEST II and the information below to help change SOUTH CAROLINA current CHILD SUPPORT ISSUES.
IN THE COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
NORMAN BLAKLEY WEST II
APRIL NICOLE DAVIS, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY CLERK OF COURTS, US SUPREME COURT, JUDGE(s) _ Lisa A. Kinon______________________________________________, Chris Dunning, Melanie Huggins – Ward
Norman Blakley West II, Third Party Plaintiff IN ADMIRALTY
April Nicole Davis, , STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY CLERK OF COURTS, US SUPREME COURT, Notary(s) of Public for South Carolina,JUDGE(s)_LisaA.Kinon___________________________________________, Chris Dunning, Melanie Huggins – Ward ,Third Party Defendants
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, and Counter Claim
AFFIDAVIT OF NEGATIVE AVERMENT, OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, AND COUNTERCLAIM
Comes now Norman Blakley West II™ Third Party Plantiff Natural man, created by God, a living breathing man, also a indigenous freeman on the land, being first duly sworn, depose and say and declare by my signature that the following facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I [Norman Blakley West II] ™, by special visitation and not appearing generally, before this court seeking a remedy in Admiralty as is provided by "The Saving to the Suitors Clause" at USC 28 - 1333(1). I am requesting that the Third Party Defendants stand in commercial liability and waive all of their immunities as I am. I respectfully request the indulgence of this court as I am not schooled in law. This is provided by the precedent set by Haines vs. Kerner at 404 U.S. 519. I demand that the (Third Party Defendants) produce their Proof of Claim, I Demand to inspect all proofs of Claim.
Point 1. I believe The State of South Carolina County of Horry has not shown any proof of claim that they are the legal guardian and biological parent of my child Jacob Alexander Davis, a living breathing human of flesh and my blood line, also is it not true that the State of South Carolina requested me to take a DNA test to prove legitimacy and that test did prove that I was and am the biological father of Jacob Alexander Davis furthermore didn't the State of South Carolina recognize that I am the biological father of Jacob Alexander Davis, now with that being said is it also true that my biological son Jacob Alexander Davis is my [Norman Blakley West II]™ , property and not property of the State of South Carolina or the State of South Carolina County of Horry or any other such Government, employee(s) means any officer(s), agent(s), agency(s), Governmental entity(s), Political subdivisions, county(s) , judge(s), municipalities, authorized or not or court appointed representative of the State or its political subdivisions, including elected or appointed officials, law enforcement officers, and persons acting on behalf or in service of a governmental entity in the scope of official duty including, but not limited to, technical experts whether with or without compensation also I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 2. The State of South Carolina County of Horry or any defendant in this instrument document must show reason to disprove that I am the Biological father of Jacob Alexander Davis and have no rights to my child , or to the affairs with my child. Notice, I hereby notify you of my claim of right to Jacob Alexander Davis and dismiss you of your believed duty to serve me or my child, I also believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 3: Neither April Nicole Davis or The State of South Carolina, County of Horry or any Municipal or employee(s) means any officer(s), agent(s), agency(s), Governmental entity(s), Political subdivisions, county(s) , judge(s), municipalities, authorized or not or court appointed representative of the State or its political subdivisions, including elected or appointed officials, law enforcement officers, and persons acting on behalf or in service of a governmental entity in the scope of official duty including, but not limited to, technical experts whether with or without compensation has not produced a wet ink signature of my Child : Jacob Alexander Davis's Birth Certificate with my [Norman Blakley West II]™ wet ink signature on it. I also believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 4 : I believe that the State of South Carolina , County of Horry or any Municipal or employee(s) means any officer(s), agent(s), agency(s), Governmental entity(s), Political subdivisions, county(s) , judge(s), municipalities, authorized or not or court appointed representative of the State or its political subdivisions, including elected or appointed officials, law enforcement officers, and persons acting on behalf or in service of a governmental entity in the scope of official duty including, but not limited to, technical experts whether with or without compensation has not disproved that I am the biological father and creator of my son Jacob Alexander Davis. I also believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 5: Show and prove why any future monetary payments from myself [Norman Blakley West II]™ to the State of South Carolina County of Horry Clerk of Courts for child support or any division of the State of South Carolina, County of Horry or any Municipal or employee(s) means any officer(s), agent(s), agency(s), Governmental entity(s), Political subdivisions, county(s) , judge(s), municipalities, authorized or not or court appointed representative of the State or its political subdivisions, including elected or appointed officials, law enforcement officers, and persons acting on behalf or in service of a governmental entity in the scope of official duty including, but not limited to, technical experts whether with or without compensation would not prove Fraud, Theft of Public Funds, Aiding and Abetting, Racketeering, extortion and Conspiracy on behalf of South Carolina and all parties involved under penalty of law, by having no rights to force me [ Norman Blakley West II]™ a living breathing person of flesh and blood, a Natural man, created by God and only judged by God, to make payments to them (STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY CLERK OF COURTS or Any other party(s)) for any reason relating to my child , past payments have been executed through intimidation, Harassment and the threat of arrest or to detain me for any purpose relating to such, all of which have been done unlawfully and against my will and consent. I also believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 6: To the best of my knowledge South Carolina County of Horry Clerk of Courts or any of it representatives have ask or requested in writing for me to tender a lawful note to settle this debt. South Carolina County of Horry Clerk of Courts or none of its representatives have chosen to dishonor my lawful Note and has refused to zero the account. Lawful Money no longer is available for payment of debt in our economic system. Notes are considered as Legal Tender for debts, according to the Code. This is a Dishonor in Commerce, Fraud, Theft of public Funds, Racketeering, and Conspiracy, and i believe there is no evidence to the contrary. Also see below point # 23.
point 7 : Show and prove I [Norman Blakley West II]™ have been shown any Proof or Claim of Proof that the State of South Carolina, any of its agents or representatives can legally deprive , steal, or rob me of my Rights as set forth in the Honorable Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the united States (circa 1791) or the Constitution of South Carolina as they apply to me a living breathing human being of flesh and blood. South Carolina Constitution Article I.Declation of Rights, SECTION 1., SECTION 2. and SECTION 3. I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 8 : Show and prove why that the Affiant(s),[ Norman Blakley West II]™ in my rightful natural state, do not have a submissive relationship and are not indebted with the United States, Federal Corporate government, or South Carolina and any of its divisions of Government and only under threat, duress or coercion via incarceration and/or imprisonment, have the Affiant(s) been drawn into a submissive relationship with the United States, Federal Corporate government via the sub-agency called the STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA and it's sub-agency(s) Horry County . South Carolina Constitution Article I.Declation of Rights, SECTION 1., SECTION 2. and SECTION 3. And i believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 9: I believe you are in error and proceeding on a false assumption if you believe that I have some obligation to attend any meeting that you scheduled, without first confirming that I had any obligation to meet with you and confirm whether any date you set for an appointment was convenient for me by way of written notice with a response in my hand writing and wet ink signature, with or without a notary seal and notary signature(s) or witness(s) of my choice. I am hereby giving NOTICE UPON YOU of those errors and also declaring my objection to any such presumed claim by you or anyone else in your Service or affiliate Services. I deny that I have any obligation or requirement to appear without first being contacted and then allowing time for me to respond to your request. Therefore, I have determined that I am not one of your subjects for whom you can set a meeting without first requesting my permission. If you feel I am in error on this point please respond with lawful under oath with the penalty of law, documentation of such error. If you disagree with my determination I will expect you to document your information, your full contact information, your position and authority , because I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 10: Show and prove otherwise that I [Norman Blakley West II]™ want to make it clear that it is my intention to obey all laws that legitimately impose a requirement or obligation upon me. However, I have no desire to volunteer where no obligation exists, especially when the waiver of my rights is involved. I am relying on what the Supreme Court held long ago: "An individual may be under no obligation to do a particular thing, and his failure to act creates no liability; but if he voluntarily attempts to act and do a particular thing, he comes under an implied obligation in respect to the manner in which he does it." Guardian T§D Co. v. Fisher (1906) 26 S.Ct. 186,188. I also believe God is the only Judge qualified to Judge me, and no other. I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 11: I demand all documents of determination that indicate I [Norman Blakley West II]™ am the one who is liable or subject to any statute that you or your Service claim to have authority to enforce. Copies of all documents that identify the facts on which those determinations were made. Copies of all statutes on which those facts were applied to make any of the determinations that I [Norman Blakley West II]™ am the one who is liable or subject. Copies of the Notices sent or served upon me prior to making those determinations. Copies of your delegation of authority to inquire into my personal affairs or make any demand upon me, and the delegations of authority of those who made the above determinations that I [Norman Blakley West II]™ am liable or subject to those determinations. Copies of your document of appointment to the position which you now hold and copies of the documents that identify by name, title, position, rank, G.S.#, and office, each party, The State of South Carolina, County of Horry or any Municipal or employee(s) means any officer(s), agent(s), agency(s), Governmental entity(s), Political subdivisions, county(s) , judge(s), municipalities, authorized or not or court appointed representative of the State or its political subdivisions, including elected or appointed officials, law enforcement officers, and persons acting on behalf or in service of a governmental entity in the scope of official duty including, but not limited to, technical experts whether with or without compensation who participated in any aspect of the above determinations. The document that describes the procedural format for expungement of alleged determinations, improperly or unlawfully made within your Service. I believe that the State of South Carolina or April N. Davis can not prove that I am liable or subject as described above, I also believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 12: My authority for making this demand for verification of your authority has been well established as follows: "Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that (s)he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority... and this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority." Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 at 384 (1947). I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 13: Defendants must show and prove that any acting Agent or sub - agency for the STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA or any other person, The State of South Carolina, County of Horry or any Municipal or employee(s) means any officer(s), agent(s), agency(s), Governmental entity(s), Political subdivisions, county(s) , judge(s), municipalities, authorized or not or court appointed representative of the State or its political subdivisions, including elected or appointed officials, law enforcement officers, and persons acting on behalf or in service of a governmental entity in the scope of official duty including, but not limited to, technical experts whether with or without compensation included in this document did not prove that acting in the corporate capacity , is not in error nor operating in fraud by claiming to have lawful authority to endorse, act for, sign for, assign, and/or otherwise speak on the behalf of myself [ Norman Blakley West II ]™, a living breathing human being of flesh and blood who is also a Sovereign. I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 14: Show and prove that I [Norman Blakley West II]™ am a good and loving father and have supported my son his entire life to the best of my ability(s) and I feel no defendant party to this instrument document has shown and proved otherwise with any proof written in case law that complies with the Constitution. I also believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 15: State and explain why the examination (rule to show cause) (summons or order) cannot and will not amount to an inquisition or arbitrary inquiry on the part of the examiner(s). I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 16: State and prove that I [Norman Blakley West II]™ am not being subjected to an examination or summons or order to appear in court based on, or for any political, ideological, harassment, pressure tactic, or bad - faith purpose, and is not being singled out for prosecution as an example to other child support payers for any reason. I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 17: State and explain why and what issue in case law and standing in fact is questioned, if any, concerning me [Norman Blakley West II]™ also State the name, address, and telephone number of any person or persons , defendants, all party(s) involved, The State of South Carolina, County of Horry or any Municipal or employee(s) means any officer(s), agent(s), agency(s), Governmental entity(s), Political subdivisions, county(s) , judge(s), lawyer(s), clerk of courts, municipalities, authorized or not or court appointed representative of the State or its political subdivisions, including elected or appointed officials, law enforcement officers, and persons acting on behalf or in service of a governmental entity in the scope of official duty including, but not limited to, technical experts whether with or without compensation informing you of any questions or actions to take concerning this involvement. Because I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 18: Show and prove along with state exactly and specifically wherein the mistake lies, unlawful activity or unlawful action or misconception by myself [Norman Blakley West II]™ has taken place, if in fact one exists. Also state in detail the scope of your authority and all party(s) involved, also state the authority granted to you by law , statue, or other wise to lawfully take action in this matter against me [Norman Blakley West II]™ be it relevant or material as a lawful subject of this inquiry. Also show and prove that the information and authority or Jurisdiction you claim over me [Norman Blakley West II]™ or my child (Jacob Alexander Davis) is not already in your possession or cannot be obtained from other sources by stating , showing with proving the exact reason(s) , in detail with specific(s). I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 19: State the exact methods used, either past and/or present to gather information concerning myself [Norman Blakley West II]™ or my son (Jacob Alexander Davis) whether information was gathered through the use of surveillance, telephone wire - tapping, mail coverage, interviews, illegal entry, informers, spies, or otherwise.
Point 20: Show and State why I [Norman Blakley West II]™ should not feel that this inquiry, summons or order to pay child support is not unlawful and against my constitutionality or legality standing as a sovereign American . And why any inference to such status by your organization or agents, or etc. , would not be considered defamation of my character and why I would not be able to litigate as such. I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 21: Show and prove why all defendants’ actions should not be deemed frivolous, unlawful, criminal, subject to penalties under law. Show and prove that I am not confident that my good faith has not been ignored and my rights violated? Also show and prove why every defendant to this action should not be charged with a (RICO) act or any RICO Charges or indictments? Or any (RICO) Activities? , or cited as doing (RICO) Activities?, as shown below it is unlawful for anyone employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962(c) (West 1984). The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) was passed by Congress with the declared purpose of seeking to eradicate organized crime in the United States. Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 26-27, 104 S. Ct. 296, 302-303, 78 L. Ed. 2d 17 (1983); United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 589, 101 S. Ct. 2524, 2532, 69 L. Ed. 2d 246 (1981). A violation of Section 1962(c), requires (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S. Ct. 3275, 3285, 87 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1985).
A more expansive view holds that in order to be found guilty of violating the RICO statute, (1) that an enterprise existed; (2) that the enterprise affected interstate commerce; (3) that the defendant was associated with or employed by the enterprise; (4) that the defendant engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; and (5) that the defendant conducted or participated in the conduct of the enterprise through that pattern of racketeering activity through the commission of at least two acts of racketeering activity as set forth in the indictment. United States v. Phillips, 664 F. 2d 971, 1011 (5th Cir. Unit B Dec. 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1136, 102 S. Ct. 1265, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1354 (1982).
An "enterprise" is defined as including any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(4) (West 1984). Many courts have noted that Congress mandated a liberal construction of the RICO statute in order to effectuate its remedial purposes by holding that the term "enterprise" has an expansive statutory definition. United States v. Delano, 825 F. Supp. 534, 538-39 (W.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 55 F. 3d 720 (2d Cir. 1995), cases cited therein.
"Pattern of racketeering activity" requires at least two acts of racketeering activity committed within ten years of each other. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(5) (West 1984). Congress intended a fairly flexible concept of a pattern in mind. H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239, 109 S. Ct. 2893, 2900, 106 L. Ed. 2d 195 (1989). The plantiff must show that the racketeering predicates are related, and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity. Id. Racketeering predicates are related if they have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events. Id. at 240, 109 S. Ct. at 2901; Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Florida, 937 F. 2d 447, 450 (9th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, the degree in which these factors establish a pattern may depend on the degree of proximity, or any similarities in goals or methodology, or the number of repetitions. United States v. Indelicato, 865 F. 2d 1370, 1382 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 811, 110 S. Ct. 56, 107 L. Ed. 2d 24 (1989).
Continuity refers either to a closed period of repeated conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition. H.J., Inc., 492 U.S. at 241-42, 109 S. Ct. at 2902. A party alleging a RICO violation may demonstrate continuity over a closed period by proving a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time. Id. Predicate acts extending over a few weeks or months and threatening no future criminal conduct do not satisfy this requirement as Congress was concerned with RICO in long-term criminal conduct. Id.
As to the continuity requirement, the government or plaintiff may show that the racketeering acts found to have been committed pose a threat of continued racketeering activity by proving: (1) that the acts are part of a long-term association that exists for criminal purposes, or (2) that they are a regular way of conducting the defendant's ongoing legitimate business, or (3) that they are a regular way of conducting or participating in an ongoing and legitimate enterprise. Id.
When a RICO action is brought before continuity can be established, then liability depends on whether the threat of continuity is demonstrated. Id. However, Judge Scalia wrote in his concurring opinion that it would be absurd to say that "at least a few months of racketeering activity. . .is generally for free, as far as RICO is concerned." Id. at 254, 109 S. Ct. at 2908. Therefore, if the predicate acts involve a distinct threat of long-term racketeering activity, either implicit or explicit, a RICO pattern is established. Id. at 242, 109 S. Ct. at 2902.
The RICO statute expressly states that it is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the subsections of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962. The government or plaintiff need not prove that the defendant agreed with every other conspirator, knew all of the other conspirators, or had full knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy. Delano, 825 F. Supp. at 542. All that must be shown is: (1) that the defendant agreed to commit the substantive racketeering offense through agreeing to participate in two racketeering acts; (2) that he knew the general status of the conspiracy; and (3) that he knew the conspiracy extended beyond his individual role. United States v. Rastelli, 870 F. 2d 822, 828 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 982, 110 S. Ct. 515, 107 L. Ed. 2d 516 (1989).
Point 22: Show and prove why all defendants to this action with the exception of April Nicole Davis did swear a duty to serve and protect the public, and am I [Norman Blakley West] ™ not considered a member or the public? Did you not swear a oath to protect me [Norman Blaklely West II]™ also a member of the public? Did you or any defendants hereby swear to up hold the constitution of South Carolina and the united States? Also show and prove why a tort should not be brought forth to all defendants , also show and prove why a Tucker Act does or does not apply to all defendants, Show and prove why all defendants, employee(s) means any officer(s), employee(s), agent(s), agency(s), Governmental entity(s), Political subdivisions, county(s) , municipalities, authorized or not or court appointed representative of the State or its political subdivisions, including elected or appointed officials, law enforcement officers, and persons acting on behalf or in service of a governmental entity in the scope of official duty including, but not limited to, technical experts whether with or without compensation are not in violation. I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 23: Show and prove why all defendants , employee(s) means any officer(s), employee(s), agent(s), agency(s), Governmental entity(s), Political subdivisions, county(s) , judge(s), lawyer(s),municipalities, authorized or not or court appointed representative of the State or its political subdivisions, including elected or appointed officials, law enforcement officers, and persons acting on behalf or in service of a governmental entity in the scope of official duty including, but not limited to, technical experts whether with or without compensation should not be a party to a or any counterclaim, or this NOTICE OF DEFENSE IN RECOUPMENT UNDER U.C.C. 3-305, COUNTERCLAIM UNDER U.C.C. 3-306 AND NEGATIVE AVERMENT UNDER RULE 9 FRCP. Also all defendants must show and prove why this does not apply to them and if any statements are in error, I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 24: Show and prove why all defendants , employee(s) means any officer(s), employee(s), agent(s), agency(s), Governmental entity(s), Political subdivisions, county(s) , judge(s), lawyer(s),municipalities, authorized or not or court appointed representative of the State or its political subdivisions, including elected or appointed officials, law enforcement officers, and persons acting on behalf or in service of a governmental entity in the scope of official duty including, but not limited to, technical experts whether with or without compensation, including Chris Dunning, should not be a party to a mental health evaluation to prove Chris Dunning or other Defendants are mentally competent to proceed in any court room activities and that there’s no information to suggest he or any other public servants suffers from a mental disease or defect. Evaluations including Psych evaluations will be jointly administered and jointly determined by a certified panel of my choosing. According to the South Carolina, Horry County clerk of court departments of staff, Chris Dunning holds a job title of Family Court Scheduling Coordinator, customer service” But according to paper work received by myself entitled ” Rule 24 – Clerk’s Affidavit “ Alluding to a Rule to Show Cause, Chris Dunning is named as duly swearing that he is the custodian of the support records in the Horry County Clerk of Courts Office, So as part of Discovery I must ask these questions what college or university did Chris Dunning graduate from, and did he receive a degree in accounting and or finance? Was it an associate degree in accounting or finance? Was it a MBA in finance? Does Chris hold a Masters in finance? Did Chirs Dunning study Law , Does Chris Dunning have a Law Degree? Is Chris Dunning a member of the BAR, has Chris ever passed the BAR? Does Chris Dunning work for the D.O.R.? Furthermore why was the signature of the Notary public for South Carolina illegible? How come there is no official embossed Seal of the State of South Carolina that is usually with every Notary Publics Signature or stamp? The term notary public only refers to common – law notaries and should not be confused with civil-law notaries, my questions are basic who is the Notary who signed the document, Are they a Bar Member , have they ever been a BAR member and do they work for the State of South Carolina, and or Horry County, and or Horry County Clerk of Courts? Also how come the affidavit of service was never filled out with any Officers Signature, Rank, Title, or Position, or Contact information? Could this document be a Non-Service? Is this Document and court proceeding lawful, and if so please in detail give all the specific Laws that apply to this brief document, and court proceeding and how it is lawful if any, under the united States Constitution. Because I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT. NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRICIPAL.
I [Norman Blakley West II] ™ , am an organic living breathing soul. The alleged debtor NORMAN BLAKLEY WEST II ™ is an ARTIFICAIAL PERSON (Title 18 USC § 1341) and the trademark property of the organic living breathing soul of flesh and blood/Secured party/Bailor/Lien Holder(UCC Financing Statement on public file with http://www.youtube.com/user/NormanBlakleyWestII_______________________, public link: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2068754&id=1329205719&l=6a374746ad and other locations for public viewing to be known to all men or women. These documents by my choice maybe or are accompanied with a notary signature and witness(s).
I [Norman Blakley West II]™ has the option at will or have Accepted for value and consideration SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY FAMILY COURT presentment number file # 1999DR26162 , dealing with child support and returned the presentment in accord with House Joint Resolution 192, Public Law 73-10 where the use of lawful money or gold and silver coins, as deined in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution for the united States of 1787 were declared illegal and instead instruments of debt were to be circulated in their place as currency after THE UNITED STATES declared bankruptcy in 1933. Title 31 USC 511(d)2 states that any obligation issued is to be discharged on payment dollar for dollar in United States coin or currency that is legal tender at the time of payment. My return of the summons and or appearance in court to do so, is equivalent to a commercial bond as an order to pay under UCC 3-104(e) and may be treated as either a promise to pay or an order to pay. Under 3-104 (f) of the UCC a draft is the equivalent of a check and may be securitized or monetized by direct deposit in a commercial checking , time, thrift or savings account under Title 12 of the United States code, Section 1813(L)(I) and when deposited it becomes the equivalent of money as outlined under Section 1813 (L)(I)
THE SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY FAMILY COURT having accepted my tender of payment for resentment number file # 1999DR26162 and having not returned the mailed item (Title 18 USC § 1700-1709) cannot be the creditor of the said presentment. Under UCC 3-604(a). THE SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY FAMILY COURT did not adjust its accounting ledger to reflect the settlement and closure of the accounts receivable side of its accounting ledger.
THE SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY FAMILY COURT is precluded by public policy HJR- 192 and Title 31 U.S.C. § 5118(d)(2), and the Fair Debt Practices Act (Reulation "Z" Truth-in-lending, aka, Consumer Protection Act at 15 USC § 1601 and 1693) from demanding payment in any specific coin or currency of the United States. Title 31 USC § 5118 (d)(2) states that an obligation governed by gold coin is discharged on payment dollar for dollar, by United States coin or currency that is a legal tender at the time of payment. The narrow view that money is limited to legal tender is rejected under Section 7 1-201(24) of the UCC. It is not limited to United States dollars. See official comments under section 7 3-104 of the UCC under definition of money. On administrative side, there has been a discharge of the debt in its entirety under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation "Z" Truth -in-Lending Act (TILA) within the 30 day time frame as mandated by law.
Since THE SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY FAMILY COURT has accepted the return of instrument 1999DR26162 that I have Accepted for Value and Consideration, I have a claim or possessory right in the instruments and their proceeds under § 3-306 of the UCC , S.C. UCC LAW 7 3-305 which I exercise now, since THE SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY FAMILY COURT has not credited the account.
Timothy F. Geithner the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury can instruct the THE SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY FAMILY COURT to credit the account for the sum said in full for settlement and closure and return my Assets, Proceeds, Products and Property to me and I will make an alternative form of payment.
I [Norman Blakley West II]™ have an offset available to me, due to the lack of full disclosure by THE SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY FAMILY COURT (see UCC § 3-305, UCC § 3-306, S.C. UCC LAW § 3-305, S.C. LAW § 306 for unconscionable contracts). The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Title 15 USC. § 1601, § 1692, § 1693, provides remedies for deceptive or unconscionable contracts and allows payments in any legal tender UCC 1-201(24), HJR - 192 , Public Law 73-10, Title 31 USC see 5118(d)(2).
The acquiescence, lack of written response and no written response by THE SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY FAMILY COURT or other defendants is a confession under Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure Rules: 8,9,13 and 24 that the aforementioned claims and statements of fact filed and mailed by the Secured Party , Bailor, Lein holder, Principal and Holder-in-due-Course [Norman Blakley West II] ™ , NORMAN BLAKLEY WEST II ™ or any spelling of is an International Public notice of interest by the secured party in the instrument regarding the property in dispute. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY FAMILY COURT or other defendants Agrees by tacit consent, lack of written response and no written response, that the Lien Holder/Bailor's claims, bonds and liens are valid, legal, lawful and in full force and effect under U.C.C. § 1-103, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1333 § 1337.
I, [Norman Blakley West II]™, am the true creditor in fact ( UCC Financing Statement) the principal, lien holder, bailor and grantor of the THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY FAMILY COURT regarding this matter, for and on behalf of NORMAN BLAKLEY WEST II . I give International Notice of claims for a set off and recoupment to have the assets cancel out the liabilities according to FAS 140; U.C.C. § 305, S.C. UCC LAW § 3-305, U.C.C. § 3-601, U.C.C. § 8-105, U.C.C. § 9-404 and the GAAP regarding this matter.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY FAMILY COURT under the Federal Financing Accounting Standards (FAS) is required to look at its balance sheet , FAS 95 and offset the debt that the corporation owes the debtor pursuant to FAS 140.
Negative Averment I
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY FAMILY COURT or April Nicole Davis has not mailed a certified assessment of the presentment number file # 1999DR26162 to the said creditor.
Negative Averment II
I [Norman Blakley West II] ™, was not give notice and the right to rescind commercial contract file # 1999DR26162 under Regulation "Z" Truth-in-Lending (TILA).
Negative Averment III
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF HORRY FAMILY COURT has not shown any document proving they are holder holder-in-due-course, grantor or principal, nor have I received the certified assessment for presentment file # 1999DR26162
Negative Averment IV
I have not received: gold, silver, voucher, certified cheque, certified money order or any of the disbursements, documents, paid in full receipts, products, proceeds, and fixtures regarding instrument File #1999DR26162
Some claims in this instrument done by the Principal/Bailor/Secured Party are within the Admiralty, Title 28 U.S.C. 7 1333 and Tico 50A § 7(c), §7(e), §9, United Nations Convention and the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, agreed and confessed to by The Respondents. (See : Suits in Admiralty Act, The Bill of Lading Act, The Admiralty Extension Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the fore foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief this _______day of ___________ 2012
NORMAN BLAKLEY WEST II ™ GRANTOR
[Norman Blakley West II] tm UCC 1-308 ALL Rights Reserved
Point 24. "Can I [Norman Blakley West II]™ Sovereign , living breathing man see my obligation of my alleged liability so that I may administer my affairs and settle this claim?" On information and belief, Defendants do not have standing to bring a child support action, or any child support order against [Norman Blakley West II]™ the living breathing man. Neither any exhibits or the allegations of the defendants complaint are sufficient to demonstrate standing. Defendants have failed to establish themself(s) as the real party in interest and therefore has also failed to state a cause of action. Rules of Civil Procedure listed by section provides the basis for standing to bring an action, but the defendants meet none of these criteria. Furthermore the Defendants offers no evidence to support its position of ownership over me [Norman Blakley West II]™ there for the Defendants have no capacity to litigate in this matter. When a party desires raise an issue as to the legal existence of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, that party shall do so by specific negative averment which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge. According to Rules of Civil Procedure claims for relief a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third-party claim, must state a cause of action and shall contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, "It is not a rule upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent" [ Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C., 2 S.E. 70 (1796)] . Including all items mentioned in South Carolina Evidence Code and Sections, [among which is included the Federal Rules of Civil procedure]. The record of this court in general, and the Reporter's Transcripts of the proceeding of file # 1999DR26162, Is it not the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business.... The People nor I [Norman Blakley West II]™, of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. South Carolina Code and Sections and Constitution. Show and prove that it is not also true that "...at 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...." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp 471-472. "The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law." American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047. "The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls 8. "....This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people." California Constitution, Article 1, Declaration Of Rights Sec. 24. "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110 U.S. 516. "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946. "Whereas, the people of South Carolina have presented a constitution....and which, on due examination, is found to be republican in its form of government...." Act [of Congress] for the Admission of South Carolina Into the Union, Volumes, Statutes at Large,. And let’s not forget why South Carolina sovereign people succeeded circa (1860), its sovereign people's long history is marked by an enduring attachment to political independence, whether from overseas or federal control “Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626. "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the united States Constitution is the supreme law of the land." California Constitution, Article 3, Sec. 1. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the united States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Constitution for the united States of America, Article VI, Clause 2. Americans with disabilities act, (Title II) Public services, which include state and local government instrumentalities, cannot deny services to people with disabilities participation in programs or activities which are available to people without disabilities. For existing facilities, barriers to services must be removed if readily achievable. Miscellaneous (Title V) Includes a provision prohibiting either (a) coercing or threatening or (b) retaliating against the disabled or those attempting to aid people with disabilities in asserting their rights under the ADA. "A 'court of record' is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it..." Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex Parte Gladhill, 8 Metc., Mass., 171, per Shaw, C. J. " '.....our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law....' Confirmatio Cartarum, November 5, 1297" "Sources of Our Liberties" Edited by Richard L. Perry, American Bar Foundation. "Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court." Magna Carta, Article 34. "We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2D 774 (CA2 1944)." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519. An act of the court shall prejudice no man. Jenkins' Eight Centuries of Reports, 118; Brooms Legal Maxims, Lond. ed. 115; 1 Strange's Reports, 126; 1 Smith's Leading Cases, 245-255; 12 English Common Bench Reports by Manning, Granger, & Scott, 415. showing and prove the exact reason(s) , in detail with specific(s) why my beliefs and the above stated case laws and other stated facts are not lawful to this action or case or any future litigation. I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 26. It is my belief that while we are at it, the US Supreme Court along with South Carolina’s courts and defendants should look at the entire child support racketeering scam as an anti-American program adopted from Soviet Family Law, Article 81 and declare it unconstitutional. I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
The Supreme Court and defendants needs to address the fact that child support is a CIVIL matter where NO probable cause exists to arrest or jail someone. Contrary to the position that the legal industry takes that you aren't being jailed for child support DEBT, but you're being jailed for violating a court order is nothing but pure semantics. Since every child support payer was never read their MIRANDA RIGHTS at the inception of the original child support order--that the CIVIL child support matter could be converted into a CRIMINAL or QUASI-CRIMINAL matter--the Supreme Court and defendant(s) needs to strike down the overuse/abuse of the contempt powers in child support cases.
There are also severe implications under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1673 & 1692 et seq.) and the Federal Anti-Peonage Statutes, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1581 (Peonage) and 1589 (Forced Labor under government threat).
The Supreme Court and defendants needs to address the issue of these semantics as well because the past SCOTUS case of Hicks v. Feiock and Nye v. U.S. said where both criminal and civil issues are involved, the criminal feature of the order (arrest and imprisonment) is dominant, and fixes its character for review at the appellate levels.
Until these issues are addressed fully, Due Process and Equal Protection Under Law will be continually violated by the State of South Carolina domestic relations courts opening up huge liability cases against an out-of-control judiciary in the United States whereby judicial and law enforcement officers who took an Oath of Office to uphold, support & defend the U.S. Constitution & respective South Carolina State constitution will be subject to continuing felony Official Misconduct, impeachment, and civil suits as long as they continue to not acknowledge & recognize the fundamentally secured rights of all taxpaying litigants that come before them.
South Carolina is one of only five states in the nation – along with Georgia, Florida, Maine and Ohio – that don’t guarantee indigent parents who owe child support the right to an attorney in civil contempt hearings that can result in jail.
I also believe that South Carolina County of Horry and others, has discrimination against dads/fathers and myself [Norman Blakley West II]™, which could easy be proven with all Domestic Relations or family Courts child custody awards of mothers vs. fathers in an attempt to show fairness between genders. I believe there is no evidence to the contrary on all the statements listed in point 26. Also it has come to my attention that any lawyer that is associated with the Bar Association is involved in criminal activity(s) , because the bar association is not registered with the South Carolina Secretary of State as a business and therefore my understanding must be a monopoly. I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 27. I believe the defendants have violated my rights and I believe there is no evidence to the contrary so let it be known that i reserve all of my Rights at all times and waive none of my Rights at anytime for benefits. Let it be known to all (wo)men that my consent to be governed is not given at anytime without my proper written signature and approval. By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123). Chancellor Kent (2 Kent, Comm. 1) defines the "absolute rights" of individuals as the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and inalienable, and it may be stated as a legal axiom [A principle that is not disputed; a maxim] that since the great laboring masses of our country have little or no property but their labor, and the free right to employ it to their own best interests and advantage, it must be considered that the constitutional inhibition against all invasion of property without due process of law was as fully intended to embrace and protect that property as any of the accumulations it may have gained. In re Jacobs (N. Y.) 33 Hun, 374, 378. The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 35. "WHEN in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." cited from the Declaration of Independents. Under the First Amendment protection of religious practice, I have adopted God and His sovereign laws as my form of self-government. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Part IV, Chapt. 97. Also 18 U.S.C. $ 112. South Carolina Constitution Article I. Section 1. I reserve all my Rights at all times , and even the Rights I have that are not claimed in this instrument document , for example documents can be found online at :_________________________________________________________________________________http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2068754&id=1329205719&l=6a374746ad
If another government or agency attempts to interfere with the affairs of my own foreign self-government, then they are violating my First Amendment right to practice religion by living under the laws of God. This tort is cognizable under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,42 U.S.C. Chapter 21 B and constitutes a tort against the foreign invader. I believe there is no evidence to the contrary on all the statements listed in point . 27
Point 28. I believe Child Support is equal to "protection" and only I can provide these things for my child. Any Government trying to enforce protection or support/ child support would be making themselves into an organized crime syndicate that earns revenues from "protection". This is called a "protection racket" and it is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. $ 1951. Also violating the antitrust laws at 15 U.S.C. $ 2, by making themselves into a monopoly that is the only source of "protection". Also I feel that any court order that expects a parent to pay child support is implementing slavery in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, 18 U.S.C. $ 1581, & 1583 and 42 U.S.C. $ 1994. South Carolina Constitution Article I. Declaration of Rights, Section(s) 10.,11.,12.,13.,14.,15.,19. . I believe there is no evidence to the contrary.
Point 29. Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right
Dear, Addressed persons: (defendants)
I here present you with a Notice of Understanding and Intent. I am sending this letter out as a courtesy in order to avoid any further confusion or potential conflict. I am now expanding the reach of my discourse in order to maintain my honor and ensure maximum clarity between myself and all agents of government. After receiving this letter, please expect a Notice of Understanding and Claim of Right in order to ensure maximum clarity amongst all parties. As a peaceful man desiring to avoid conflict and live lawfully with maximum freedom, I have recently been studying the history of the united states along with its legal system and have come to some very interesting conclusions. After reading various acts and exploring the way language is used in those acts, I have realized that “lawful” and “legal” are not always the same. It also appears that all acts and statutes in US are only contracts based in commerce. Therefore I am now contacting the various government officials named above in the hopes that someone can either confirm or correct my understanding. If you do choose to respond with corrections, I must insist that you do so within thirty (30) days of service of this letter, in writing, via registered mail and provide proof of your claim, under oath or attestation with full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. A lack of response or response that does not contain proof of my mistaken understanding, on a point-by-point basis, will be assumed to imply agreement with my understanding. Failure to dispute the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgment and permanent and irrevocable estoppels by acquiescence. Now, specifically in The United States I understand that there is both a common law and statute law tradition, which is interesting, because I also understand that a statute is a legislated rule of a society, which has the force of law upon members of that society; a society being a fictional legal entity such as a corporation. I also understand that the Government of the US is not a nation as I thought it was, occupying a geographical location, but instead merely a corporation with de-facto authority, rather than lawful. This corporation can only make corporate/contract law that has the force of law only upon its consenting members. From my research, the “law of the land,” is the peaceful common law, which is not influenced by acts and statutes. Under common law, the rights, freedoms, and duties of private individuals have long been established and unlike statute law, common law has had a progression towards more freedom and personal responsibility rather than less. Among the rights and freedoms understood by common law are such things as the rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, property and use thereof, privacy, peace, and the ability to travel freely in public without harassment or intimidation. The obligations and duties of those living under common law are essentially to ensure that one does not infringe or allow others to infringe upon those unalienable rights and freedoms. I have also learned that the rights of a free spiritual being cannot be lawfully limited without consent, as that would imply slavery. Effectively, rights are not bestowed upon one by another unless the first gives his/her consent, or the first is the lawful property of the second. The very nature of the concept of consent is that it can only exist amongst equals with full disclosure and without coercion. I do not recall ever being sold or purchased as a slave, nor do I recall giving my free consent to be governed or represented by any governmental agent, although at times I have been deceived and intimidated into submission. Although the various rights and freedoms are self-evident and unalienable, in order to be. In order for lawful representation to exist, there must be mutual consent, and that consent may be revoked for any reason depending on the nature of a specific contract between the two parties. I am hereby notifying all who read this and any other interested parties that I have revoked my consent to be governed by fictitious corporate entities with which I do not have a subsisting contract. I declare that I am neither a child nor a slave, but a free man capable of administering my own affairs.
Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right
Whereas it is my understanding The United States of America is a common law jurisdiction, and,
Whereas it is my understanding equality before the law is paramount and mandatory, and,
Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law, and,
Whereas it is my understanding a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and,
Whereas it is my understanding the only form of government recognized as lawful in The United States of America is a representative one, and,
Whereas it is my understanding representation requires mutual consent, and,
Whereas it is my understanding that in the absence of mutual consent neither representation nor governance can exist, and,
Whereas it is my understanding those who have a SSN (Social Security Number) are in fact employees of the federal government and thus are bound by the statutes created by the federal government, and,
Whereas it is my understanding that it is lawful to abandon one’s SSN, and,
Whereas it is my understanding people in The United States of America have a right to revoke or deny consent to be represented and thus governed, and,
Whereas it is my understanding if anyone does revoke or deny consent they exist free of government control and statutory restraints, and,
Whereas a Freeman-on-the-Land has lawfully revoked consent and does exist free of statutory restrictions, obligations, and limitations, and,
Whereas I, Norman Blakley West II ™ am a Freeman-on-the-Land, and,
Whereas it is my understanding that acting peacefully within community standards do not breach the peace, and,
Whereas it is my understanding that any action for which one can apply for and receive a license must itself be a fundamentally lawful action, and,
Whereas as I am a Freeman-on-the-Land who operates with full responsibility and not a child, I do not see the need to ask permission to engage in lawful and peaceful activities, especially from those who claim limited liability, and,
Whereas it is my understanding a by-law is defined as a rule of a corporation, and,
Whereas it is my understanding corporations are legal fictions and require contracts in order to claim authority or control over other parties, and,
Whereas it is my understanding legal fictions lack a soul and cannot exert any control over those who are thus blessed and operate with respect to that knowledge as only a fool would allow soulless fictions to dictate ones actions, and,
Whereas it is my understanding that I have a right to use my property without having to pay for the use or enjoyment of it, and,
Whereas it is my understanding that a summons is merely an invitation to attend and the ones issued by the United States or any of its agencies creates no obligation or dishonor if ignored, and,
Whereas it is my understanding peace officers have a duty to distinguish between statutes and law and those who attempt to enforce statutes against a Freeman-on-the-Land are in fact breaking the law, and,
Whereas I have the power to refuse intercourse or interaction with peace officers who have not observed me breach the peace, and,
Whereas permanent estoppels by acquiescence barring any peace officer or prosecutor from bringing charges against a Freeman-on-the-Land under any Act is created if this claim is not responded to in the stated fashion and time,
Therefore be it now known to any and all concerned and affected parties, that I, Norman Blakley West II ™ a Freeman-on-the-Land do hereby state clearly specifically and unequivocally my intent to peacefully and lawfully exist free of all statutory obligations restrictions and maintain all rights at law to trade, exchange or barter .
Furthermore, I claim that these actions are not outside my communities’ standards and will in fact support said community in our desire for truth and maximum freedom.
Furthermore, I claim the right to engage in these actions and further claim that all property held by me is held under a claim of right.
Furthermore, I claim that anyone who interferes with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this claim and who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or colour of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court de jure.
Furthermore, I claim that the courts in The United States are de-facto and are in fact in the profitable business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I further claim they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services. This also includes the State of South Carolina and its courts.
Furthermore, I claim all transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties and I do hereby deny consent to any transaction of a security interest issuing under any Act for as herein stated as a Freeman-on-the-Land I am not subject to any Act.
Furthermore, I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants is TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated and TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and Notarized consent.
Furthermore, I claim the right to use a Notary Public to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against any transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm me or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way.
Furthermore, I claim the right to convene a proper court de jure in order to address any potentially criminal actions of any peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants who having been served notice of this claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counterclaim and then interfere by act or omission with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms.
Furthermore, I claim the law of agent and principal applies and that service upon one is service upon both.
Furthermore, I claim the right to deal with any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture on video tape said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose as I see fit.
Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the Notary Office herein provided no later than fourteen days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service.
Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgment and permanent and irrevocable estoppels by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute or Act against My Self Freeman-on-the-Land [Norman Blakley West II©.]
Furthermore I include a Copyright Notice: All rights rese