LETTER OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE To whom it may concern I and/or we David Roach and Michael Jones are writing you, the Attorney General to inform you of misconduct of officers of the state of Indiana. To inform you of damages caused by said officers of the court and law enforcement. Who have had a blatant disregard for their oaths to the United States Constitution under (Article 6 clauses 3) as well the (13th amendment article 1 section 10 bill of attainder) and the separation of powers act under the Constitution. Plus many violations of due process of law under the constitution (6th amendment Article 1 Section 8 clause 17) refusal to identify jurisdiction. These are but some of said violations we have encountered. I Michael Jones will start; I am a Iraq war vet and I returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan. I had custody of my daughter for nearly two and a half years, maybe a little longer, in which time my ex wife, Mellissa Brock of 4482 west 100 north Crawfordsville IN 47933: 1) Never once paid child support. Our daughter Hailey moved back home with her mother due to my refusal to allow her to see a 21 year old man when she is only 16. Her mother filed for some sort of assistance which promptly brought the courts after me for child support in which I told Judge David A Ault I didn’t consent and didn’t feel obligated to pay support when her mother had never paid. I made a filing in which the judge wouldn’t even acknowledge them which included several Supreme Court ruling including Chisholm v Georgia 2 dall 419 only common law may be applied to the people per the constitution. There were also federal laws in which the court and prosecution ignored American Juris Prudence. Then Judge Robert M. Hall illegally made a ruling on my case 54DO1-0304-DR-123 for which he never sat as judge. The Judge who actually sat, was Judge David A. Ault. When I respectfully demanded a new hearing as my right of my due process was violated. As I Michael Jones was denied my representation, I had asked David Roach if he could tend this matter and represent me by way of next friend under Federal Rights Civil Proc. Rule 17, 28 U.S.C. A “Next Friend “a next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest. David Roach agreed, but I myself was ignored by the courts they threaten Mr. Roach with arrest if he tried to defend me and preceded without allowing me my council. I was also told I could make no constitutional argument and to save that for Supreme Court. I was refused my right to admit evidence at the hearing which included this supreme court decision: supreme court of Minnesota C7-97-926-C8-97-1132 C9-98-33 C7-97-1512 January 28, 1999 where the courts cited that due to the fact there was no provision in the federal law for the separation of power act under the constitution the state law was also flawed. I also claimed in my filing Indiana child support was a bill of attainder under 13th amendment article 1 sec. 10 cause it aloud the suspension of my license as punishment if the state thinks I am behind without a trial. I am including my motions to the court. They also routinely ignored any and all Supreme Court ruling and federal law saying they didn’t apply despite my filings cited Howlett V. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court cases apply to State court cases. Plaintiff also notes (Howlett V. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) is its self a (NEXT FRIEND) filing. So in closing here I will refer you to my filings and the case law I cited that the courts wouldn’t even acknowledge my filings that alone the Supreme Court or the United States Constitution. I David Roach will now explain the many violations which have occurred in my/our cases (54C01-9602-DR-00057) (54DO1-0304-DR-123). First and for most of these, is the violation of article 6 clause 3 of the constitution. The violations of the Judges, and prosecutions very oath and/or affirmation to the constitution. Please read the following closely as it is a summation of what I/we have experienced at the hands of these courts and officials along with Montgomery county police. I David Roach respectfully demanded to know the nature and cause of my case under the sixth amendment article 1 section 8 clause 17 of the United States Constitution to which the judge refuse my inalienable right to know the nature and cause and violated 1st cannon rule 1.1 by refusing to uphold the law. Second I stated that under the 13th amendment article 1 section 10 the Indiana child support law was a bill of attainder law as it allows for the suspension of an individual’s license as punishment if the state believes you to be in the rears with no trial here again she violated 1st canon rule 1.1 by ignoring the law before her. Third I cited supreme court of Minnesota C7-97-926-C8-97-1132 C9-98-33 C7-97-1512 January 28, 1999 where the courts cited that due to the fact there was no provision in the federal law for the separation of power act under the constitution the state law was also flawed here again she ignored the case law and violated 1st cannon rule 1.1. I also cited Chisholm v. Georgia 2 Dall 419 that only common law may be applied to the people here again the judge ignored the case thus once more violating 1st canon rule 1.1 I also cited the Howlett v. Rose 496 U.S. 356 where the courts stated federal law and supreme court cases apply to state court cases and was yet another instance in which the judge violated the 1st canon rule 1.1 by ignoring the ruling and saying it doesn’t apply. I was also held to paper work which the prosecution threaten and coheres me to sign by telling me if I didn’t sign I would go to jail that day, and this was done while I was heavily medicated by my doctor for pain I was prescribed 30 milligrams of oxy condone daily as well as numerous other medications which left me in a clouded and venerable state. When I brought this to the courts attention the judge again ignored the laws on coheresion and again left said documents to stand violating 1st canon rule 1.1. I find it important to note the prosecution and court was fully aware of my medicated state as they had the list of all medications I had been prescribed from my family doctor. Throughout my legal argument the judge repeatedly threaten me with contempt if I continued the argument thus violating the 2nd canon rule 2.6 by preventing my full lawful argument in court. The judge by all I have stated herein above also violated the 2nd canon rule 2.3 as all the above for mentioned acts showed extreme bias in prosecution’s favor yet the judge has repeatedly refuse to step down when requested for such bias. The judge and prosecution have also failed to provide remedy when requested under the US Constitution and under IC5-4-1-7 stating they neither have to produce said documents nor are required to have said documents herein again violating 1st canon rule 1.1. The judge also ignored the foreign agent registration act as attorneys are considered foreign agents under said act and are not allowed to enter any evidence or activate the powers of the court against the American people here again 1st canon rule 1.1 The judge has also ignored subject matter jurisdiction that the state cannot be plaintiff prosecution and judge here again 1st canon rule 1.1 The judge has also repeatedly denied the use of the required state calculator and thus to this day the state calculator has never been appropriately used as required by the Supreme Court to make legal monetary determinations. I repeatedly requested the courts return to beginning and refigure support using said calculator as I was only making $3.65 an hour when support was set at fifty dollars then raised to seventy and I paid this for over ten years the state calculator when used correctly, my support should have been between 18 to 23 dollars weekly. Yet every judge has refused to obey the law requiring it’s use thus violating 1st canon rule 1.1. I David Roach and Michael Jones due here by give our notice of intent to sue pursuant the following. Please see the attached list for names of defendants to be. 1) Warnock V. Pecos County. Tex. 88 3d. 341(5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does not protect State officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law. Pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 litigation in federal court: 28 USC § 1343 (a) 3, the jurisdictional counterpart of 42 USC § 1983; and 28 USC § 1331 this court has original jurisdiction. As our inalienable rights was violated through all that was stated above. UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1988 When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 65 NW 262 30 ALR 660. Also see (Watson v. Memphis, 375 US 526; 10 L Ed 529; 83 S.Ct. 1314). The fact remains Mr. Jones and Mr. Roach are still being forced to comply and or jailed when refusing to comply with these illegal court orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 Pattern and Practice Rule 20. Permissive joinder of parties (A) Permissive joinder. (1) All persons may join in one [1] action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action. (2) All persons may be joined in one [1] action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. I/we affirm, under penalties of perjury that the foregoing representations are true. I/we understand that the Indiana Attorney General does have authority to intervene on our behalf in any proceeding or to stop any decision reached by a court. In filing this complaint, I/we agree to cooperate with the Attorney General and its agents and to testify, if asked, concerning the matters raised in I/our notice/complaint. Provided we can reach an agreement prior to a court action being filed from that point all matters will be left to a jury. We will allow five days for written or telephone response as to the Attorney Generals response in this matter. Then if no response we will file in federal court in pursuit of perspective remedy to our issues/complaints. As once again David Roach and Michael Jones have pending court dates in the matters stated herein Mr. Roach Is to appear may 5th at 10:00 am in the morning and Mr. Jones on may the 14th at 1:00 pm. (765-362-7378 you may speak with Mr. Roach as he represents and speaks to the matters at hand for Michael Jones & David Roach)
Posted on: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:41:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015