Verified Statement of Right

By Amanda Cunningham,2014-04-06 19:59
6 views 0
Verified Statement of Right

    In the United States District Court 1 for the District of Colorado



     4 Civil Action No. xxxxx


    Verified Statement of Right with Memorandum 6

     7 <True Name, i.e. First Middle> of the <Family nomen, i.e. Last Name> family files this Verified

     8 Statement of Right into the United States district court appearing restricted under Rule E(8) of the

     9 Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims with all due respect for the 2” gold

     10 admiralty fringes and law of the flag. The cause of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is obviously

     11 revenue based. The right to speak in plain English and common law is of course retained.


    Jurisdiction: 13


    From a popular memorandum: 15

    1. The District Court of the United States is the proper venue and has 16 jurisdiction to hear this libel of review. This is a proceeding in


    "In this country, revenue causes had so long been the subject of 18 admiralty cognizance, that congress considered them as CIVIL CAUSES

    OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION, and to preclude any doubt 19 that might arise, carefully added the clause, 'including,' etc.

    This is clear proof that congress considered these words to be used 20 in the sense they bore in this country and not in that which they

    had in England. The Act gives exclusive admiralty and maritime 21 jurisdiction to the district court. As a court of the law of

    nations, ..... 22

    THE HUNTRESS, 12 Fed.Case 984 @ 992 & 989, (Case No. 6,914) (D.Me. 23 1840):

     24 2. As further evidence that the action before the court is in fact an

    Admiralty action we find in UNITED STATES of America v. $3,976.62 in 25 currency, One 1960 Ford Station Wagon Serial No. OC66W145329,

     26 "Although, presumably for purposes of obtaining jurisdiction, action

    for forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as 27 Proceeding in admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding

    takes on character of civil action at law, and at least at such 28

    stage of proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedures control.”


    3. The Petitioner/Claimant (herein referred to as Claimant) refers the 2

    court to 1 Benedict [6th Edition] ? 17, p. 28: which reads in

     3 pertinent part:

     4 "As no court other than a court of admiralty can enforce maritime

    liens, no other court can displace, discharge or subordinate them. 5

    Neither the State courts nor the United States courts on their

     6 common law, equity and bankruptcy sides can divest, transfer to

    proceeds or adjudicate the maritime liens unless the maritime lienor 7 voluntarily submit themselves to the jurisdiction.” Emphasis added.


    4. Pursuant to 28 USC ? 2463


    "All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United 10 States...... shall be deemed in the custody of the law and subject

    only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States 11

    having jurisdiction thereof." Emphasis added. Had the United States

     12 been a party to the original action, the United States would have

    observed the law and notified the court of the libel action, at the 13 very least.


    See 26 U.S.C. 7401. However since the United States did not commence

     15 the action against this Claimant as demonstrated by this courts own

    record (see Certificate of Search Exhibit D), Claimants’ position is 16 dispositive. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) rule 4(i)

    the court would lack in personam jurisdiction over this Claimant 17

    (defendant in the original) for failure of service and could not 18 render judgment. But a foreign power hiding under a grant of judicial

    immunity would not refrain from violating Constitutional safeguards as 19 long as it felt it was safe to do so.


    Cause of this filing 21

    This filing is considered redundant. The Verified Statement of Right has already been filed in Case No. 22

    xxxxxxx (02xxxx libel of review) and a certified copy is attached and fully incorporated. The persistent 23

    actions of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are vexatious and harassing. For some time mail generated 24

    by Gregory Langham has been arriving at my home improperly sealed. A single 1” piece of transparent 25

    tape is by no means up to snuff with my rules of evidence. I cannot be certain the papers in the envelope


    are the same papers sent by the clerk. Certainly a federal judge understands rules of evidence. Therefore

     27 many of these letters go back to Denver unopened and unread for Gregory Langham to inspect and

     28 properly seal, never to be seen again. However on May 18, 2005 I found one of these letters opened; that

    is to say that the transparent tape was cut on both of two envelopes (intentional) and curiosity got the 1

    better of me so I pulled out the papers and took a look. 2

     3 The district court is to understand that my wife and I take extreme exception to the inference we are

     4 tenants. Presuming this is the same document that left the US Courthouse, “There is no suggestion, for

     5 example, as to what provision should be made for the joint interest of <Legal entity Family nomen>,

     6 alleged to be a joint tenant of the residence in paragraph 21 of the complaint.” My wife’s true name is

     7 <True Name> (wife) and being one flesh in proper marriage before God our home is owned as much by

     8 her as myself. We own this home. We live in the home, we do not reside in it. Any acceptance of

    residential mail or getting a “residential” phone line instead of a “business” line cannot change the simple 9

    fact that my wife and I are husband and wife living in our home. Ergo this Verified Statement of Right is 10

    being filed into the district court. The district court is admonished not to buy into any illusions of tenancy 11

    or even residence. 12


    Assumpsit 14

    There seems to be a predominant presumption I have somehow pledged my home debt action in

     15 assumpsit a presumed forfeiture of ownership for tenancy. I am disturbed that the United States would

     16 entertain any such notion for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by mentioning my wife by a legal

     17 name and inferring she is a joint tenant in her own home. This is of course in discord with the principles

     18 of being American like described recently by President George Walker BUSH:



    From May 2, 2001 Social Security speech from the Rose Garden. 21


     Personal savings accounts will transform Social Security from a government IOU into personal property and 23

    real assets; property that workers will own in their own names and that they can pass along to their

     24 children. Ownership, independence, access to wealth should not be the privilege of a few. They're the hope of

    every American, and we must make them the foundation of Social Security. 25


    My wife and I feel under constant attack by unjust banking policies that cannot possibly apply to us and 27

    our current situation. Under the Rule E(8) restricted appearance here, we are only engaging in the benefit 28

    of discussion to the end that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA show the contract or social compact

    by which they would infer my wife and I are tenants and residents. We admonish that the district court 1

    would honor the rules of court and amplify this order to show cause. Also notice should be taken that 2

    without a proper seal on the mail materials to date, there has never been proper notification given of the

     3 contents of those mailings. I signed the short notarized statement on the backside of the envelopes

     4 honestly; they were never opened and read.


     6 Supposing the administrative procedures are presuming we have forfeited our home somehow, we feel

     7 that we are under attack by big banking powers that never paid consideration on the national debt my wife

     8 and I are being held in assumpsit for. Consider a passage from the “Credit River Money Decision” – four

    pages attached and fully incorporated: 9


    “Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created 11

    upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with 12

    the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knows of no United 13

    States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff authority to do this…



     16 1. That Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County,

     17 Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.

     18 2. that because of failure of a lawful consideration to Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 2002, are null

     19 and void.

     20 3. that the Sheriff’s sale of the above described premises held on June 26, 2005 is null and void, of

    no effect. 21

    4. that the Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in said premises or lien thereon, as is above 22

    described…” 23


    To consider use of Federal Reserve Notes or even the Bankers’ Holiday of 1933 some kind of preamble to 25

    my wife and me forfeiting our home and becoming residents or tenants in it is absurd. Here is the original

     26 intent of that infrastructure from the testimony of its engineer Franklin Delano ROOSEVELT:



    “Because the American system from its inception presupposed and sought to maintain a society based 1

    on personal liberty, on private ownership of property and on reasonable private profit from each man’s 2

    labor or capital, the New Deal would insist on all three factors. But because the American system

     3 visualized protection of the individual against the misuse of private economic power, the New Deal

     4 would insist on curbing such power.” The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt;

     5 1933 The Year of Crisis; Random House 1938; page 5 of the Introduction written by Franklin Delano

     6 in 1938.


     8 The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is misconstruing facts in order to create the illusion before the

    district court there is a claim or forfeiture when there is none. Because of these facts brought to light and 9

    including the fully incorporated memorandum following, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA cannot 10

    possibly satisfy this authorized order to show cause. 11


    Attachments: 13


    1. Credit River Money Decision

     15 2. Bill of Rights


     17 timely Refused for Cause. The original red ink Refusal is intended to be tendered by the clerk to

     18 presenter Richard P. Matsch

     19 4. copy of John Suthers oath filed at the secretary of state on May 3, 2005

     20 5. Certified copy of the Verified Statement of Right already filed in case 04-0110 (libel in

    review/counterclaim) miscellaneous (Article III) case jacket 03-X-9 evidence repository. 21








    Memorandum Impeaching John W. Suthers - Information 1


    My wife and I cannot possibly appreciate the threat of having our home taken from us. Therefore this

     3 information is before the chief judge of the district courts of the United States to impeach both the

     4 prosecutor and prosecution by civil suit threatening our lives and making life miserable for us. John

     5 Suthers acting at the time as U.S. Attorney for Colorado has initiated proceedings that lie on their face,

     6 calling my wife and me tenants in our own home. Therefore I feel justified in launching an impeaching of

     7 John Suthers.


    In late 1996 John Suthers quit working as district attorney for the Fourth Judicial District (Colorado) early 9

    by about five weeks before the end of his second term in that office. The day after his local oath (county 10

    clerk) and a Certificate of Fact from the Secretary of State were filed into a court case in (court of record) 11

    State district court. The Certificate proved that John Suthers had been running a vacant office according to 12

    the State of Colorado constitution Article XII, Sections 9-10 for eight years. The newspapers inquired 13

    why John left his post early but were never answered.


     15 Since that time John Suthers has been the Director of Prisons and State of Colorado U.S. Attorney and is

     16 now pretending to be the State of Colorado Attorney General. John Suthers was overseeing this instant

     17 matter at its inception being U.S. Attorney at that time of filing.


     19 Recently, May 2, a man inquired about John Suthers’ oath of office at the secretary of state and was told

     20 that he could not get a certificate of fact that Suthers had not filed an oath there. That when they provided

    that information, according to charter by the way, they caused too much trouble. The man said he would 21

    be back for that certificate of fact anyway, the very next day. A couple hours after he left Denver he got a 22

    call from the Secretary. He was told that John Suthers had faxed his oath over and the Secretary would not 23

    be able to provide a certified copy because it was a fax, not properly filed. So the man went back to 24

    Denver the next day for his Certificate of Fact there was no oath filed, to find that the oath was properly 25

    filed that morning, May 3, 2005.


     27 The constitution stipulates that the oath must be filed within a lawful time thirty (30) days. John

     28 Suthers’ oath was filed after nearly ninety days. Another vacant office attorney general. However there

    is an oath in place that John Suthers can be bound to in fidelity with the intention of the oath process. 1

    Albeit the office is vacant that is worth something. Therefore the oath attached is only a copy and may be 2

    considered hearsay by the district court. My wife and I want the vexatious harassment to stop immediately.

     3 We do not wish to disrupt the peace and harmony of society with the truth about international banking

     4 policies being shoved down peoples' throats like that can supersede the Constitutions. So please consider

     5 this impeachment within the scope of this case.


     7 If the prosecutor or plaintiff has no standing, nothing can subsequently come of it. That is likely the

     8 reasoning behind motions that are frivolous toward any conclusive adjudication and decree. The

    principles behind inferring my wife and I are tenants in a land and nation where ownership rights are 9

    sound are faulty. They are fabricated lies. 10



















    Civil Action No. xxxxxx 1


    I do hereby certify that a marked “FILED” copy of this Verified Statement of Right and Refusal for Cause

     3 (order to show cause) will be mailed registered # RA 028 xxx US and that a rounddate marked copy of

     4 this certificate will be subsequently mailed to the district court regular mail.


     6 Mailed Registered to:


     8 Rickey Watson Esquire

    US Department of Justice 9 P.O. Box 683, Ben Franklin Station

    city of Washington, District of Columbia. 10



    Marked (rounddated) copy mailed first class to: 12

    United States clerk 13 th901 19 Street A105

     14 Denver, Colorado.

     [80294] 15














Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email