Here is the current draft of my notice to the prosecutor: NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS: Chrystal Dickinson, John Beatty (Deputy County Attorney), William G. Montgomery (County Attorney), and Rachel Phipps-Yonas To settle: Withdrawal all charges and the case against me (CR 2014 109 023), because they are in violation of Law (As set forth herein). I, Harley Davidson Borgais, the natural person (written by law as a proper noun, not a fully capitalized legal fiction/artificial person/corporation), hereby reserve all rights without prejudice, and declare that you (the above named prosecutors) are in violation of your sworn duties and binding contracts (oaths pursuant to U.S. Constitution and ARS 38-231), my rights (per U.S. and Arizona Constitution, common law, etc.), and the Law (U.S. and Arizona Constitutions, Common and Equity Law, etc.), and are personally liable (per U.S. Codes: 18-241, 42-1981/83/88, 42-14141, common and equity law, etc.), for acting outside of your lawful jurisdiction (Also see Titles of Nobility Amendment, ratified by Congress in 1812 and the necessary 13 states ending with Virginia before 1819, as proven in Nevada State Court on Nov. 18, 2004). Per Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d), if you fail to disprove all of my claims in this Notice within 10 days, or request more time (both in writing, signed under penalty or perjury, properly notarized, and sent via certified mail), then you agree by tacit consent and/or acquiescence that all claims herein are true and correct, and cannot later challenge them in court. 1) The original/initial reason for my arrest on 2/23/2014 by Mr. James Jandreau (alleged Police/Peace officer for CITY OF TEMPE), as indicated by him orally, in the Police Report, and the Grand Jury Indictment, was for panhandling/begging on ADOT property, which was alleged by him to be private and not public property, which Jandreau classified as trespassing. There are many Federal and State court decisions stating that statutes/ordinances/etc. which prohibit such activities violate the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, and are therefore invalid. Arizona Revised Statute 13-1501 specifically excludes when premises are open to the public from the definition of trespass. I showed to Mr. Jandreau 2 weeks prior to this arrest that I could not be trespassing on a public sidewalk, that such an act would violate his sworn duty and the purpose of the supreme Law of the Land as well as of the State Government (as stated in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Sec. 2 of the Arizona Constitution), that State was defined by Blacks Law dictionary as public, and that all of his actions were unlawful, which he ignored. Also I video recorded this interaction, which began with him being unable to state his sworn oath of office, which constitutes dishonor of contract. 2) The United States Supreme Court makes it very clear in many cases that One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases (U.S. Vs. DiRe), and since I warned Mr. Jandreau 2 weeks prior to said arrest, he failed his duty of due diligence to check on said facts, as has the prosecution in this case, making him and you personally liable for acting outside your lawful authority, knowingly, intentionally, and/or recklessly. Because of said right to resist unlawful arrest, all remaining charges are likewise unlawful and invalid, as the events which led to them were effects caused by the unlawful arrest. ====================================================================== HERE IS THE OUTLINE I WROTE BY HAND... To settle: withdrawal case for the following reasons or become personally liable... Respond before 14 days or end of trial, whichever comes first, or you tacitly consent (rule 8d of civil procedure)… 1) The original/initial cause of arrest was for panhandling/begging on ADOT property, as stated in the police report and indictment, considered trespass by ADOT employees, which violates the 1st amendment according to many state and US courts, hence indictment, information, and/or complaint are insufficient as a matter of law to justify the arrest (grounds for dismissal of prosecution: rule 16.6 of Criminal procedure). 2) One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right or resistance in proper cases (US v DiRe), and other charges are effects of initial, unlawful arrest -which I warned Jandreau 2 weeks prior to arrest-, thus remaining charges are invalid, unlawful, and violate/deprive me of federally protected rights. 3) Jurisdiction is lacking/unproven: A) Court, city, and police are registered as traded corporations; B) names on seals/badges violate law (Az Const., US Govt. print manual, all standards of English); C) flag in court violates Title 4 of US Code, gold/yellow fringe indicates military law (mil. reg. 840-10), style of process also violates law (Az Const. A.4.S.26 and A.6.S.25, and A.22,S.10/20) being in ALL CAPS. 4) All members of the BAR are not U.S. Citizens and cannot hold lawful office since Dec. 1812: Titles of Nobility Amendment. You are committing treason (Cohens v. Virginia), and I can and will prove it. If you don’t withdrawl, there will be no remedy for you as defendant in federal court. 5) All your activities against me violate your sworn duty and purpose of supreme law of the land and state govt.: promote general welfare, protect individual rights, etc.. Citations: - 13th amendment images: - flag codes/laws - cohens v virginia - norton v shelby county - US v DiRe - dnb results - panhandling statutes/cases - rule 16.6 of criminal procedure - rule 8d of civil procedure - ARS 38-231 and 233 - BAR oath - US and Az Constitutions - US Codes: 42-1981/83/88 and 42-14141 and 18-241 with notes - US govt print manual CHARGES: - dereliction of duty - dishonor/breech of contract - deprivations of rights under color of law - abuse of power/authority - fraud- - extortion - treason/insurrection - accomplice to (most of these and: assault/ag. assault, unlawful arrest and imprisonment, armed abduction...) - trespass upon rights and person - deprivation of property - theft of means - ====================================================================== NOW FOR THE FIRST ATTEMPT AT A FINAL DRAFT... ====================================================================== Harley, Borgais family 902 S. Mariana rd., Apt: A Tempe, Az. August 11, 2014 To: Prosecution for case: CR 2014 109 023 001 I, Harley of the Borgais family, a living, breathing, Natural person living on the land, whose name must by law be written as a proper noun with only the first letter(s) capitalized[], not an artificial person or corporation written in all capital letters[], reserve all rights without prejudice [UCC 1-308], and hereby give this lawful notice pursuant to the National and state Constitutions and oaths to support and defend the same (i.e. per ARS 38-231), of the following claims/presumptions, requiring your written response, signed and notarized under penalty of perjury. Failure to deny anything here in which you disagree with or can disprove, within the time limit given below, with particularity, point-by-point, specific to the subject matter, amounts to agreement and tacit consent by acquiescence [See: rule 8d of Az. Civil Procedure], after which you cannot challenge or contest any claims herein, in a court under concepts of waiver and estoppel. More time may be requested in writing, signed under penalty of perjury, notarized, stating reasons why the time is needed. 1) Oaths required by the National constitution and Arizona Revised Statute 38-231, require all public servants to: promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty... and to support and defend the U.S. and State Constitutions, and protect and maintain individual rights, above all else, making it a crime to make or enforce any order or legislation that causes harm (injury, loss, detriment. Blacks Law and cornell.edu), to any person who has not caused harm to another against their will, such as myself in this case, as I was only exercising my right of free speech on premises open to the public (See: Arizona v. Boehler, LC 2009-000690-001 DT, 9/13/2011; and James Speet and Earnest Sims v. Bill Schuette, 1:1-CV-972, 8/24/12, U.S. Dist. Court). I could not have been trespassing according to the statutes: ARS 13-1501/02/03/04, when premises are open to the public, like the sidewalk in this case. 2) The police report states: ...for trespassing on A.D.O.T. property that was on the south west corner of the north bound Price and Broadway intersection, and the indictment transcript states: knowingly entered or remained unlawfully on the real property belonging to the Arizona Department of Transportation located near the intersection of Price and Broadway Roads in Tempe. These claims do not amount to trespass according to ARS 13-1501/02/03/04. 3) The U.S. Supreme Court says: One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases (U.S. v. DiRe, 1925); and since I have on video, telling Mr. James Jandreau 2 weeks prior that I was not violating law but he was, all charges against me are erroneous and/or fraudulent. 4) Article VI of the U.S. Constitution construed with its purpose in the Preamble, says police have a duty to promote the general Welfare, and to keep from harm according to the FBI.gov website, which duty has been violated in this case. 5) Jurisdiction must be proven, and appear on the face of all administrative actions, but such proofs are lacking and/or violate laws in this case: The official seals on the court wall and documents should be proper nouns (U.S. Govt. Printing manual; all standards of English, Az. Constitution Art. 28, Art. 22 -Sec. 10 and 20, Art. 6 -Sec. 25, Art. 4 -Sec. 24), not fully capitalized legal fictions/artificial persons/corporations, which are registered as Traded, on dnb (Dunn and Bradstreets business registry); The gold/yellow fringe on the court flag either violates Title 4 of U.S. Code -design for flag (Disrespect/mutilation of flag), or represents military/martial/admiralty law per military regulation 840-10. 6) All members of the BAR, given the Title of Nobility: Esquire, by a foreign power/entity called the BAR, cease to be citizens of the United States of America, and can no longer hold office, per U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 9 and 10, and the Titles of Nobility Amendment, ratified on Dec. 9. 1812 (See: Nevada State Court Case, common law venue, Oct. 18, 2004). 7) I have therefore, reason(s) to believe that the judge, prosecutor(s), etc., cannot be lawfully holding their positions/offices, and so I demand proof of lawful jurisdiction/authority under the National and State Constitutions, common and equity law, ARS 38-231/233, etc.. 8) The Grand Jury indictment was held without my knowledge or notice, before I was assigned a lawyer, in such as way as to absolutely prevent my attendance or even awareness it was happening. I did not get the transcript until after the 25-day time limit to challenge the indictment, completely depriving me of any right to be present. Also, exculpatory evidence was intentionally omitted by prosecution (violating case law: i.e. Brady v. Maryland), such as the video where I explained how and why I was not trespassing, and to ticket/arrest me violates the written purpose of our supreme Law and State Govt. (Preamble to U.S. Const.; Art. 2, Sec. 2 of Arizona Const.), violating the duty of prosecution, my right(s), and the supreme Law of the Land. Anything in this notice not rebutted or disproven, stands as fact in court (rule of Arizona and Federal Civil Procedure 8d; Connaly v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391; etc.). Respond within 30 days or completion of trial (whichever occurs first), or you agree by tacit consent and/or acquiescence, to all claims/presumptions herein. Respond with particularity to each point, supporting your rebuttal(s) with law and fact, or you agree by failure to deny, to all claims, and cannot challenge, object, or contest any claims/presumptions herein, later in court. -Notice to agent is notice to principle. Notice to principle is notice to agent.
Posted on: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 21:46:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015